2 8 16 ROA 1 To 1761 69723 Coughlin Reinstatement Complete 0804 Reduced

1
2
3
4
5
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

NV Bar No. 9473
945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Pro se
THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA
NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IN RE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT )

)
)
TO ACTIVE STATUS OF ZACHARY
) Case No.:
)
)
BARKER COUGHLIN,
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
KJ:.
15
------------------------------)
15
16
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS PURSUANT TO SCR 117(4)

AND REOUEST FOR HEARING DATE
17
Petitioner ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully

18
19
20
21
22
files this Petition For Reinstatement to Active Status and requests a hearing date be set at the
Board and Bar's earliest convenience, pursuant to SCR 117(4).
On May 31, 2012 the NNDB filed a Petition pursuant to SCR 117.
Pursuant to and Order by the Nevada Supreme Court, the Bar filed a Pscyhological Evaluation
23
by Earl Nielsen, Ph.D. on September 27,2014. The Nevada Supreme Court entered an Order
24
25
26
27
placing Coughlin in disabled inactive status.

Coughlin has now complied with the recommendations in Dr. Nielsen's
report and will provide evidence and testimony in advance of and at the hearing required by SCR
28
- 1/3
117(4) sufficient to meet his burden to prove that the disability has been removed and that is fit
to resume the practice of law. (SCR 116(2), by analogy: "The chair or vice chair shall promptly
refer the petition to a hearing panel, which shall, within 60 days after referral, conduct a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
hearing. ")
SCR 117(4): " ... The petition shall be filed with bar counsel's office and shall be set for
hearing before a five-member hearing panel, which shall consider whether the attorney
has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney's disability has been
removed and that he or she is fit to resume the practice of law."
VERIFICATION/DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
Comes Now, Declarant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, being first duly sworn,
deposes and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct:
1. I am subject attorney in the above-referenced matter, have personal knowledge of the facts
contained herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I hereby declare that all assertions I
have made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Dated this 23rd day of June 2015,
15
Z~in ~
/slZ~in
16

Petitioner
14
lsi
--'""'_....._ - - " -
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2/3
2
3
4
5
6
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 23rd, 20] 5 I mailed a true and correct copy of this
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING DATE upon State Bar Counsel by mailing it by first class
mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressees:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
DAVID CLARK, BAR COUNSEL
State Bar of Nevada 3100 W. Charleston Blvd,
Ste 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102; and
8
9
9456 Double R Blvd, Suite B Reno, NV 8952]
10
11
12
13
Douglas Rands, Esq.

Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board Chairman
Rands, South & Gardner
9498 Double R Blvd., Suite A
Reno, Nevada 8952]
14
Dated this June 23rd, 2015,

15
16
lsi
zZ;in . . /'""-Z~in
-'"'Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

Defendant
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3/3
Case No: RI15-0804
2
3
4
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
8
9
INRE:
ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ.,

BARNO. 9473
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent.
10
11
12
ORDER APPOINTING
REINSTATEMENT
HEARING PANEL CHAIR
--------------------------~)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following member of the Northern Nevada
13
Disciplinru:y Board
Boatd has been designated and appointed Chair of the Reinstatement Hearing Panel in
14
this matter.
15
16
Caren C. ] enlcins, Esq., Ch~

Caten
DATED this
~7,,+-r-~7'"1-r--
c:f-J
day of _ _--I--M-_,
-I-7li-_' 2015.
17
ROFNEVADA
18
19
.
20
,.
Dou~J
'
s R. Rands, Esq., Chairman

Norvern Nevada Disciplinaty Board
21
22
23
24
25
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Order Appointing Reinstatement Hearing Panel Chair was placed in a sealed
envelope in Reno, Nevada, postage fully prepaid thereon for first class regular mail
addressed to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W 12th Street, Reno NV 89503.
And electronically served to ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com and justccj@gmail.com
DATED this 2,d day of July, 2015.
8
9
Laura Peters, an Employee

of the State Bar of Nevada
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case Number: R115-0804
2
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
3

4
5
IN RE:
)
)
ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.

BAR NO. 9473
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
)
10
----------------------------)
------------------------------)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
FIRST DESIGNATION OF
REINSTATEMENT HEARING PANEL
MEMBERS
TO:
Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.

945 W. 12th Street
Reno, NV 89503
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
The following are members of the Disciplinary Board for the Northern District of
Nevada. You may issue peremptory challenge to five (5) such individuals by delivering
the same in writing to the Office of Bar Counsel within 20 days of service of this
document. The Chair of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board, Douglas Rands, Esq.,
will thereafter designate the four (4) remaining members of reinstatement panel, including
at least one member who is not an attorney, to hear the above captioned matter.
1.
Barth F. Aaron, Esq.
2.
Sara Almo, Esq.
3.
Frederick Battcher, Esq.
4.
Mark A. Beguelin, Esq.
5.
Kathleen Breckenridge, Esq.
6.
Marilee Breternitz, Esq.
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 1-
1
2
7.
Gregory Brower, Esq.
8.
Sarah V. Carrasco, Esq.
9.
Trina Dahlin, Esq.
10.
Matthew P. Digesti, Esq.
11.
Craig Denney, Esq.
12.
Edmund J. Gorman, Jr., Esq.
13.
Jill Greiner, Esq
14.
Bruce Hahn, Esq.
10
15.
Eliot M. Held, Esq.
11
16.
Richard Hill, Esq.
17.
Joshua Hicks, Esq.
18.
Scott Hoffman, Esq.
19.
Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
20.
Stephen Kent, Esq.
21.
Michael Large, Esq.
22.
Darren Lemieux, Esq.
23.
Gregory Livingston, Esq.
24.
Keegan G. Low, Esq.
25.
Lance Maiss, Esq.
26.
William Q'Mara, Esq.
27.
C. Nicholas Pereos, Esq.
28.
Michael A. Pintar, Esq.
29.
Douglas Rands, Esq.
30.
G. David Robertson, Esq.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 2-
31.
Christopher Rusby, Esq.
32.
Tina Russom, Esq.
33.
David M. Stanton, Esq.
34.
Eric A. Stovall, Esq.
35.
Moreen Scully, Esq.
36.
Matthew Sharp, Esq.
37.
Michael E. Sullivan, Esq.
38.
Clark V. Vellis, Esq.
39.
Richard Williamson, Esq.
10
40.
Robert Bayer, Ph.D., Laymember
11
41.
Steve Boucher, Laymember
12
42.
Brian Duffrin, Laymember
43.
Deveron Feher, Laymember
44.
George Furman, Laymember
45.
Frank Gallagher, Laymember
46.
Lisa J. Hedaria, Laymember
47.
Thomas Kelly, Laymember
48.
Rick Lund, Laymember
49.
Timothy Meade, Laymember
50.
Karen Pearl, Laymember
51.
Jodi Travis, Laymember
52.
Sam Robnett, Laymember
53.
Carolyn Vaught, Laymember
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
III
25
-3-
54.
John White, Laymember
Dated this --'-_ day of July, 2015

---11.._
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

DAVID A. CLARK, BAR COUNSEL
4
5
By:
6
7
iJra
if"'
./
AssIstant Bar Counsel
R. ait Flocchlnl, ASSIstant
Nevada Bar No. 9861
9456 Double R Boulevard, Suite B
Reno, NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
ATTORNEY FOR COMPLAINANT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-4-
First Designation of Reinstatement Hearing Panel Members was placed in a sealed
6
7

DATED this
7th
day of July, 2015.
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
1
2
3
4
5
6

NV Bar No. 9473
945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro se

8
9
10
11
12
Case No.: RI15-0804
IN RE ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,

ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO 9473
Respondent
13
14
15
16
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

Respondent ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby
respectfully moves to have a change of venue orderd here. The undersigned would have filed his
17
SCR 117(4) Reinstatement Petition before the Southern Board but for a conversation with Bar
18
19
Counsel Clark. In deference to the Bar and Mr. Clark, the instant matter was filed with the
20
NNDB, however, Respondent now respectfully seeks to have this matter transferred to the
21
South, provided doing so is acceptable to the State Bar of Nevada and the NNDB.
22
Respondent is living and working in Del Mar, California currently but plans to move to
23
24
Las Vegas in the very near future. While SCR 105 provides for some insight into venue in a
25
Complaint case, this is a Reinstatement Petition. Perhaps the Bars original rationale for
26
indicating venue was appropriate (consolidating different types of hearings, locus of facts
27
involved in some anticipated subject matter) in the North is no longer in play.
28
- 1
11
1
2
3
4
5

have made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Everything I have linked to
herein or within the filings herein incorporated by reference directs to a true and complete copy
of the document it purports to be.
Dated this 10th day of July 2015,
7
8
/s/ Zachary Coughlin_____
9
10
11
Respondent
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
I certify that on May 27th, 2015 I mailed a true and correct copy of this
REQUEST TO SUBMIT COUGHLINS Motion to Change Venue upon State Bar
Counsel by mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following
addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
R. KAIT FLOCCHINI
7
8
Dated this July 10th, 2015
9
10

11
12
13
Respondent
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3
13
Case No: R115-0804
3
STAT ~
__
BY:~~_~~~
~
~FICE OF BAR COUNSEL
5
6
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
9
IN RE:
10
11
)
BAR NO. 9473
12
Respondent.
)
)
{_lpI
(_lpI SM ORDER AFTER
STATUS CONFERENCE
)
)
13
14
-------------------------)
15
The Panel Chair met telephonically with Assistant Bar Counsel R. Kait Flocchini,
16
on behalf of the State Bar of Nevada, and Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Petitioner herein.
17
The parties discussed the date on which to hold the Reinstatement Hearing, peremptory
18
challenges, and scheduling a pretrial conference.
19
Based on the parties discussion and agreement, the Chair orders as follow:
20
1. The Reinstatement Hearing shall take place on August 25, 2015, starting at 8:30
21
a.m. at the State Bar of Nevada's office located at 9456 Double R. Blvd, Reno, Nevada
22
89521.
23
2. Petitioner and the State Bar may exercise up to 5 peremptory challenges to the
24
members of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board. The State Bar shall serve a First
25
Designation of Panel Members on Petitioner on or before July 8, 2015. The First
14
Designation will not include Chair Jenkins since she is already appointed to the panel.
Petitioner and the State Bar shall serve their respective Peremptory Challenges on or
before July 15, 2015.
3. A Pre-hearing Conference shall take place by telephone on August 18, 2015 at
9:00 a.m. so that the Chair may address (i) any issues regarding witnesses or documents
to be presented at the Reinstatement Hearing and (ii) any stipulations entered into by the
parties in anticipation of the Reinstatement Hearing. The State Bar shall initiate the call
by calling Petitioner and then conferencing in Chair Jenkins.
4. The parties are encouraged to contact Chair Jenkins via e-mail regarding any
10
discovery or procedural issues that arise in this matter. Any e-mail should include all
11
parties. Chair Jenkins will schedule a telephone conference if necessary to address any
12
issues raised.
13
q-IA dayof,../v'y
day of ..... !v1
DATED this
DATEDthisq-IA
14
,2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
15
By: -'~~=::~~~~~~_ _ __
Caren C. Je
16
17
Reinstatem,~~iJd'I'
18
19
Submitted By:
20
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

21
22
23
24
25
BY~~'
R. K it Flocchini, NV Bar No. 9861

Assistant Bar Counsel
Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
15
Order After Status Conference was placed in a sealed envelope in Reno, Nevada,
postage fully prepaid thereon for first class regular mail addressed to Zachary B.
Coughlin, Esq., 945 W 12th Street, Reno NV 89503.
6
7
And electronically served to ZachCoughlin@hotmail,com.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2015.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
2
3
4

NV Bar No. 9473
945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 9496677402
Pro se

8
9
10
11
Case No.: RIl5-0804
ESQ. NEVADA BARNO 9473
12
Respondent
13
14
NOTICE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

15
Respondent ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby
16
17
chaIlenges with respect to the following

foIlowing five
respectfuIly elects to use his five peremptory challenges
18
individuals. First, however, the undersigned would like to make clear he has much respect for
19
each of these individuals and in no way so utilizes these challenges

chaIlenges in any manner intended to
20
offer any offense to each such individual. They are:

21
22
1.
Richard G. HiIl, Esq.
23
2. Bruce Hahn, Esq.
24
3. Kathleen Breckenridge, Esq.
25
4. Stephen Kent, Esq.
26
5. Michael K. Johnson, Esq.

27
28
VERIFICATIONIDECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN
17
2
3
4
Dated this 18th day of July 2015,
lsi
Z~jn
Z~in
-""'
...."......
10
Respondent
11
12
13
l3
14
I certify that on July 18, 2015 I mailed a true and correct copy of this
REQUEST TO SUBMIT COUGHLIN'S Notice of Peremptory Challenges upon State Bar
Counsel by electronic service and or mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid
to the following addressee:
15
16
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

R. KAIT FLOCCHINI, ESQ, Bar Counsel
17
18
19
9456 Double R Blvd, Suite B. Reno, NV 89521

kaitf@nvbar.org
20
21
Dated this July 18, 2015
22
lsi
23
24
Z~""'~-in---"'-""""""
Z~"":-in----""""'"'''
25
Respondent
26
27
28
- 2
18
Case No: R115-0804
4
5
6
7
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
9
IN RE:
10
11

BAR NO. 9473
12
Respondent.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO CHANGE VENUE
--------------------------)
-----------------------------)
15
The State Bar of Nevada, by and through Assistant Bar Counsel R. Kait Flocchini,
16
hereby responds to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.'s Motion to Change Venue. The State Bar
17
objects to the request because Washoe County is the appropriate venue for the hearing
18
based on the established facts and a transfer of venue would only delay the hearing at this
19
point.
20
Applicable Law
21
Rule 105(c) of the Nevada Supreme Court Rules ("SCR") provides that the venue
22
for a disciplinary hearing "shall be the county in which the attorney reside or maintains his
23
or her principal office for the practice of law, where the alleged offense was committed or
24
where the parties have stipulated." Although SCR 105(c) does not apply directly to a
25
19
Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to SCR 117, it is instructive on where a reinstatement
hearing should be venued.
Application of Law to Fact
In this case, Mr. Coughlin maintains his SCR 79 address in Washoe County,
Nevada; Mr. Coughlin's practice was in Washoe County, Nevada before he was place on
disability inactive status; and Mr. Coughlin has no nexus with Clark County, Nevada except
his intention to relocate there at an indefinite time in the "very near future."
In addition, a number of Mr. Coughlin's medical providers are located in Washoe
County, Nevada. If any of the medical providers are asked to testify at the hearing, which
10
is highly likely, then either costs would have to be incurred for those witnesses to travel to
11
Las Vegas or the panel would be without the benefit of observing the witness when he/she
12
testified telephonically. Neither of these scenarios is ideal and they should be avoided. It
13
is impractical to burden the hearing by changing the venue of it.
14
Finally, the Hearing Chair has already been appointed and the hearing date is only
15
34 days away. Changing the venue would mean that either (i) the Chair is required to
16
travel to Las Vegas for the hearing or (ii) the hearing date would be vacated and reset once
17
a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Hearing Chair is appointed. Either result creates
18
an unnecessary burden on the system.
19
20
11/
21
22
11/
23
24
11/
25
20
Conclusion
Washoe County is the most appropriate and efficient venue for the Reinstatement
2
3
Hearing. For these reasons, Mr. Coughlin's motion should be denied.
4
5
Dated:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

BRIAN T. KUNZI, ACTING BAR COUNSEL
7
8
9
10
11
By
_--=:-..l"==-_
_-="'Ii=:::::-_ _
of July, 2015.
i4
iil ti:L~
R. Kait Flocchini, NV Bar No. 9861

Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
Case No. R115-0804
2
3
4
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
8
9
10
IN RE:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA'S
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
ZACHARY B. COUGLlN, ESQ.

State Bar No. 9473
11
12
13
14
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 105(2)(a), the State Bar of Nevada hereby exercises
15
its peremptory right to challenge the following members of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary
16
Board from the Formal Hearing Panel in the above referenced matter:
17
1.
William O'Mara, Esq.
18
2.
Karen Pearl, Laymember
19
20
?" . . J.
DATED this ?- - day of July, 2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
BRIAN T. KUNZI, ACTING BAR COUNSEL
21
22
_______________
By:~~~
__~~~__-=~______________
By:~~~~~~~~~
23
24
25
R. K it Flocchini, Assistant Bar Counsel

9456 Double R Blvd., Ste. B
Reno, NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
Attorney for State Bar of Nevada
-1-
22
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copies of the foregoing
STATE BAR OF NEVADA'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES and RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO CHANGE VENUE were placed in a sealed envelope, postage fully prepaid and sent by
first class mail in Reno, Nevada, addressed to:
6
7

945 W. 12th Street
Reno, NV 89503
And were electronically served to ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
DATED this
22 t9day of July, 2015.
10
11
12
L~~,
an Employee
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
23
Case No: RI15-0804
3
4
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
INRE:
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER APPOINTING
) REINSTATEMENT HEARING PANEL
)
)

BARNO. 9473
Respondent.
------------------------~)
--------------------------)
PLEASE BE ADVISED that a Relnstatement Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada
Disciplinary Board has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, 2015, to convene at 8:30 a.m. at the
Reno office of the State Bar of Nevada, 9546 Double R Boulevard, Ste. B, Reno, NV 89521.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following membets of the Northern Nevada

Disdplinru:y Board have been designated as members of the screenillg panel.
1. CarenJenklns, Esq., Chair
17
2. Mru:ilee Breterrutz, Esq.
18
3. Craig Denny, Esq.
19
4. Keegan Low, Esq.; and
20
5. George Furman, Laymember.
21
22
DATED this
r9i1
day of August, 2015.

OF NEVADA
23
24
25
Doug
. Rands, Esq., Chairman
North rn Nevada Disciplillary Board
24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
11
In Re: Petition for Reinstatement of
12

State Bar No. 9473
13
14
)
)
)
) DATE OF HEARING:
) TIME OF HEARING:
August 25,2015
8:30 a.m.
________~P~e~t~iti~on~e~r~.
Petitioner. ___________)
----------~~--------------
NOTICE OF REINSTATEMENT HEARING

15
TO:
16

945 W. 12th Street
Reno, NV 89503
17
18
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the reinstatement hearing in the above-entitled
19
action has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 25,2015, at the hour of 8:30 a.m. The
20
hearing will be conducted at the Reno office of the State Bar of Nevada, 9456 Double R
21
Blvd., Ste. B, Reno, NV 89512.
22
23
//I
24
25
//I
-1-
25
1
2
105(d).
attorney, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence.
Please be further advised that you are entitled to be represented by an
DATED this
14~ay of August, 2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

Brian Kunzi, Acting Bar Counsel
8
9
10
11
By:
~tt&.)
R. alt Flocchmi, Assistant Bar Counsel

Nevada State Bar No. 9861
Reno, NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
26
The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing Notice of
Reinstatement Hearing was deposited in the United States Mail In Reno, Nevada,
postage fully pre-paid thereon for first class mail, and certified mail addressed to:

945 W. 1ih Street
Reno, NV 89503
CERTIFIED MAIL: 70140510000115114290
Dated on this
J!-eay
of August, 2015.
10
aura Peters, an employee of

the State Bar of Nevada.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-3-
27

NV Bar No. 9473 (disability inactive status)
2 945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV 89503
3 Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402, ZachCoughlin@hotmail.c6ltl lCE
Pro Se Petitioner
1
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
5
6

7
9
10
11
IN RE ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Case No: RIlS-0804
Nevada Bar Number 9473,

Petitioner
12
13
14
15
16
17
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
Petitioner, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully

submits the above titled document.
18
19
20
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB) filed an SCR 117
21
22
Petition seeking to have Coughlin's law license placed on disability inactive status.
23
The Nevada Supreme Court ordered Coughlin undergo a psychological evaluation
24
25
26
27
by a "qualified medical expert" of the State Bar's choosing. Such was conducted
by Earl S. Nielsen, Ph.D. Dr. Nielsen will testify that he concluded that Mr.
Coughlin would not benefit from group therapy or substance abuse treatment at
28
28
that time, but, rather, that, in his opinion as a "qualified medical expert" per the
DSM 5 he diagnosed Coughlin with (300.4) Persistent Depressive Disorder,
3
4
5
moderate and (301.6) Dependent Personality Disorder, with Depressive and

Masochistic Traits.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dr. Nielsen will testify that he then recommended that Coughlin engage in a
rehabilitative course to address his disrupted emotional state and his longer term
deficiencies in personality functioning where such rehabilitative course would
include an opportunity to build a trusting, confidential relationship with an
experienced therapist.
Based on such evaluation of Coughlin, Dr. Nielsen will testify that he then
12
13
concluded that should Coughlin follow such prescribed course for rehabilitation,
14
he most certainly has the potential to serve the Bar and the community, and that
15
16
with adequate treatment may very well be returned to competence in the future.
17
Thereafter, following the recommendation of Dr. Nielsen, the Nevada
18
Supreme Court granted the SCR 117 Disability Petition and placed Coughlin on
19
20
21
disability inactive status.

Thereafter, Dr. Nielsen will testify that he conducted a progress review of
22
23
Coughlin's case that included a face-to-face interview, opportunity to review the
24
extensive medical and counseling records provided him, and permission to contact
25
26
treatment providers with respect to their clinical impressions. Dr. Nielsen will
27
28
29
testify that such progress review found that Coughlin had remained in counseling
2
with a psychologist from March of 20 13 through the present.
4
5
6
Dr. Nielsen will testify that he conducted interviews with Coughlin's

medical providers, whom attested to being impressed with Mr. Coughlin's
consistency and persistence, perceived growth in multiple areas, improved insight
7
8
and commitment to change as well as responsiveness to Dialectic Behavior
Therapy (DBT) with some Mindfulness techniques, concepts of Transactional
10
11
Analysis (TA), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Rational Emotive Therapy
12
(REBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).
13
Dr. Nielsen will testify that Coughlin's medical providers find Coughlin to
14
15
16
be motivated, self-disclosing, eager to learn about his weaknesses and to set about
correcting them, and open and willing to address some of his old unrealistic beliefs
17
18
resulting in Coughlin becoming more aware of how they may have hindered him in
19
living an effective life.
20
21
22
23
Dr. Nielsen will testify that his extensive review in this matter has resulted
in his qualified medical expert opinion that Petitioner, attorney Coughlin, has
demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney's disability
24
25
has been removed and that he or she is fit to resume the practice o..flaw.
26
especially given he finds the extent to which Coughlin has improved to be
27
28
remarkable.
30
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2
I.
COUGHLIN'S DISABILITY HAS BEEN REMOVED AND HE

IS FIT TO RESUME THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
The Nevada Supreme Court placed Coughlin on disability inactive status

5
after ordering and receiving an examination of Coughlin by a qualified medical

6
expert of the State Bar's choosing, Dr. Nielsen, whom concluded that Coughlin
was then not competent to serve as an attorney due to his disregulated emotional
state and continuing mental health issues. Now, the same Dr. Nielsen'
9
10
11
12
recommends that Coughlin's law license be reinstated, citing his qualified medical
expert opinion that Coughlin's disability has been removed and that he or she is
fit to resume the . oractice
of law.
.
Where Dr. Nielsen's qualified medical expert opinion was previously

13
sufficient to meet the burden of proof to have Coughlin placed on disability

14
inactive status, it should here be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

15
evidence that Coughlin has satisfied the requirements of SCR 117(4 )-( 5)2.
16
17
Therefore, Coughlin ought have his law license removed from disability inactive
status and reinstated.
18
19
20
It may be important to consider that Coughlin is not a "suspended
attorney". He is an attorney whose law license is currently placed in

"disability inactive status". The distinction is important, and such is born out
21
22
in the differences between SCR 116(2) and SCR 117(4).
SCR 117(4).
Resumption of practice by disabled attorney.
An
23
attorney transferred to disability inactive status ... The petition shall be filed with
24
bar counsel's office and shall be set for hearing before a five-member hearing
25
26
27
28
1 (whom has, therefore, been judicially declared a "qualified medical expert" in this context by
the Nevada Supreme Court)
2 (which the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled is all Coughlin must do to have his license to
practice law reinstated)
31
panel, which shall consider whether the attorney has demonstrated by clear
2
and convincing evidence that the attorney's disability has been removed and
that he or she is/it to resume the practice of law ... The panel may direct that the
attorney establish competence and learning in law l . .. "
Much more demanding are the requirements placed upon a suspended
attorney by SCR 116(2): ... Petitions for reinstatement by a suspended attorney
...
that he or she has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law
required for admission to practice law in this state, and that his or her resumption
10
of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the
11
bar. to the administration ofiustice. or to the public interest.
The attorney has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence
12
Putting on character witness testimony is de rigueur in an SCR 116(2)
13
setting. Coughlin is prevented from putting such on in this SCR 117(4) hearing due
14
to the requirement that he proffer only relevant evidence. There are no
15
"established facts" here.
16
in it suggesting that Coughlin ought put on character evidence, perhaps such
17
provides a basis for reconsidering Coughlin's Motion to Change Venue,
18
particularly where any rationale originally offered by former Bar Counsel David
19
Clark to justify requiring Coughlin to file his SCR 117(4) Petition with the NNDB
20
may be construed as an impermissible mixing of SCR 105, and SCR 116(2)
21
despite the dictate against doing so found in SCR 117(2t
22
23
If the Panel has been made aware of anything to result
Simply put, SCR 116(2) requires a "suspended attorney" prove something

different, and, arguably, much more than SCR 117(4) requires an "attorney
24
25
26
27
28
3 While on disability inactive status Coughlin has earned 104.5 credits of continuing legal
education (CLE). See Exhibit 1, Certificates for 104.5 Hours ofCLE Completed.
4 SCR 117(2) is clear: "If, upon due consideration, the court concludes that the attorney is
incapacitated for the purpose of practicing law, it shall enter an order transferring him or her
to disability inactive status. Any pending disciplinary proceeding or investigation against
the attorney shall be suspended. "
32
transferred to "disability inactive status" to prove. 5 To hold otherwise would

2
have the undesirable effect of encouraging attorneys with disabilities to
refrain from availing themselves of the joint disability petitions that SCR 117
allows (which would place the public at greater risk), much less seeking such
status without the Bar's joining in on such a Petition. In the Shadek matter
(NVSCT case 62480) an attorney sought to be placed on disability inactive status,
as allowed by SCR 117(3), and such was met with opposition by the Office of Bar
Counsel, in the context of a then pending disciplinary proceeding. Clearly, there
must be some benefit to being placed on disability inactive status compared to
10
being a suspended attorney or one facing a disciplinary proceeding under
11
SCR 105. 6
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58. SCR 121. Confidentiality... Transfers from disability inactive status. Unless the
attorney waives confidentiality, petitions for reinstatement from disability inactive status shall
be confidential. If a petition is granted, then the matter will become public upon entry of the
order of reinstatement.
9. Reinstatement. Reinstatement proceedings under Rule 116 shall be public." Clearly,
SCR 117(4) Petitions for Reinstatement from disability inactive status are not "Reinstatement
proceedings under Rule 116".
SCR 121 (5) makes even more explicit the fact that an attorney on disability inactive
status is not under "any fonn of suspension". ("5. Publication of supreme court orders. The
clerk of the supreme court shall cause any order issued by the supreme court that subjects an
attorney to any form of public reprimand, suspension or disbannent, that transfers an
attorney to or from disability inactive status, that approves an attorney's resignation, or that
reinstates an attorney to the practice of law to be published ... ". That "or" makes clear being
subject to a "suspension" is fundamentally different than being on disability inactive status.
6 Among those benefits is the fact that Coughlin is not required to tender an advance cost
deposit; of$l,OOO with his SCR 117(4) Reinstatement Petition, nor may his "reinstatement
may be conditioned upon the payment of the costs of the proceeding, restitution to parties
injured by the petitioner's misconduct, or any further conditions deemed appropriate bv the
panel..." as SCR 116(4)-(5) allows for such to be applied only to a "suspended attorney"
seeking reinstatement.
Indeed, SCR 117(4) prevents one from even inquiring into ifthere are any monitoring
recommendations by Dr. Nielsen, as the jurisdiction to do such (like that found in SCR
116(5), which allows for "any further conditions deemed appropriate by the panel") simply
does not exist in this SCR 117(4) extremely narrowly tailored setting.
33
As such SCR 102.5(2)(i)(l-4) simply do not come into play here, and, in
2
fact, for Petitioner or the OBC to suggest they do would show a lack of respect for
the Nevada Supreme Court's placing Coughlin on disability inactive status
(compared to had it ruled Coughlin a "suspended attorney" due to some
misconduct) as well as for the sanctity of Supreme Court Rule 117(4) where such
expressly and clearly departs from SCR 116(2) and SCR 102.5(2)(i)(l-4) and
102.5(2)(m). 7
Coughlin has in no way been noticed that this SCR 117(4) hearing to
determine whether to reinstate him from disability inactive status (rather than from
10
a disciplinary suspension) will require he address any alleged misconduct,
11
sanction, discipline, or show that any "recovery from ... chemical dependency or
12
mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of
13
successful rehabilitation; and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and
14
recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely; ... " (SCR 102.5(2)(i)(2-4)),or that he
15
demonstrate any "remorse". (102.5(2)(m)), even ifhe may well feel a great deal
16
thereof.
17
Indeed, Coughlin, as an officer of the court, is required to put on only
18
relevant evidence, and the Supreme Court Rules make plainly clear that such
19
simply is not relevant here. The OBC wisely, graciously and magnanimously
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 SCR 102.5 ... mitigation .... mitigating circumstances may be considered in deciding what
sanction to impose and may be admitted into evidence at a disciplinary hearing .... 2.
Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the
degree of discipline to be imposed. The following list of examples is illustrative and is not
exclusive: ... (i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse
when:
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by chemical dependency or
a mental disability;
(2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct;
(3) the respondent's recovelY from the chemical dependency or mental disability is
demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period o(success(ul rehabilitation; and
(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is
unlikely; ...
(m) remorse;
34
chose not to file a motion to combine or consolidate this SCR 117(4) hearing with
2
any sort of SCR 105 disciplinary proceedings (which would obviously entail much
in the way of notice-pleading to Coughlin and require affording him an
opportunity to be heard that would make impractical any attempt to address all that
which must be addressed in an SCR 117 (4) hearing, much less to add to that the
different purposes and requirements of an SCR 116(2) hearing, which this is not).
Further, Bar Counsel here is complying with ethical obligations to follow
the dictates of SCR 117(2) given the Nevada Supreme Court has placed Coughlin
on disability inactive status where such requires the Court "shall enter an order
10
transferring him or her to disability inactive status. Any pending disciplinary
11
proceeding or investigation against the attorney shall be suspended." Certainly,
12
there may be no "disciplinary" aspect to this SCR 117(4) reinstatement hearing,
13
nor may Bar Counsel conduct any "investigation" against Coughlin.
14
Here, Bar Counsel has wisely and ethically made clear that "SCR 105 does
15
not apply directly to a Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 117" in her
16
Opposition to Coughlin's Motion to Change Venue. There are yet to be any
17
established facts in this matter.
18
It would seem a fundamental notion of due process that nothing from any
19
other matter should have been provided to the Panel at this point, and certainly not
20
ex parte, unless the undersigned is unaware of a rule or practice allowing for such
21
an approach. Further, nothing from NVSCT case 60975, the matter from which
22
the order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status ought have been or be
23
(given the chance such could be prejudicial) provided to the Panel (and Coughlin
24
hereby respectfully makes a motion that such ruling be made), and asks that if such
25
disclosures have already been made, that he be made aware of the content of such.
26
The Supreme Court Rules make quite clear that those placed on disability
27
inactive status are not to be treated the same as those whom are having their
28
misconduct addressed in a reinstatement setting. In that way, where Dr. Nielsen's
35
recommendations in the Stephen R. Harris, Esq., misconduct reinstatement case (NVSCT

2
case 57507, in which he testified as Harris's treating therapist) where quite obviously
drawn to (SCR 102.5(2)(i)(2-4)), his testimony here must be limited to whether or not he
finds Coughlin's disability to have been removed and if he is now fit to practice. Any
attempt to have Dr. Nielsen testifY as to what some recommendations he may have for
Coughlin in the future may be seen as missing the distinctions between a disciplinary
reinstatement hearing for one whom has been adjudge guilty of misconduct (after a
hearing for which they have been noticed such misconduct will be addressed and then
given an opportunity to be heard in that regard), and a hearing to detennine whether to
10
11
reinstate one whom is on disability inactive status.

Indeed, Coughlin is not currently suspended from the practice of law in Nevada.
12
He is not a "suspended attorney". Rather, SCR 115 8 makes quite clear there is a
13
difference between one whom is suspended and one whom is placed on disability
14
inactive status. As such, SCR 116(2)9 is clearly inapplicable here where such applies to
15
a "suspended attorney", and not to an attorney whom has been placed on disability
16
inactive status. Here, Coughlin is not required to prove his resumption of the practice of
17
law will not be those things, as there is no misconduct at issue here to allow such an
18
approach).
Dated this August 21st, 2015,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Zachary Coughlin

Petitioner
8 SCR 115. Notice of change in license status; winding down of practice ... 1. Who must
comply. An attorney barred from the active practice of law, whether by disbarment,
suspension, including suspension under Rule 98 or Rule 212, transfer to disability inactive
status, or resignation with discipline pending must comply with this rule ... "
9 ("SCR 116(2) Procedure for reinstatement. Petitions for reinstatement by a suspended
attorney ... The attorney has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he
or she has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for admission to
practice law in this state, and that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, to the administration of justice, or to
the public interest."
36
2
3
I certify that on August 21 st, 2015 I mailed and emailed a true and correct
copy of this PRE-HEARING BRIEF upon the following by mailing it by first
class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
4
5
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

R. KAIT FLOCCHINI, ESQ.
ASSISTANT BAR COUNSEL
9456 Double R Blvd Suite B, Reno, NV 89521
3100 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102
and to
10
kaitf@nvbar.org; laurap@nvbar.org;justccj@gmail.com;
11
marilee@nvlawyers.com; cdenney@swlaw.com; klow@rbslattys.com;
12
geofur@att.net
13
14
Dated this August 21 st , 2015
15
16
17

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
37
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
Exhibit 1, Certificates for 104.5 Hours ofCLE Completed four (4) pages
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
11
38
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
39
fl2Q.;D15
CcrirUOOIlBgBIEr:l.I::aIIU1b~.CLEIMCLE
bAllt:fruytCLEIMCLE
-m'@i1ltM{tgeIClrtphP?S!r1;,j032Bl0&lcl!oo",doWnlojdIWWi@!!!ftrWm
-m'@i1ltM{tge'ClrtphP?S!r1;'j032Bl0&lc'!oo",doWnlojdIWWi@!!!!Wm
Avotding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims: An Expert's
P~pecttvEl
NEVADAINV)
Available Certificate Listing
3.00
Legal Ethics:3.00
2015-Q8..15
,.m;,mlitflllm013 f/aetC2r1.obolclrt:;1032556&JCI!on"OOwntoadl -milB"'lll/Tt_m

1.n:t,mlftfllllm13
COURSE NAME
CERTIFIED STATE
CREDIT HOURS
CERTIFICATE DATE
ACTIONS
Bankruptcy Basics for the N()(}-Bankruptcy lawyer
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-()8.14
6 Steps to Improved Client Relatlonshlps and Communications
NEVADA INV)
OItft'@!!!t:dflltoelcPr1
OItft'@!!!t:dflltoeICPr1 [)bplc@r1
1.00
2015-()8.16
Basics of Entertairmeflt Law
lQ323~8&aet!on::down1oad) -mii@111;_.oo
lQ323~8&act!on::down1oad)
NEVADAINV)
I.Mml!I!I"IIgt'CPrt
I.Mml!I!I"IIgtICPrt phplc,l1tl0320D3&aclioflIodownioidl
-mi1fO"!!OOWm
-mi1fO'l!!M-
7 Stops fOf Legal H<>ds: Avoiding MaIpn!ctice 8Ild Jaill
1.00
2015-08-16
NEVADAINV)
'Mt.1j.@!!!tftI(!getCgrtpbp?Clr!tl:1DnB13&acllon_downk?dl
'Mt.1ji@!!!tftI(!getCgrtpbp?Clrttl:1DnB13&acllon_downk?dl
1.50
2015-08-16
Behind the Cloud and How It Can Be Used In the Legal Industry
",III@!!!,,(lgetc'r!php7cerP'1032eo4&acllotpdownJOIdl
",III@!!!"(lgetc.rtphp7cerP'1032eo4&acllotpdownJOIdl
-mi':rn!I![!P;Jrwm
-mi':rn!11M'
A GuIde to IP Protection In the EU for U.S. Attorneys
_mil{jlI!I@M.ID
_mil{jlI!I@W.ID
NEVADA INV)
1.00
2015-08-16
-mi'@J!j(fl wm
NEVADAINV)
"CCU"!@!f!P.f1111Q!tCQr!ohP1Ctrt"'10n814&act!onadownSoadl
"CCU"!@!f!P.f1111Q!tCQrtohP1Ctrt"'10n814&act!onadownSoadl
1.00
2015-06-16
BUSiness Valuation: Theory, Application. Controversies, Recent Developments & Errors
NEVADAINVI
I.Mm'@!!IItif/AAlcer!php7certml0328Q6&acUoo'"downIoJ
Mm'@!!IItif/AAICertphp7certml0328Q6&acUoo,"downIoJ dl
Mtt1iiiQ,j!IIrwm
Mtt1iiiQ1j!II'l!\
A Legal Primer on Nonprofit Law
5.60
2015-08-16
MJjMiliffll!!$_.w
NEVADA INV)
ami@!!!'II(!getcert
ami@!!!'II(!getcer! php?c9rt2<lQ32815&actlofP'downIojadl
1.00
Cause Marketing: Specl.aJ Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For Charities
lmM1ffl'@!!!fI
l!ootC,rtphD7cert.,lQJ256Q&acUOfEdownloj!d)
llootC,rtphD7c9rt.,10J2560&acUOfEdownloj!d)
-H 'i1
'i1!!IQ..t,M
!IQ..t,Mm
11
Accounts Recelvable
Receivable Management for Lawyers
NEVADAINV)
1.00
2015-08-14
NEVADA INVI
NW'@ljltf\t'(lgiICertpfw?cert2<lQ32}46&ilctlon-downIoad\
NW'@ljltf\t'(lgiICertpfw7Cilr! .. ,Q32}46&ilctlon-downioadl
1.00
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy for too Non Bankruptcy Attorney
.',,!I3'1!!!IM m
NEVADAINV)
I.nfflii@!I!it1tj!lge!C,rtphple'r!tl:l032341&aCI!grtz>dowofgJdl
I.nfflii@!I!1t1tjllootC'rtphp1C'rttl:l032341&aCI!grtz>dowofgJdl
Mmii@lli?t1Mm
Mmii@lli?11Mm
Anatomy of a Ananclal Elder Abuse Case
1.00
2015-08-16
ItgaIC.rt.php?cort z l032816&aet!on:cdown/o;!dl
wq;lmHll!fjw.w
nl!!B111111!!" ItgaICtrt.php?cert
l032816&act!on:cdown/o;!dl wq;lmlfll!fjw.w
NEVADA INVI
Chapter 7 8an1<rup(cy fOf Non-Bankrup(cy Attorneys
1.00
2015-08-16
NEVADAINVI
.tlNm.@I!!"I/g9IC.rt.ohP1c!rtZ1Q32807bct!on_dgymlo;!dl
!1Nm.@I!!"I/g9IC,rt.ohP1C9rtZl03280Z&act!on_dgymlo;ldl
MWlf01!IIOOrwm
MW'f01 l!IW'm
Asset Protection Plamlng
1.00
2015-08-16
NEVADAINV)
nm'iffll!!f!tjfti (/QtICllrt pbplC9rf::l

pbplc!lrf::l OJ2818&,ct!on:cdown/o.adl Mjjtji'RUl!!OOMm
1.00
2015-08-16
2015-06-16
Choice of Entity
NEVADAINVI
2.00
2111
ti!p"""""""",~edttccmA.osa-CIl1a~7
ti!p"""""""",~edttccmA.osa-CIll1J~7
S2l'2015
2015-08-16
11fM'1!!!tlW
l.mm'3"IIII" flgttCtrt
(/gttC,rt php1cp$1032820&actlon"'downloadl -m
-mll3'Hi!!!tlMm
m
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-16
Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses ~ Do You Want to Take This PI Case?
i.p:rMtU@ llIttl/'l/gvtCQ[lohp?Cert;:10J3598&.Ct!OOtl:down!oadl
tl/'l/gvtCQ[lohP?COr!;:lQJ3598&.Ct!OOtl:down!oadl -@f1ii@i!llM.w
-@f1ii@i!llrwm
NEVADA INVI
EllrnlnaUon
Ellrnlnatlon of Bias In the Legal Profession
3.00
2015-08-16
NEVADA INVI
.mm.!!!,,,
mm.l1fi!!!I" /Iru!ICer1.Qhp?c,rt-l0J28J2&aC!ionatdown!Ofcf)
//q!ICert.Qhp?e'rt-'0J28J2bcl!onatdownlOfcf) WWil@ill@Mm
2015-08-16
1.00
Legal Elhics:1.00
Collections Law
Collecllons
Inm'?tlnllt!'IIgtt'Cfrt
Inm'?tlnllt!'IIgtt'Cfrt php?Clrt",lQJ3J@&act!on=download1
php?Clrt",'QJ3J@&act!on=download1 WI1D!I!@jM
WI1D!!!@jMill
m
NEVADAINVI
EHmlnatlon of Bias In the Legal System

EHmlnallon
1.00
2015-08-16
NEVADAINV)
mm'm!!!,!I(/gj!Cgrt
mm'm!!!,!I(/gjICgr!
-m!JD/!!mrw.w
pbp7certDl0J283S&acUoo~dl
pbp7cert""03283S&aeUoo~dl -m!JD/!!m_.w
Common Issues Wher! Ucenslng Intellectual Property
1.00
Legal Ethlcs:1.00
2015-08-16
2015-08-18
,IQWfiifb1111tr!!I(!ge,Cirt
php?cl1rtDl0J3359&aclkm"dowo!OIdl -t:!iU!!!!,rw
,.IfflWfiifb1111tr!!I(!ge,Cirt php?certDl033359&aclkm"dowo!OIdl
_t:!iU!!!!'Wm
NEVADAINVI
Ethics and Technology for the Trial Lawyer
1.00
2015-08-16
NEVADAINV)
I.@MI@!IIN/
I.@MI@!IIN/wlelr!php?G!r1>olQ3236&lct!on&down!oadl
MlfH1i@!!!flrwm
wlelrtphp?Cjrt>olQ3236&lct!on&down!oa dl MlfHil@!!lfltM
1.00
Legal Ethica:1.00
2015-08-14
Common Sense Rules of Trial Advocacy
fflj@'@!!!3itl(/Q9tCert.ohP1clrt:Z;lQ32337&aCIWdown!oad)MWil@ljl'M.oo
fflj@'@!!!3itl(/Q9tCert.ohP1clrt:Z;1032337&aCIWdown!oad)MWil@ljjMrwm
NEVADAINVI
Ethics for Lawyem In

in the Cloud
2.50
2015-08-14
NEVADAINV)
"MM'@!!!ItlUQ&'Clrt
"MM'@!!!ItlUQ&!Ctrt $7clr1-1
$7clr1-1 032421 &acliorEdowolofldl
&acliorEdowolofldl M",!I$ '!IHt_..w
'!IHt-..w
1.00
Legal Ethica:1.00
2015-()8.16
Conducllng an Effective Deposition

Conducting
IMMIJfl!!!mtl {/gttCprt phplcj

php?cj rt o:l03339&.CllonadoymkMdl -mimiIU;tWm
NEVADA INV)
Ethics In a Web 2.0 World
1.00
2015-08-16
I,nml@!i!@tluootCertPbP?C!!rpl033H7&aCIIOf]1l:down!OBdl
I,nml@!i!@tluootCertPbP?C!!rpl033H7&aCllon:CdownlOBdl
NEVADAINVI
-m
1Crwm
ii1'iN!i!
iN!i! 1C
Construction Contracts
'-"m'clIllfj"
(Igg!C,,!
(IggIC,,1 ohp'lclrt>o1033311&aclloozdown!oadl
Ethic. of Cloud Computing
NEVADAINVI
"-m
-W '3'1 m
NEVADAINV)
1.00
2015-08-16
I.Mttti@!tlR'tI/WIClr!MP?CI$103335Q&aCUOO&dowo!oad\
I,Mttti@!tlR'tI/wIClrtMP?Cjr1!103335Q&aCUOO&dowo!oad\
1.00
Legal Ethlcs:1.00
2015-08-16
-Wi'iM11mM
-WI'iM11meMm
1.00
Legal Ethlcs:1.00
2015-08-15
2015-06-15
Dlgltal Cltlzenshlp In Schools: From Pdtcy to Practice
,.mtff'@!ijltl(/oo!CertQhP7C'IT-l032547&aC!!on,"
WOloa dl
Mmii@ii!If1'Jtl
,.mtff'@!ijlt1(/oo!CertQhP7C'IT-l0J2547&aC!!on," do WOloa
dl Mmii@ii!@'Jtl
NEVADAINVI
Federal
1.00
2015-()8.14
NEVADAINV)
-mi':m1i/mM
R~e
26: Expert Roports
1.00
php?cert-l 032350&acUoo:zdownfoad)
032350&acUoo:zdownfoadl -mi':m1i/m_m
am.tnll!$jtl (/QitC,r1
(/QitC,r1 php?cert-l
m
eOlscovery
,.mM'@!f!t!jp'lIge1Cttr!phP?C9rt_1QJJJ74&ict!ooO:doymloadJ
,.mM'@!f!t!jp'lIge1Cttr!phP?C9rt_1QJJJ74&ict!oo"'download\
NEVADA INV)
Foreign Investment In U.S. Real Estate
1.00
2015-()8.16
NEVADA INVI
-mll':m!!I'M
l.nmlfMlllffl'j/lltgetCert
Dho?c!rt'"1033353bclloo_down!9!dl -m1i':m!!llrwm
l.nmlfMlllffl'j/lltgetCert Dho?c!rt"'1033353hclloo_down!9!dl
1.00
2015-08-16
Eliminating Biases You Never KnEMI You Had
'atUm!!!;,
NEVADA INVI
Forensic Document Examlnatlon

examination and The Law
HuttCtrt ohplcltrt:01()33316&actlop dpwnload\
*jffl'EmilltfiM.oo
*iffl'Emillirwm
"m:1cg,nnrrnCRI
fm nn;rn",m
ill
40
OnIioo Cmlirurg Legal Educalloo /t:I" Ar.a-ooys" CLE I MCLE
NEVADA (NV)
Identifying and Understanding Communication Styles in Mediation
3.50
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
20150818
Fundament~ls of Antitrust litigation
NEVADA (NV)
Independent Contractor/Employee Distinctions: Help Clients (And Your Firm) Minimize Liability
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Getting Paid and Staying Out of Trouble
NEVADA (NV)
SelfGovemment
Indian Gaming: Shared Sovereignly & Tribal SelfGovernment
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
Lega! Ethics:1.00
1.00
Honesty is Best Policy: How Far Can You Go In Negotiations
NEVADA (NV)
Inebriation, Intervention and Insight: A Trial Lawyer Finds His Soul
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
Legal Ethics:1.00
1.00
Substance Abuse: 1<00
Hot Topics in Employment Law

NEVADA (NV)
IP Basics for Transactional Attorneys
1.00
2015-0814
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
How to Avoid Legal Malpractice Claims

NEVADA (NV)
Legal Aspects of Forensic Document Examination
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
How to Handle Cases with High Media Attention
NEVADA (NV)
Legal Considerations for Marijuana Businesses
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
How To Prepare Your Client for Deposition
NEVADA (NV)
Legal Ethics: Civility and Zealous Representation
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
I Think I Just Received eDiscovery: What Now?

NEVADA (NV)
Legal Writing Tips for Advanced Practitioners
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
."
httpJlwww araOOYCfedi~.conluserCerts php?
OnIineContlrUnglegal Educatloofot Altctooys elf I MCLE
Online Cm\lrung lnga! Educallm for AUaneys - elf I MCLf
lIil%!!Ill:!2~m
litigation In the 21st Century
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
Practical Ethics: Avoiding Trouble with Clients, Courts and the Stale Bar
NEVADA (NV)
'mm'D
'mm';rr; lt1l
lt1l
1i1
li1
figetCert ohp7cert=1033592&acHon=downloadl
.m:lmai:l:Il_
Im:tlDm:D.lm
1.00
Legal Ethics:lOO
Mediation Techniques for Litigators

NEVADA (NV)
Pre-Immigration Income Tax Planning
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Medical and Scientific Evidence Used in OUt and Drug Cases
NEVADA (NV)
Principle Considerations When Handling a Divorce Case
1.00
2015-08-15
NEVADA (NV)
Moving the Judge from

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Drudgery to Persuasion
1.00
Probate & Estate Planning

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Online Security and Risk Basics for Attorneys
NEVADA (NV)
Protecting Employer Information
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Oregon Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting
NEVADA (NV)
Protecting Your CHent Against Civil and Criminal Liability for Trust Taxes
1.00
2015-08-18
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Personal Injury: A Detailed Examination of Liability, Oamages and CoilectibiHty

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Real Estate Due Diligence

NEVADA (NV)
2.00
PersonallnjUlY; Liability, Damages & CoileclibiHty
NEVADA (NV)
SharePoint: Legal Discovery & Data Storage Issues
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
Persuasion: The Dangers of OverAggresslve Lawyering
NEVADA (NV)
Sobering Side of the Legal Profession
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
41
&:2M015
1.00
812G'201S
812G'2015
Substance Abuse:1.oo
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
tOO
Structuring International Joint Ventures
NEVADA (NV)
The Eliminallon
Elimination of Bias & Promotion of Diversity in the Legal Profession
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.oo
1,00
Substance Abuse and Competence

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
The Limitations of Persuasion: Know Them and Use Them
Substance Abuse: 1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
Take Five: Edifying and Educational Ethical Examples
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Ethics.1,QO
Legal Ethics.1,00
The Six Minute Closing: SeJling Big Cases In Little

Uttle Time
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
Tax Issues for Attomeys and Law Finns
NEVADA (NV)
Top 10 Ways to Stay Out of Ethical Trouble

NEVADA (NV)
1,00
tOO
Legal Ethics:1.oo
Tax Refunds from Ponzi Scheme Losses

NEVADA (NV)
Understanding the Impact of Culture and Gender to Help Eliminate Bias

NEVADA (NV)
1,50
1.50
2015-08-19
1.00
Legal Ethics: 1.00
'~ami;mI!I'jew (faetCort.php7cert=1
(faetCort.php7cert=1033703&act!on=downloadl
033703&act!on=downloadl 1Im::!:lI!mIll::l.:.
1m:!:llIDlI~.I.ilIJ
Ten Social Media Myths for Attorneys
NEVADA (NV)
Uniled Siaies
States Taxation of Foreign Investors
1,00
NEVADA (NV)
1,50
The Anatomy of a OUI Case
NEVADA (NV)
Use of Trusts in Asset Protection

NEVADA (NV)
1,00
1,00
The Dos and Don'ts of the Testifying Expert
NEVADA (NV)
Valuing a Business
1.50
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
The Elimination of Bias
canIuserGerts.[t1p?
htlpJlwww altaneycredHs canIuserCerts,[t1p?
eno.'2015
hllpJfwww,attorneycredits.canIl..tscrGertsl*lP?
hllpJfwww,attorneycredits.can/l..tstlrCertsl*lP?
onmeClrtlrungLaga1 Educaboofcr Attorneys- CLEI

GLEI MCLE
MCtE
Wealth Advisor Malpractice

NEVADA (NV)
1,00
When Bias Tums to Bullying: Strategies for Dealing with High Conflict People
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Elhlcs:1.00
Winning on Appeal
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
2015-08-14
Working with Experts

NEVADA (NV)
2.00
Legal
legal Elhlcs:1,0Q
Wrongful Death: A Practical Approach

NEVADA (NV)
1,50
42
43
Case No: R115-0804
3
4
5
6
7
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
9
IN RE:
10
11

BAR NO. 9473
12
Respondent.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER

STATUS CONFERENCE
----------------------------,)
--------------------------)
15
The Panel Chair met telephonically with Assistant Bar Counsel R. Kait Flocchini,
16
on behalf of the State Bar of Nevada, and Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Petitioner herein.
17
The parties discussed the date on which to hold the Reinstatement Hearing, peremptory
18
challenges, and scheduling a pretrial conference.
19
Based on the parties discussion and agreement, the Chair orders as follow:
20
1. The Reinstatement Hearing shall take place on August 25,2015, starting at 8:30
21
a.m. at the State Bar of Nevada's office located at 9456 Double R. Blvd, Reno, Nevada
22
89521.
23
2. Petitioner and the State Bar may exercise up to 5 peremptory challenges to the
24
members of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board. The State Bar shall serve a First
25
Designation of Panel Members on Petitioner on or before July 8, 2015. The First
44
Designation will not include Chair Jenkins since she is already appointed to the panel.
Petitioner and the State Bar shall serve their respective Peremptory Challenges on or
before July 15, 2015.
3. A Pre-hearing Conference shall take place by telephone on August 18, 2015 at
9:00 a.m. so that the Chair may address (i) any issues regarding witnesses or documents
to be presented at the Reinstatement Hearing and (ii) any stipulations entered into by the
parties in anticipation of the Reinstatement Hearing. The State Bar shall initiate the call
by calling Petitioner and then conferencing in Chair Jenkins.
4. The parties are encouraged to contact Chair Jenkins via e-mail regarding any
10
discovery or procedural issues that arise in this matter. Any e-mail should include all
11
parties. Chair Jenkins will schedule a telephone conference if necessary to address any
12
issues raised.
13
DATED this
q-#..
day of
14
,Jvly
,2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
15
By: ~~~::::~~~~=~_ _ __
Caren C. Je
Rei nstatemllJl"tll_<:I1
16
17
18
19
Submitted By:
20
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

21
22
23
24
25
BY:4~'
R. K it Flocchlnl, NV Bar No. 9861

Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
45
Case No: RI15-0804
4
5
6
7
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
INRE:
BARNO. 9473
Petitioner.
)
)
)
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR CHANGE
OF VENUE
13
14
)
)
)
)
On July 10, 2015 Petitioner Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. flied and served a Motion for Change
15
of Venue. On July 22, 2015 the State Bar of Nevada timely flied a Response to Motion to Change
16
Venue. No reply was flied and this matter was submitted for decision.
17
18
Based upon the foregoing and no good cause appearing, the Motion to Change Venue is
hereby denied. Petitioner's request for reinstatement will proceed as scheduled on August 25,2015.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
DATED this
21
2J[iM day of~, 2015.

STQE BAR OF NEVADA
22
23
By: ________~--~__---------------- -__------------
24
Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
25
46
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
The undersigned hereby certifies a copies of the foregoing Order After Status
Conference and Order Denying Motion for Change of Venue were hand delivered to
the Petitioner, Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. The documents were also served in electronic
form to zachcoughlin@hotmail,com
6
7
Dated on this
2~y of August, 2015.
8
9
Laura Peters, an employee of

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
47
1
2
3
4
5
6

NV Bar No. 9473 (disabled inactive)
USPTO Bar No. 53,905
945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Petitioner
15
)
)
)
) Case No: RI15-0804
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING BRIEF

submits the above titled document. Coughlin apologizes for the filing not having
been provided to the Bar and Panel sooner and for it not being as refined as he
would have like to have made it.
ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Coughlin was arrested for consuming while shopping, then failing to pay for
26
27
(petty theft) two packages of cough melts containing Dextromethorphan
28
1
48
(DXM), a potent dissociative in such doses, on 9/9/11. His law license was
temporarily suspended incident thereto on 6/7/12.
3
4
5
6
7
Just prior to that the NNDB filed a Disability Petition on 5/31/12. The
Petition, besides generally alleging something amiss with Coughlin chemically or
mentally, points out Coughlin's conviction for shoplifting a candy bar and cough
drops (the cough drops were actually DXM cough melts), and details the
contempt of court order entered against Coughlin by the judge presiding over the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
trial for the DXM shoplifting.

The Disability Petition then details an 8/20/11 arrest for petty theft of a cell
phone that actually occurred 17 days prior to the Walmart DXM shoplifting arrest.
Next, the Petition references an arrest of 1/14/12 for Abusing 911
Emergency Services. The Petition references and attaches an 8 page filing by
17
18
Coughlin in such matter, deeming it rambling, incoherent and containing
19
disparaging remarks about various court officer's and officials.1
20
21
22
Next the Petition details an 11/13/12 criminal trespassing arrest of Coughlin

occurring at his former home law office shortly after he was evicted therefrom and
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Coughlin was convicted of the petty larceny of the smart phone on 11/20/12 and served two years of probation,
being subject to weekly and random drug and alcohol testing. Coughlin never failed a test. Coughlin was also
convicted in the 911 case, however, after the charges were reduced down form a gross misdemeanor to a
misdemeanor. Coughlin apologizes and hereby expresses contrition and accepts responsibility for these matters
and recognizes the impropriety of the 8 page filing attached as an exhibit to the Petition.
2
49
references another incoherent, confused, and rambling 36 page filing by
Coughlin therein.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Petition then references an Affidavit of Poverty Coughlin filed,

seemingly to find some concern over Coughlin indicating he had little to no money
and or only identifying himself as a jack of all trades. Coughlin did identify
himself as an attorney prior to such filing in each case in that court.
Next the Petition discusses Coughlin being a disturbance to the filing
10
11
12
13
14
15
office at the Reno Municipal Court and his being seen in videos on YouTube.com
where Coughlin purportedly states that a named police detective admitted taking
bribes from a named local attorney and discusses court staff and states how much
income they make.3
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Coughlin was convicted of criminal trespass on 6/18/12 (the trial was held just hours after Coughlin finished
writing and submitted for electronic filing the 108 page filing in 60975 of 6/18/12 included by Bar Counsel in
the Pre-Hearing Packet.
Shortly after Coughlin filed a Motion to Dismiss such conviction in late March 2013, Judge Nash Holmes
reversed the conviction by entering a 4/7/14 Order of Dismissal. Subsequently, another RMC Judge appears to
have purported to undo such Order by Judge Holmes. Coughlin attached such 4/7/14 Order of Dismissal by
Judge Holmes (accompanied by an identical Order of Dismissal in the next matter, the traffic citation
trial/contempt citation, also by Judge Nash Holmes) in a Notice of such Reversal of Convictions in the appeal of
the disciplinary case on 4/22/14. This was apparently rather significant in the view of the Nevada Supreme
Court, as it ordered, on 4/24/14, in 60975, the disability petition case, the psychological evaluation by a
qualified medical expert that was eventually done by Dr. Nielsen, and also ordered, on 5/16/14, the State Bar
to file a Response on 6/4/14 to such development in the appeal of the disciplinary case in 62337. Coughlin filed
an Opposition to such Response on 6/6/14 (which was attached as an exhibit to Coughlin's 7/22/14 another
response in the disability case).
Regardless, Coughlin accepts responsibility and hereby expresses contrition for such events, whether a
criminal trespass conviction still exists or not.
3
Coughlin hereby apologizes for such inappropriate behavior and expresses contrition. The undersigned
does not recall ever making such statements absent a concomitant discussion about how the officer whom said
such things was obviously being, to his mind, inappropriately sarcastic in such a grave situation as making an
arrest of Coughlin. Regardless, speaking carelessly about other's to the detriment of their professional
reputations is not acceptable, and discussing court staff on YouTube is obviously childish, and, quite arguably,
harassing.
3
50
Lastly, the Petition references the Joshi divorce case and Coughlin's
1
2
3
4
work therein resulting in criticism, and, briefly, an attorney fee award against him
personally.4
Based on July 2014 meetings with Coughlin, Dr. Nielsen's
5
6
7
8
psychological evaluation was attached to the Bar's 9/29/14 Status Report. See
Exhibit 21.
A year later Dr. Nielsen conducted a Supplemental Psychological
10
11
12
13
14
Evaluation of Coughlin (See Exhibit 1, Progress Report by Earl S. Nielsen, Ph.D.)

that included a face-to-face interview, opportunity to review records, and
permission to contact treatment providers with respect to their clinical
15
impressions. Such Progress Report noted that Coughlin had remained in
16
counseling through Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services through
17
18
December, 2014 (where Coughlin had been receiving counseling since March
19
2013 (from Bill Jackson, Ph.D., then Terri Pittenger, Psy.D5) and seeing a
20
21
22
psychiatrist since March 2013 (See Exhibit 2, Selected Progress Notes by Terri
Pittenger, Psy.D)) and attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings daily and with
23
24
25
26
27
28
The undersigned recognizes his work in the Joshi divorce case was subpar, and hereby expresses contrition
for such, as well as for failing to comport himself in as respectful a manner as he ought to have with the judge
and opposing counsel. However, that Order After Trial was set aside by the Final Decree of divorce, insofar
as the attorney fee award against Coughlin was set aside. https://www.scribd.com/doc/275979753/6-19-09Final-Divorce-Decree-Setting-Aside-Joshi-Divorce-Fee-Award-From-4-13-09 See Exhibit 20, 6/19/09 Order
Setting Aside Judge Gardner's Fee Award Against Coughlin in Joshi.
5 Concepts of Transactional Analysis (TA), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Rational Emotive Therapy
(REBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) were worked on in the sessions with Dr. Pittenger
and Dr. Jackson. See Exhibit 14, Selected Progress Notes from treatment at Northern Nevada Adult Mental
Health Services, (NNAMHS).
4
51
good participation. See Exhibit 1. Dr. Nielsens review then notes that Coughlin
entered counseling with Bill Martin, MFT on a twice weekly basis. He was also
3
4
5
6
7
seen weekly by Charlie Hoar, Ed.D., MFT. Id.

Dr. Nielsen then notes that in August 2015 he conducted telephone
interviews with Bill Martin, Charlie Hoar, and Tim Coughlin, Mr. Coughlins
father. Dr.Nielsen noted that Coughlins therapist, Mr. Martin was able to
confirm Mr. Coughlins abstinence and his frequent AA attendance. He was
10
11
12
13
14
impressed with Mr. Coughlins consistency and persistence, and perceived growth
in multiple areas. He was able to document Mr. Coughlins improved insight and
commitment to change. Dr. Nielsen noted that Coughlins other therapist, Dr.
15
Hoars approach to counseling is Dialectic Behavior Therapy with some
16
Mindfulness techniques. She incorporated AAs Twelve Step Program, but
17
18
emphasized character issues and personality growth. She, too, identified positive
19
changes in Mr. Coughlin.
20
21
22
23
Dr. Nielsen also notes his conversation with the Petitioners father, Reno
based family practitioner Timothy D. Coughlin, MD6 revealed that Dr.Coughlin
has been impressed with his sons commitment to take responsibility for his
24
25
actions as well as personal responsibility to make amends. Id.
26
27
28
6 See Exhibit 13, Various Letters of Recommendation containing letter regarding

Petitioner by Dr. Timothy D. Coughlin, MD
5
52
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
Dr. Nielsen notes Mr. Coughlin also supplied me with extensive medical
and counseling records. Those records document Mr. Coughlins substantial efforts
to stay sober, and his counseling participation. Id. Petitioner provided Dr.
Nielsen with all the records subpoenaed by the State Bar of Nevada upon receiving
copies of such from Bar Counsel. See Exhibit 3, Sworn Declaration of Zachary
Barker Coughlin, Esq.
Dr. Nielsen notes Mr. Coughlin has followed my recommendations as well
as anyone could have... in that he secured a day job, and sought counseling
attends AA meetings daily with a high degree of participation and has
remained substance free and is healthier and happier than the young man I
observed one year ago and has successfully faced many challenges without
giving up. Id.
Dr. Nielsen concludes that Mr. Coughlin has made sufficient progress
that I no longer believe he is disabled and that he does support (Coughlins)
effort to seek reinstatement, noting that the extent to which Mr. Coughlin has
improved is remarkable.
Coughlins therapist, Bill Martin, MFT notes that with ongoing
involvement in 12 Step recovery, psychotherapy could discontinue or be on an "as
needed" basis and that Coughlins alcohol use disorder is moderate and in
full remission and that Coughlin has demonstrated gains with regard to the
treatment of his depressed mood. See Exhibit 4, Letter From Treating Therapist
Bill Martin, MFT.
Coughlins other treating therapist, Dr. Hoar, Ed.D., MFT, found Coughlin
to be motivated, self-disclosing, eager to learn about his weaknesses and to set
about correcting them. See Exhibit 5, Letter From Treating Therapist Charlene
6
53
Hoar, Ed.D, MFT. Dr. Hoar notes Coughlin is a hard working young man who
has been performing diligently at his job and working with an AA sponsor,
and that Coughlin came to all his therapy appointments on time, open and willing
to address some of his old unrealistic beliefs becoming more aware of how they
may have hindered him in living an effective life. Id. Dr. Hoar indicates that she
is glad to do so in supporting Coughlins request to have his license to practice
law reinstated. Id.
8
9
While Petitioner has not technically been required to complete any

continuing legal eduction (CLE) credits during the last 38 months that his law
10
license has been either temporarily suspended indefinitely7 or on disabled inactive
11
7 Coughlin was temporarily suspended indefinitely in NVSCT case 60838 on June
12
7th, 2012 incident to being convicted of shoplifting over the counter cough
medication containing dextromethorphan (DXM) from a grocery store pursuant to
an arrest of September 9th, 2011. Coughlin was found to have consumed two
bottles worth of DXM while shopping for groceries, and then failing to pay for
such. DXM in such quantities acts as a potent hallucinogenic or dissociative.
Coughlin had been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous and Lawyers
Concerned for Lawyers for many years (see Exhibit 8, Letters of Recommendation
by former Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Coordinator C. Coe Swobe, Esq. and
Coughlins former sponsor, Kelly Testolin, Esq. from 2004) just prior to such
arrest.
However, Coughlin was prescribed Adderall during such time for ADHD,
and in retrospect, such does not appear to have been without significant
drawbacks.
In mid-August 2011 Coughlin was experiencing financial difficulties
(incident to, among other things, the dissolution of a four year domestic
partnership that included such partner failing to forward on to their landlord
multiple months of the rental contributions Coughlin had given her, despite such
having been their established practice) and became unable to afford two different
medications he had taken for years, Wellbuttrin (an antidepressant) and Adderall
(prescribed to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), going off of
each nearly overnight. See Exhibit 9, Certified Prescription History for Coughlin
showing Coughlin abruptly ceased filling such medications at the time in question.
(such also shows Coughlin has not taken opiates in years and that he has never, not
even once, been early on his Adderall prescription, where a hallmark of addiction
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
54
status, Coughlin has earned 104.5 credits of CLE in that time, compared to the 36
credits that would have been required had his license then been active. See Exhibit
6, Certificates of 104.5 Hours of CLE Completed. Coughlin has complied with Dr.
Nielsens recommendation that he maintain subsistence employment. See
Exhibit 7, Paycheck Stub Detailing Over 700 hours of Subsistence Employment.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
It is likely important to note the proximity in time between Coughlin's filing

in the disciplinary case appeal in 62337 between 5/29/15 and 6/16/15 and the
NVSCT's 15-18704 dismissing the disciplinary appeal instead of just suspending
it upon placing Coughlin on disability inactive status in 60975.
I.

COUGHLINS DISABILITY HAS BEEN REMOVED AND HE
IS FIT TO RESUME THE PRACTICE OF LAW WHERE HE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the use of escalating amounts of one's chosen substance).

Such abrupt cessation of these medications may have contributed to
Coughlin relapsing on DXM cough medication in the weeks that followed, but
hardly excuses his being convicted of shoplifting such substance. Coughlin
hereby accepts responsibility for such and expresses contrition.
Regardless, Coughlin now recognizes that the financial straits he then found
himself in were the result of his having alienated himself from friends, family, his
former legal aid employer, and others incident to his failing to continue to work a
program of recovery, but, rather, reverting to the thought processes, behavior, and
attitude so often characterized as a dry drunk. This was detailed in Coughlins
5/29/15 Motion to Reinstate his law license in the disciplinary appeal 62337.
Additionally, Coughlin now believes that his taking Adderall, even as it was
prescribed to him, was significantly exacerbating the character defects that have
caused and or resulted from his history of substance abuse. As such, Coughlin
gradually ceased administration of Adderall upon consulting with his present
psychiatrist, Dr. Scott Bunner, MD. See Exhibit 10, Psychiatrist Bunners
Progress Notes for Coughlin of 4/2/15 and 5/1/15. Coughlin has remained off of
Adderall since such time and intends to remain so.
8
55
1
2
3
HAS THE REQUISITE COMPETENCE AND LEARNING IN

THE LAW
The Nevada Supreme Court placed Coughlin on disabled inactive status
after ordering an examination of Coughlin by a qualified medical expert (see
Courts Orders in 60975), Dr. Nielsen, which recommended the Court do so.
Now, the same Dr. Nielsen8 whom was chosen by the State Bar of Nevada, not
Coughlin, recommends that Coughlins law license be reinstated, citing his
professional opinion that Coughlin is now fit, and no longer disabled for the
purposes of practicing law. (Dr. Nielsen now writes: In my opinion, Mr. Coughlin
10
has made sufficient progress that I no longer believe he is disabled I do support
11
his effort to seek reinstatement. See Exhibit 1).
12
Further, two different treating therapists indicate that they feel Coughlin is
13
now fit to practice law, and, therefore, have his license to practice law reinstated.
14
It may be important to consider that Coughlin is not a suspended
15
attorney. He is an attorney whose law license is currently placed in disabled
16
inactive status. The distinction is important, and such is born out in the
17
differences between SCR 116(2) and SCR 117(4). Petitioner detailed such
18
position in his 8/21/15 filing herein. However, to the extent such view is not
19
shared by this Honorable Panel, Petition offers the following.
20
Disciplinary Rule of Procedure (DRP) Rule 57: Reinstatement
21
hearing packets. Bar counsel shall prepare and serve in electronic format a
22
reinstatement packet that consists of petitioner's Petition, accompanying exhibits,
23
and other relevant pleadings (i.e. prior Findings and Order of Discipline,
24
criminal conviction) at least five (5) days prior to the hearing.

On 8/21/15, the OBC electronically served a Hearing Packet on the Panel
25
26
27
28
and Coughlin, electronically. Such included the 5/31/15 SCR 117 Petition (absent
8(whom has, therefore, been judicially declared a qualified medical expert in this
context by the Nevada Supreme Court),
9
56
the eight exhibits attached thereto9), and what is purportedly a response filed
electronically (in a confidential case, which is not permitted per Supreme Court
3
4
5
6
7
practice) dated 6/18/12.

However, also missing from what the Bar included in such Pre-Hearing
Packet is the another respone10 filed by Coughlin (and noted in the NVSCT's
6/18/15 Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status) on or about 8/8/14
(after the originally mailing of such on 7/22/14 was returned to sender due to the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
13 oz rule requiring such mailings be personally handed to USPS personnel).

The NVSCT's Order of 6/18/15 in case 60975 placing Coughlin on disability
inactive status ruled:
After reviewing the petition and its attachments, as well as
Coughlin's motion filed in response to the petition, we directed the
State Bar to arrange for an examination of Coughlin by a qualified
medical expert to determine Coughlin's capacity to practice law to
file a status report regarding its efforts in this regard. Coughlin has
since filed another response to the petition, and the Bar has now
filed a supplemental report containing Dr. Earl S. Nielsen's
evaluation regarding Coughlin's capacity to practice law.
Having reviewed Dr. Nielsen's report and all documents on file in
this matter, we conclude that the relief requested in the petition is
warranted. Accordingly, Zachary B. Coughlin is transferred to
disability inactive status. Coughlin may resume the active practice
of law only after he has complied with SCR 117(4) and (5).
24
25
26
27
28
9 See Exhibit 18 Complete copy of SCR 117 Disability Petition filed 5/31/12
10 See Exhibit 19 Coughlin's 7/22/14 another response by Coughlin in Disability
case (60975)
10
57
It may be important to note that in a companion disciplinary proceeding, in
case 62337, the NVSCT also ruled, on that same 6/18/15 date that that disciplinary
case was not merely suspended, as SCR 117(2) required, but taken a step further
and dismissed. Such Order reads:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SCR 117(2) requires that any pending disciplinary

proceeding against an attorney be suspended when he is transferred
to disability inactive status. Therefore, these proceedings must be
suspended. In order to avoid these matters lingering indefinitely
on this court's docket pending Coughlin's compliance with SCR
117(4) and (5), we conclude that judicial efficiency will be best
served if these matters are dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, these matters are dismissed without prejudice to
the State Bar's ability to reinitiate such proceedings, if
appropriate, upon Coughlin's reinstatement to the active
practice of law.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Time of illness A rule permitting suspension from the practice of law for
mental illness only applies if the respondent is mentally ill at the time of the
disciplinary action, and is not relevant if the respondent has recovered from
such illness at the time the court takes action. OhioOhio State Bar Ass'n v.
Roest, 54 Ohio St. 2d 95, 8 Ohio Op. 3d 90, 374 N.E.2d 1366 (1978).
Suspended attorneys who eventually wish to be reinstated to the practice of
law have a responsibility to show a continuing commitment to staying informed
and competent in the practice of law. State Bar Discipline Rule 12. Daly v. The
Mississippi Bar, 83 So. 3d 1262 (Miss. 2011).
Lack of clear and convincing evidence that attorney, who had previously
resigned pending disciplinary proceedings, currently possessed competent legal
skills and, under similar pressures and circumstances involved with the practice of
law, would not again engage in misconduct of embezzlement, warranted denial of
attorney's reinstatement to the bar; attorney pled guilty to four charges of
embezzlement and one charge of forgery, and had been absent from practice of
law, not taken a continuing legal education course, and not drafted a legal pleading
for more than ten years. In re Reinstatement of Massey, 2006 OK 21, 136 P.3d 610
(Okla. 2006).
28
11
58
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
Attorney who was disbarred following his convictions for bribery and
conspiracy to commit bribery showed by clear and convincing evidence that he
had the legal competency to practice law, as required for reinstatement; record
showed that during his disbarment, attorney had completed more hours of legal
education than what was required, that attorney studied independently at a college
law library during the two years before his incarceration, reading the advance
sheets and studying case law, and that attorney continued his studies at the law
library since his release. Hughes v. Board of Professional Responsibility of
Supreme Court of Tennessee, 259 S.W.3d 631 (Tenn. 2008).
Eight relevant factors: The eight factors that are relevant in attorney
reinstatement proceedings are: present moral fitness; demonstrated consciousness
of wrongful conduct and the disrepute the conduct has brought on the profession;
the extent of rehabilitation; the seriousness of the original conduct; the former
attorney's conduct subsequent to the discipline; the time elapsed since the original
suspension; the applicant's character, maturity, and experience at the time of the
discipline; and the former attorney's present competence in legal skills. Okla.
Matter of Reinstatement of Wright, 1995 OK 128, 907 P.2d 1060 (Okla. 1995).
Bar Admission Or Reinstatement Of Attorney As Affected By Alcoholism
Or Alcohol Abuse, 39 A.L.R. 4th 567. 126.
Reversal of conviction. Reversal of the conviction underlying the
disbarment does not necessarily affect the disbarment as such, but may permit the
attorney to apply for reinstatement.[6] Such a reversal may authorize the court to
vacate or modify the disbarment. [7]
[FN6] N.Y.In re Marko, 23 A.D.2d 442, 261 N.Y.S.2d 302 (1st Dep't
1965). [FN7] N.Y.Matter of Glucksman, 57 A.D.2d 205, 394 N.Y.S.2d 191 (1st
Dep't 1977).
The various jurisdictions provide procedures for attorneys seeking
reinstatement after they have been disbarred or suspended, and such procedures
must be followed. AlaskaAlaska Bar Ass'n v. Benton, 431 P.2d 146 (Alaska
1967). Md.In re Meyerson, 190 Md. 671, 59 A.2d 489 (1948).
See, Pre-Hearing Brief regarding differences between what Petitioner must
show in a misconduct-reinstatement hearing versus a disability-reinstatement
hearing.
A petition for reinstatement must be considered on its own merits,[5] and
the court will determine the matter on the particular facts and circumstances of
each case. (ie, not on case 62337 or case 60975 or any other case besides the
instant RI15-0408). [6] Each application therefore will fail or succeed on the
evidence presented and the circumstances peculiar to that particular case.[7]
28
12
59
1
2
3
4
[FN5] Del.In re Bennethum, 278 A.2d 831 (Del. 1971). Okla.Matter of

Reinstatement of Cantrell, 1989 OK 165, 785 P.2d 312 (Okla. 1989). [FN6] Okla.
Application of Daniel, 1957 OK 199, 315 P.2d 789, 70 A.L.R.2d 265 (Okla.
1957). [FN7] Okla.Matter of Reinstatement of Cantrell, 1989 OK 165, 785 P.2d
312 (Okla. 1989). [FN8] N.Y.Matter of Sugarman, 58 A.D.2d 328, 396
N.Y.S.2d 702 (2d Dep't 1977).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The suspended or disbarred attorney must furnish full, honest, and

forthright cooperation upon applying for reinstatement,[10] and he or she has a
duty to be truthful in the reinstatement proceedings.[11] A petitioner seeking
reinstatement to the bar must show affirmatively that his or her conduct is such as
to warrant a belief that it is in the best interest of the public that he or she be
reinstated.[12] An applicant for reinstatement to the bar must show by the most
clear and convincing evidence that efforts made toward rehabilitation have been
successful.[13] However, the disbarred attorney need not show that he or she will
never again engage in misconduct, but only must show rehabilitation and present
moral fitness.[14]
[FN10] N.Y.Gavin v. New York State Bar Ass'n, 39 A.D.2d 626, 331
N.Y.S.2d 188 (3d Dep't 1972). [FN11] U.S.Matter of Braverman, 549 F.2d 913
(4th Cir. 1976). [FN12] Ariz.In re Van Bever, 58 Ariz. 365, 120 P.2d 403
(1941). Mass.In re Keenan, 313 Mass. 186, 47 N.E.2d 12 (1943). [FN13] Cal.
In re Menna, 11 Cal. 4th 975, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 905 P.2d 944 (1995). As to the
burden of showing entitlement to reinstatement, generally, see 128. [FN14] Cal.
Resner v. State Bar of Cal., 67 Cal. 2d 799, 63 Cal. Rptr. 740, 433 P.2d 748
(1967).
Suspended attorney, a former state senator, whose misconduct consisted of
committing criminal acts that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness,
and fitness as a lawyer, satisfied the legal requirements for the reinstatement of his
license to practice law, and thus reinstatement application would be granted;
attorney fully complied with terms of suspension and had paid costs of
disciplinary proceedings, attorney completed necessary number of continuing
legal education hours, including ethics credits, public hearing was not
contentious, attorney's conduct since suspension was exemplary, attorney
testified convincingly about circumstances that led to conviction and about his
future plans, five witnesses attested to attorney's character, attorney had no
history of prior discipline, and attorney's misconduct, though a serious breach
of public trust, did not relate to work as a practicing lawyer representing
28
13
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
clients. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Burke, 2008 WI 119, 756 N.W.2d

564 (Wis. 2008).
Suspended attorney seeking reinstatement of license to practice law must
demonstrate that the required representations in the reinstatement petition are
substantiated. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Burke, 2008 WI 119, 756
N.W.2d 564 (Wis. 2008).
Attorney whose license was suspended for conduct in his capacity as state
senator satisfied license reinstatement requirements; attorney had practiced law for
more than 20 years without ever having been subject to professional discipline
prior to his current suspension, and, although attorney's professional misconduct
arose in the course of his work as a state senator and was a serious breach of the
public trust, it did not directly relate to his work as a practicing lawyer
representing clients. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Chvala, 2008 WI 117,
755 N.W.2d 613 (Wis. 2008).
The circumstances of Coughlin's Petition compare favorably to the above.
See Exhibits 1 through 21.
128. Application for reinstatementEvidence and burden of proof A
petitioner applying for reinstatement to practice law must present clear and
convincing evidence concerning each of the factors described in a rule
governing reinstatement. (ie, only that required by SCR 117(4), not that in SCR
116(2)). [6]For the purpose of a petition for readmission to the state bar, the more
serious the original misconduct, the greater the showing of rehabilitation that will
be required. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners ex rel. McMahan, 944 So. 2d 335 (Fla.
2006). The burden of proof in attorney reinstatement proceedings on the petitioner
is a heavy one, and as a general rule the more severe the offense the heavier the
burden the applicant must overcome to gain reinstatement.[7] Thus, the more
serious the misconduct by a disbarred attorney, the greater the showing of
rehabilitation that will be required for the attorney to obtain readmission. [8]
22
23
24
25
26
27
(NOTE: beyond being an example of Coughlin's continued learning in the

law, Coughlin's filing of 8/13/12 in case 61426 Petition for Dissolution of
Temporary Suspension Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 102(4); and/or
alternatively, SCR 111(7) Petition to Show Good Cause For the Court To Set
28
14
61
Aside Its Order Temporarily Suspending Attorney from the Practice of Law 12-
25416 ; similar is Coughlin's filing in CR12-2025 of 5/15/14; see, also, Coughlin's
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
6/6/14 filing in 62337 14-18375 - Supreme Court).

Admissibility of evidence. An applicant seeking reinstatement should be
allowed to offer any relevant and material evidence, to cross-examine, and to fully
argue the issues.[10] The applicant may and should furnish evidence of present
good moral character,[11] that he or she is worthy of trust and confidence,[12] and,
where required by the court, that he or she has made restitution.[13] Generally
speaking, all factors pertinent to the attorney's disbarment or suspension, as well
as his or her representations for reinstatement, are relevant.[14] Evidence of the
petitioner's past misconduct thus normally is admissible against him or her.[15]
However, an applicant for reinstatement generally may present evidence,[16]
including evidence in mitigation11.[17]
The court or board may consider and weigh the attorney's attitude and
degree of contrition.[18] The character and trustworthiness of the applicant
generally may be established by recommendations and statements of those in a
position to know and judge the petitioner.[19]
[FN6] Me.Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Campbell, 663 A.2d 11 (Me.
1995).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
(see Coughlin's mitigation analysis in 62337's brief 14-10370 ) SCR 102.5(2).Mitigating circumstances
are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. The
following list of examples is illustrative and is not exclusive:
(a)absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(b)absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(c)personal or emotional problems;
(d)timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;
(e)full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward proceeding;
(f)inexperience in the practice of law;
(g)character or reputation;
(h)physical disability;
(i)mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when:
(1)there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by chemical dependency or a mental disability;
(2)the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct;
(3)the respondents recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a
meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and
(4)the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely;
(j)delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(k)interim rehabilitation;
(l)imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
(m)remorse;
(n)remoteness of prior offenses.
15
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Specifics to be established :A petitioner who seeks reinstatement to the bar

must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she possesses the moral
qualifications, competency, and learning in the law required for admission to
practice law and that his or her resumption of practice of law will be neither
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or administration of justice, nor
subversive of the public interest. Pa.Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v.
Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court, 468 Pa. 382, 363 A.2d 779 (1976). [FN7]
Okla.Matter of Reinstatement of Wright, 1995 OK 128, 907 P.2d 1060 (Okla.
1995). [FN8] Fla.Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners ex rel. J.J.T., 761 So. 2d 1094
(Fla. 2000). [FN9] Ky.Lester v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 532 S.W.2d 435 (Ky.
1975).
[FN10] Md.Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Boone, 255 Md. 420, 258 A.2d
438 (1969). [FN11] Cal.Preston v. State Bar of Cal., 28 Cal. 2d 643, 171 P.2d
435 (1946). Minn.In re Smith, 220 Minn. 197, 19 N.W.2d 324 (1945). Wash.
Application of Lonergan, 23 Wash. 2d 767, 162 P.2d 289 (1945).
Consideration in light of moral shortcomings In a proceeding for
reinstatement following disbarment, evidence of the petitioner's present character
must be considered in light of the moral shortcomings which resulted in the
imposition of discipline. Cal.Roth v. State Bar, 40 Cal. 2d 307, 253 P.2d 969
(1953). [FN12] Wash.Application of Lonergan, 23 Wash. 2d 767, 162 P.2d 289
(1945). [FN13] N.J.Matter of Hickey, 69 N.J. 69, 350 A.2d 483 (1976). [FN14]
OhioIn re Joseph, 74 Ohio L. Abs. 268, 140 N.E.2d 72 (C.P. 1956). [FN15] Cal.
Roth v. State Bar, 40 Cal. 2d 307, 253 P.2d 969 (1953).
[FN16] Md.In re Barton, 273 Md. 377, 329 A.2d 102 (1974).
[FN17] Md.In re Barton, 273 Md. 377, 329 A.2d 102 (1974). As to
consideration of mitigating factors or circumstances in disciplinary proceedings,
generally, see 117. [FN18] Fla.The Florida Bar, 323 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1975).
Ind.In re Gibbs, 261 Ind. 1, 294 N.E.2d 123 (1973). [FN19] Okla.Application
of Daniel, 1957 OK 199, 315 P.2d 789, 70 A.L.R.2d 265 (Okla. 1957).
24
25
26
27
28
Letters of recommendation Letters of recommendation are admissible.

Cal.Wettlin v. State Bar of Cal., 24 Cal. 2d 862, 151 P.2d 255 (1944).
Careful consideration and heavy weight Testimony of friends, associates,
and members of the bar is entitled to careful consideration and should weigh
heavily in the scales of justice upon a disbarred attorney's application for
16
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
reinstatement. Cal.Resner v. State Bar of Cal., 67 Cal. 2d 799, 63 Cal. Rptr. 740,
433 P.2d 748 (1967).
"We begin with the requirement that the burden is on the petitioner to
establish that he is entitled to resume the privilege of practicing law without
restrictions. The essential elements will, of course, vary with the particular case,
depending primarily upon the requirements of the disciplinary order, ... See In re
Stoller, 160 Fla. 769, 36 So.2d 443.
Suspended attorney applying for reinstatement to practice of law presented
clear and convincing evidence that he had overcome the weaknesses that led to his
misconduct in submitting a will that falsely purported to be the original for
admission to probate after he lost the original, and in improperly purchasing house
from a client estate without advising client to seek independent counsel, by
showing through his own, uncontroverted testimony and that of several
witnesses that throughout his extensive stay away from practice of law he was
engaged in charitable activities and community involvement and recommitted
himself to his religious faith. 17A A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rules 64(a), 65(b)(2). In
re Johnson, 298 P.3d 904 (Ariz. 2013).
Coughlin has been going to church for the last nine months, volunteering
therein, including playing the piano in a church's worship team and assisting in
some animal rescue efforts. See Exhibit 13, Various Letters of Recommendation.
By presenting no evidence of his drug or alcohol rehabilitation, attorney,
who was suspended for misappropriating client funds due to a significant drug
addiction problem, failed to carry his burden of proving rehabilitation and, thus,
was not entitled to reinstatement. The Florida Bar ex rel. Hochman, 944 So. 2d 198
(Fla. 2006).
22
23
24
25
26
27
Coughlin put on significant evidence of his redoubling his efforts in

recovery, even where Dr. Nielsen's original evaluation did not feel such was
necessary.The circumstances of Coughlin's Petition compare favorably to the
above. See Exhibits 1 through 21.
28
17
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Attorney sufficiently established that he was no longer impaired, was fit to

return to practice of law, continued to receive psychiatric counseling and
evaluation, and had paid judgment, fees, and interest regarding judgment obtained
by former client, and therefore attorney met conditions imposed for
reinstatement following previous indefinite suspension of attorney's license to
practice law; petition for reinstatement attached letters from psychiatrist and a
licensed professional counselor indicating that attorney was functioning
within the community, was psychiatrically stable, and was fit to return to the
practice of law.... In re Fair, 736 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. 2013).
Attorney disbarred following criminal conviction demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence that he was entitled to be certified as fit to practice law,
given his age, his candor, his credibility, and his rehabilitation through his
personal struggles and volunteer work. In re Stein, 290 Ga. 435, 721 S.E.2d 898
(2012).
In an attorney reinstatement proceeding, evidence of moral change comes
from an observed record of appropriate conduct by the attorney, but also must
come from the attorney's own state of mind and his values. In re Disciplinary
Action Against Holker, 765 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 2009).
To be reinstated, disbarred attorney had to show that his actions, beyond
being good deeds of a general nature, evidenced a fundamental change in his
character. Stewart v. The Mississippi Bar, 5 So. 3d 344 (Miss. 2008).
In reviewing the evidence submitted in support of an application for
reinstatement to the practice of law, the Supreme Court considers: (1) the present
moral fitness of the applicant; (2) the applicant's demonstrated consciousness of
wrongful conduct and the disrepute which that conduct brought to the
profession; (3) the extent of applicant's rehabilitation; (4) the seriousness of the
original misconduct; (5) applicant's conduct after the resignation; (6) the time
which has elapsed since the resignation or discipline; (7) applicant's character,
maturity and experience at the time of discipline or resignation; and (8) applicant's
present competence in legal skills. In re Reinstatement of Pate, 2008 OK 24, 184
P.3d 528 (Okla. 2008).
24
25
26
27
28

On an application for reinstatement to the practice of following a disbarment
or resignation stemming from abuse of alcohol and drugs, the Supreme Court must
be particularly concerned with evidence showing the extent of applicant's
18
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
rehabilitation, his conduct since he resigned, the treatment received for the
condition, and the time which has elapsed since the resignation. In re
Reinstatement of Pate, 2008 OK 24, 184 P.3d 528 (Okla. 2008).
Disbarred attorney failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to show
that her future conduct would conform to high standards required of a member of
the bar, as required by rule governing disciplinary proceedings, thus requiring
denial of her petition for reinstatement; following her disbarment, she did not
comply with rule requiring her to notify her clients and to furnish proof of
compliance, and her testimony regarding circumstances of her original offense
and her failure to respond to grievance process and pay costs were
inconsistent and not worthy of belief. In re Reinstatement of Meek, 2006 OK 14,
130 P.3d 255 (Okla. 2006).
Coughlin did comply with the requirements to notify (and provide proof of
10
11
12
13
14
compliance of doing so) not just clients, but the federal courts, the Patent Office,
the self reporting requirements of SCR 111. Further, Coughlin has subjected
himself to hours of interview with the State Bar, direct and cross-examination in
15
criminal cases, and over an hour of cross-examination in a disciplinary trial, as
16
well as representing himself throughout such trial and an appeal thereof that he
17
18
successfully had dismissed. Not once has he been found to be lying by any of the
19
prosecutors or judges, and the one accusation of lying in Judge Holmes' contempt
20
21
22
23
order was reversed by Judge Holmes herself in her 4/7/14 Order of Dismissal.
24
25
26
27
28
Supreme Court, in examining the evidence presented in a reinstatement

proceeding commenced by a disbarred attorney, must consider the following
factors: (1) applicant's present moral fitness; (2)applicant's demonstrated
consciousness of wrongful conduct and the disrepute presented for reinstatement,
(3)extent of applicant's rehabilitation, (4) the seriousness of the original
19
66
1
2
3
4
misconduct, (5) applicant's conduct after the imposition of discipline, (6) the time
which has elapsed since the resignation, (7) applicant's character, maturity and
experience at the time of discipline or resignation, and (8) applicant's present
competence in legal skills. In re Reinstatement of Meek, 2006 OK 14, 130 P.3d
255 (Okla. 2006).
5
6
7
22
Evidence of past conduct, if rationally connected to the attorney's

fitness to practice law, may be relevant to the issue of whether the attorney
presently is of good moral character, as element for reinstatement as active
member of the Bar. In re Reinstatement of Gunter, 344 Or. 368, 182 P.3d 187
(2008), opinion modified on reconsideration, 344 Or. 540, 186 P.3d 286 (2008).
"Supreme Court, in examining the evidence presented in a Petitioner argues
that evidence of prior disciplinary action should not be considered in a
reinstatement proceeding because it should have been considered (whether it was
or not), and would have been a factor, in the disciplinary proceeding which
generated the suspension. We disagree. (fn 6 Petition of Wolf, 257 So.2d 547, 548
(Fla. 1972)). It was proper for the referee to accept evidence of prior
disciplinary proceedings, among other things, for the purpose of comparing
prior and current conduct and the referee's report in this case indicates that
evidence of prior misconduct was considered for that express purpose. It was also
proper for the referee to consider and weigh the degree of contrition and the
attitude expressed by petitioner at his hearing. The referee found these intangible
factors wanting in petitioner's case. Petitioner offered no corroborating evidence of
repentance. (fn 7 Petition of Wolf, 257 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 1972); In re Dawson,
131 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 1961)) ." THE FLORIDA BAR; PETITION OF
SAMUEL RUBIN FOR
323 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1975).
23
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
The only misconduct Coughlin has been adjudged to have committed, out of
25
all that alleged in either the SCR 105 Complaint at issue in 62337 or the SCR 117
26
Disability case in 60975, is the conviction for petty larceny of $14.00 worth of
27
DXM and and ice cream bar from a Walmart, the iphone case, the 911 case, and
28
20
67
possibly the trespass case (if Judge Nash Holmes Order of Dismissal was
undone?).
He was placed on temporary suspension for that, pursuant to the automatic
rule in SCR 111(6). No final discipline was ever specified, but, rather, the referral
to the Panel from 60838 per SCR 111(8) was combined with the other allegations
former bar counsel King made in an ensuing SCR 105 complaint, which
languished on appeal for over two and half years, from November 2012 to June
2015. The Bar failed to ever file an Answering Brief to the one Coughlin filed for
over fifteen months in that appeal in 62337.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Coughlin ought have a defensive collateral bar applied here to prevent the
use of any of the various allegations which have never resulted in any actual
finding of misconduct to create an inquiry into whether Coughlin has contrition for
something he has not been adjudged guilty of doing.
As for the severity of the DXM shoplifting conviction (Coughlin's indefinite
temporary suspension lasted three years compared to these other attorneys
convicted of petty theft receiving mere censures or public reprovals, or 30
18
day suspensions, stayed, if..... The three years Coughlin was indefinitely
19
suspended was lengthened by the Bar failing to file an Answering Brief, the Bar
20
failing to respond to Coughlin's inquiries by indicating what qualified medical
21
expert it was choosing to have Coughlin evaluated by, lengthened by former
22
assistant bar counsel King included alleged sanctions in the Joshi and Merliss
23
matters among the charges in his SCR 105 Complaint despite a plain review of the
24
record in those matters revealing the Joshi attorney fee award was reversed and the
25
Merliss fee award was plainly a prevailing party fee award, etc., etc.):
26
Matter of Irving, 53 AD3d 14, (2008): Respondent was charged in three

different cases with felony theft incident to his taking property from three different
high end ski shops on three three separate occasions occurring in late 2003, and all
27
28
21
68
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
three cases were plead out to petty theft misdemeanors...In the course of his
answer, the respondent asserted, as mitigating defenses, that he has never been the
subject of a grievance or a malpractice claim. Id. at 17. Further, respondent
claimed that he first sought psychiatric treatment for depression and anxiety in or
about 2002 brought on by his wife's long-term serious illness and the problems in
school experienced by his young son; that he began more intensive psychiatric
therapy following the incidents which occurred in November and December 2003
and was placed on medication; that such therapy continued for two years and that
he remains on medication and continues to consult with his psychiatrist... he
promptly reported his convictions to the Court... respondent is publicly censured.
Matter of Karnazes,76 AD3d 1138, (2010): State Bar Court of California
found that the facts and circumstances surrounding respondent's trespass
conviction in California constituted misconduct warranting discipline and imposed
a public reproval. Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the trespass charge in
satisfaction of two shoplifting charges...We further conclude that an appropriate
discipline in this state is a censure of respondent, which we deem to be
equivalent to California's public reproval.
Matter of Grant, 85 A.D.2d 102, (1982): he stole approximately $249
worth of assorted groceries from a food market for which he was arrested and
charged with petit larceny...Shortly after the crime he undertook psychiatric
treatment which he has continued until the present time. Other than what the facts
say for themselves, the only explanation for respondent's conduct comes from his
therapist who states that respondent acted on impulse without contemplation
because of long-standing emotional difficulties which he diagnosed as "impulsive
personality disorder". The therapist reported that respondent remains highly
motivated in and out of therapy and rendered a medical opinion that respondent
"would not exhibit such impulsive behavior again"... we find that a censure would
be appropriate...Order of censure entered. Id.
Matter of Bottehsazan,75 AD3d 264, (2010): ...the respondent pleaded
guilty to petit larceny... in satisfaction of a felony complaint charging her with
grand larceny in the fourth degree...She admitted that she did not file a record of
her conviction, but denied any intent on her part to avoid notification, as she
reasonably relied on her attorney at the time, who told her he would take care of
matters. The respondent testified on her own behalf, presenting only mitigation
evidence...In mitigation, the respondent requests that the fact that she was under
severe pressure at the time due to a bitter divorce should be taken into
consideration. She further notes that her failure to file was unintentional and that
she reasonably relied on her attorney to take care of such matters. The respondent
22
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
was deeply remorseful and has no prior disciplinary history. Under the totality of
circumstances, the respondent is publicly censured.
See, also, In re Rothrock, 25 Cal.2d 588, 154 P.2d 392, Cal., December 29,
1944 (NO. S.F. 16934); In re Allen, 27 A.3d 1178 (D.C. 2011); In re Royer, 2012
D.C. App. LEXIS 11 (D.C., Jan. 26, 2012), involved the failure to pay for a $19
cab ride. After a remand to explore possible alcoholism, the court approved a
suspension of 30 days, which the attorney has already fully served.
However, similar to the way in which Petitioner went above and beyond in
following Dr. Nielsens recommendations in his initial evaluation12, Petitioner has
made great efforts to address and correct the root causes underlying the difficulties
and behavior resulting in his currently being placed on disabled inactive status.
10
See Exhibit 11, Ninth Step Amends Letters, and Exhibit 12, Attendant Sheets for
11
Twelve Step Recovery Groups. Petition has and continues to express great
12
remorse and regret for his missteps, and has made sincere efforts to make amends
13
for such. Further, Petitioner has volunteered at churches, and in animal rescue
14
efforts. See Exhibit 13, Various Letters of Recommendation.
15
In proceeding on petition for reinstatement to the bar, evidence as to extent
16
of applicant's rehabilitation was sufficient to warrant reinstatement. Application of
17
Wright, 340 P.2d 1007 (Nev.,1959).

Attorney showed that recovery from his bipolar disorder arrested his
misconduct of misappropriating client funds and that a recurrence of his
misconduct was unlikely, as required for attorney's bipolar disorder to constitute
mitigating factor in attorney disciplinary proceeding; physician stated that attorney
was compliant with his medication and that if he continued taking it, a recurrence
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12 Such initial evaluation found that Coughlins substance abuse problems where
in remission and that he would not benefit from group therapy or substance
abuse treatment at this time. See Exhibit 1. However, Coughlin, instead,
developed a relationship with a new Sponsor, meeting with him two hours a week
for the last seven months, redoubling his longstanding recovery involvement by
attending hundreds of twelve-step recovery group meetings, worked the steps
(again), ceased taking the Adderall he was prescribed upon consultation with his
psychiatrist, and otherwise made great efforts to better himself and get to the root
causes of the difficulties resulting in his being placed on disabled inactive status,
all in addition to complying with Dr. Nielsen's own recommendations.
23
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
was unlikely, and physician stated that he would continue to monitor attorney, and
attorney agreed in his brief to continued monitoring of his condition for a five-year
probationary period. In re Belz, 258 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. 2008).
A lawyer with a diagnosed mental disability must provide competent proof
that the disabling symptoms are fully managed currently. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480, 854 N.E.2d 480 (Ohio, 2006).
Where Supreme Court finds convincing preponderance of evidence that
attorney is an alcoholic, due to that disability, attorney's license to practice law
can be suspended indefinitely, and, if and when attorney believes he has
alcoholism under control, and establishes that control of alcoholism will extend
into future, that he has not practiced law during suspension and that his conduct
has been good, Supreme Court may reinstate license. Committee on Professional
Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Bergren, 300 N.W.2d 85
(Iowa,1980).
Comes Now, Declarant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, being first duly
sworn, deposes and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true
and correct: 1. I am subject attorney in the above-referenced matter, have personal
knowledge of the facts contained herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I
hereby declare that all assertions I have made herein are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. Everything I have attached hereto is a true and complete copy of
the document it purports to be.
Dated this August 24th, 2015,
20
21
22
23

Petitioner
24
25
26
27
28
24
71
1
2
3
4
I certify that on August 24th, 2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct
copy of this SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING BRIEF
upon the following by mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid
to the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
and to
11
kaitf@nvbar.org; laurap@nvbar.org; justccj@gmail.com;
12
marilee@nvlawyers.com; cdenney@swlaw.com; klow@rbslattys.com;
13
geofur@att.net
14
15
16
17
Dated this August 24th, 2015

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
72
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
Description
Number of Pages
Exhibit 1
Progress Review by Dr. Earl S. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Exhibit 2
Selected Progress Notes by Terri Pittenger, Psy.D
Exhibit 3
Sworn Declaration of Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
Exhibit 4
Letter From Treating Therapist Bill Martin, MFT
Exhibit 5
Letter From Treating Therapist Charlene Hoar, Ed.D, MFT.
Exhibit 6
Certificates of 104.5 Hours of CLE Completed
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Paycheck Stub for 700 hours of Subsistence Employment

Letters of Rec. by Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
Coordinator C. Coe Swobe and former sponsor
1
4
Exhibit 9
Certified Prescription History for Coughlin
Exhibit 10
Psychiatrist Bunners Progress Notes of 4/2/15 and 5/1/15
Exhibit 11
Ninth Step Amends Letters
Exhibit 12
Attendant Sheets for Twelve Step Recovery Groups
Exhibit 13
Various Letters of Recommendation
Exhibit 14
Judges Holmes Orders 4/7/14 reversing convictions
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
19
Coughlin's another response of 7/22/14 to the SCR 117 Petition

Examples of Coughlin's continued learning and development while
precluded from practicing law in Nevada
20
Exhibit 17 Coughlin's filings in disciplinary appeal between 5/29/15 and 6/8/15
21
Exhibit 18 Complete copy of SCR 117 Disability Petition filed 5/31/12
22
Exhibit 19 (blank)
23
Exhibit 20
24
Exhibit 21 Bar's 9/29/14 Status Report with Dr. Nielsen's Psych Eval.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
6/19/09 Order setting aside Judge Gardner fee award in Joshi
25
26
27
28
26
73
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
74
8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
NAME: Zachary Coughlin
AGE: 38
DOB: 9/27/72
CASE NAME: In the Matter of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Respondent
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
In July, 2014 Mr. Coughlin was referred by the Nevada State Bar Association
for a Psychological Evaluation to assess the extent to which Mr. Coughlin suffered
a mental infirmity, illness, or addiction which interfered with his competency to
practice law. The evaluation was conducted at my office in Reno. A final report was
submitted to the Nevada State Bar on September 20, 2014. That report concluded
that Mr. Coughlin was depressed, has dependent personality traits, and was an
alcoholic with recent remission, and a past opioid addiction in full remission, and
included the following recommendations:
1. Mr. Coughlin is not formally mentally ill, but does suffer some emotional
disturbance with an underlying personality disorder. My
recommendation for Mr. Coughlin is that he seek subsistence
employment outside the legal profession while he engages in a
rehabilitative course to address his disrupted emotional state and his
longer term deficiencies in personality functioning.
The greatest weakness in that recommendation is that Mr. Coughlin is
nearly homeless, has few resources, and needs intensive outpatient
intervention. While he is eligible for services through Northern Nevada
Adult Mental Health Services, I cannot recommend that facility as a
sufficient resource for Mr. Coughlins needs. He needs ongoing access to a
quality psychiatrist for medication management, and an opportunity to
build a trusting, confidential relationship with an experienced therapist
two or three times per week for 60 days, then one time per week after
that. He would not benefit from group therapy or substance abuse
treatment at this time.
2. My recommendation to the Nevada State Bar is not intended to usurp or
supercede anyones authority. Based on existing rule and law, the Bar
may very well have grounds to pursue disbarment. On the other hand, if
a suspension was effected with a prescribed course for rehabilitation, Mr.
Coughlin most certainly has the potential to serve the Bar and the
community. In my opinion, Mr. Coughlin is not competent to serve as an
attorney today due to his disregulated emotional state and continuing
mental health issues, but with adequate treatment may very well be
returned to competence in the future.
75
-2In June 2015, Mr. Coughlin contacted me and asked me to review his
progress. I explained that I could do so without further psychological testing, but I
would need a face-to-face interview, opportunity to review records, and permission
to contact treatment providers with respect to their clinical impressions.
On June 26, 2015 I met with Mr. Coughlin in my Reno office. He explained he
had remained in counseling through Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services
through December, 2014 while he was unemployed and largely homeless. In
January, 2015 he moved to San Diego where he obtained work as a painters
assistant. By then he had given up all forms of substance use. He lived out of his car
until he could establish subsistence. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
daily and with good participation. He applied for MediCal, and in April entered
counseling with Bill Martin, MFT on a twice weekly basis. He was also seen weekly
by Charlie Hoar, Ed.D., MFT. In June, MediCal rejected Mr. Coughlins use of two
therapists and Dr. Hoar withdrew.
In August, I conducted telephone interviews with Bill Martin, Charlie Hoar,
and Tim Coughlin, Mr. Coughlins father.
Mr. Martin was able to confirm Mr. Coughlins abstinence and his frequent AA
attendance. He was impressed with Mr. Coughlins consistency and persistence, and
perceived growth in multiple areas. He was able to document Mr. Coughlins
improved insight and commitment to change, which he attributed to Mr. Coughlins
abstinence from alcohol. Mr. Martin believes that Mr. Coughlins participation in AA
has been more beneficial than his counseling.
Dr. Hoar acknowledged her limited contacts with Mr. Coughlin. Dr. Hoars
approach to counseling is Dialectic Behavior Therapy with some Mindfulness
techniques. She incorporated AAs Twelve Step Program, but emphasized character
issues and personality growth. She, too, identified positive changes in Mr. Coughlin.
Finally, I had a pleasant but candid conversation with Mr. Coughlins father.
Although Reno is a relatively small community, and Dr. Coughlin has practiced here
as long as I have, I do not know the man personally, only by reputation. In my report
I described Mr. Coughlins frustration and disappointment with his father which had
lead to an extensive period of estrangement. Dr. Coughlin was open and frank, but
he, too, has been impressed with his sons commitment to take responsibility for his
actions as well as personal responsibility to make amends. Dr. Coughlin and his
family recently visited San Diego for a vacation. Dr. Coughlin was touched by his
sons openness and his ability to initiate emotion filled apologies to family members
he had injured in the past (his father; his step-mother; and his 16 year old stepsister).
76
-3Mr. Coughlin also supplied me with extensive medical and counseling

records. Those records document Mr. Coughlins substantial efforts to stay sober,
and his counseling participation.
In my view, Mr. Coughlin has followed my recommendations as well as
anyone could have given his limited resources. He left the area, got a day job, and
sought counseling. He attends AA meetings daily with a high degree of participation.
He has remained substance free, and has mended fences with friends and family. He
is healthier and happier than the young man I observed one year ago.
Among the people I interviewed, Mr. Coughlin has successfully formed a
network of support, encouragement, and acceptance, to which he has responded.
The year has been difficult for Mr. Coughlin, but he has successfully faced many
challenges without giving up.
Mr. Coughlin has asked if I continue to believe he is disabled, unable to
practice law. In my opinion, Mr. Coughlin has made sufficient progress that I no
longer believe he is disabled. Mr. Coughlin has also asked if I can support his
request for reinstatement to the Nevada Bar. While I have explained to Mr. Coughlin
that I have no authority to make such a decision, I do support his effort to seek
reinstatement.
In this short time the extent to which Mr. Coughlin has improved is
remarkable. If the Nevada Bar accepts his request for reinstatement, I would
strongly recommend a clearly structured probationary period to include random
alcohol and drug screenings; counseling reports every 90 days; and submission of
AA attendance records with a minimum of three meetings per week. Weekly
counseling sessions should be continued indefinitely.
I received a subpoena for records in July, but contacted your office to explain
that first, I have no actual medical records and second, I had not obtained the
information needed for this document, and therefore had nothing new to send. I
hope this response is sufficient, but if more is needed, please contact me. I will be
out of town from August 17-August 27. I believe his hearing is scheduled for the
morning of the 25th. If needed, I can be contacted by cell phone that morning
between 8:30 am and 10 am. My cell phone is (775)742-1259.
Respectfully Submitted,
Earl S. Nielsen, Ph.D.

77
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
78
79
80
81
82
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
83
SWORN DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

I, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. swear under
penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and
correct and based upon my own first-hand, personal knowledge and that all
documents attached to this filing are true and correct copies of what I purport them
to be. I declare under penalty of perjury that:
1. I was temporarily suspended indefinitely in NVSCT case 60838 on June
7th, 2012 incident to being convicted of shoplifting over the counter cough
an arrest of September 9th, 2011. I was found to have consumed two bottles worth
of DXM while shopping for groceries, and then failing to pay for such. DXM in
such quantities acts as a potent hallucinogenic or dissociative.
I had been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous and Lawyers
Concerned for Lawyers for many years (see Exhibit 8, letters of recommendation
by former Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Coordinator C. Coe Swobe, Esq. my
former sponsor, Kelly Testolin, Esq. from 2004) just prior to such arrest.
However, I was prescribed Adderall for ADHD during those years of
sobriety, and in retrospect, such does not appear to have been without significant
drawbacks.
- 1
84
In mid-August 2011 I was experiencing financial difficulties (incident to,

amongst other things, the dissolution of a four year domestic partnership that
included such partner failing to forward on to our landlord multiple months of the
rental contributions I had given her, despite such having been our established
practice)and became unable to afford two different medications I had taken for
years, Wellbuttrin (an antidepressant) and Adderall (prescribed to treat ADHD),
going off of each nearly overnight. See Exhibit 9, Certified Prescription History
Printout showing I abruptly ceased filing such medications at the time in question.
Such abrupt cessation of these medications resulted in a sudden and
dramatic depression which may have contributed to my relapsing on DXM cough
medication in the weeks that followed, but hardly excuses my being convicted of
shoplifting such substance. Regardless, I now recognize that the financial straits I
then found himself in were the result of my having alienated himself from friends,
family, his former legal aid employer, and others incident to his failing to continue
to work a program of recovery, but, rather, reverting to the thought processes,
behavior, and attitude so often characterized as a dry drunk.
Additionally, I now believe that my taking Adderall, even exactly as it was
prescribed to me, was significantly exacerbating the character defects that have
caused and or resulted from my history of substance abuse. As such, I gradually
ceased administration of Adderall upon consulting with his present psychiatrist,
- 2
85
Dr. Scott Bunner, MD. See Exhibit 10, Psychiatrist Bunners Progress Notes for
Coughlin of 4/2/15 and 5/1/15. I have remained off of Adderall since such time
and intend to remain so.
I have redoubled my recovery efforts over the last year. I believe being off of
Adderall has helped me get touch with the character defects that have been causing
me the interpersonal difficulties and dysfunctional behavior underlying my being
placed on disabled inactive status.
Particularly central to these recovery efforts, I believe, is admitting my
powerlessness over this condition, coming to believe that a higher power (I have
regularly attended church for the last year, volunteering and even playing the piano
for a church band) could restore me to sanity, making a decision to turn my will
and life over to such higher power, conducting a thorough personal inventory
identifying my character defects, sharing such inventory with my sponsors,
becoming willing to have such character defects removed, humbly asking my
higher power to so remove them, making a list of the persons I have harmed, then
making sincere efforts to make amends to such individuals, followed by continuing
to take a personal inventory on a daily basis, and engaging in meditation to
maintain a conscious contact with my higher power, while attempting to work with
others who have problems similar to mine in carrying the message of recovery to
them.
- 3
86
I have found that I can be quite petty, selfish, fearful, resentful, and otherwise
exhibiting character defects (such as refusing to responsibility for my actions or
shifting the blame to others) such that I need to make daily efforts to stay in a
positive frame of mind and remain a productive, useful member of society.
I continue to attempt to break out of the self-seeking approach to life that has
caused me so much discord by volunteering at church and in animal rescue efforts,
as well as by being a consistent and active participant in the fellowship activities
associated with twelve step recovery groups (including attending a three day The
Other Bar Spring Retreat aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach, CA, in April
2015) and Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers. See Exhibit 13, Various Letters of
Recommendation.
While I have not technically been required to complete any continuing legal
eduction (CLE) credits during the last 38 months that mylaw license has been
either temporarily suspended indefinitely or on disabled inactive status, I have
earned 122 credits of CLE in that time, compared to the 36 credits that would have
been required had my license then been active. See Exhibit 6, CLE Certificates of
Completion.
Lastly, I would like to express my deepest apologies for the negative light
my poor behavior and choices have cast on the legal profession, the resources such
has cost various courts, and the dismay such has brought to judges, opposing
- 4
87
counsel, my own counsel, court personnel, public employees, and private

individuals. This has been an enormously humbling and painful journey that has
brought me here, to a place of profound gratitude.
Petitioner
- 5
88
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
89
Bill Martin, MFT

Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist
MFC33939
1337 Camino Del Mar, Ste. E
205
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-755-2407
2525 Camino Del Rio S., Ste.

San Diego, CA 92108
619-686-9302
bill@shrink.tv
www.counselinq-connection.com
July 20, 2015

Office of Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
9456 Double R. Blvd., Ste. B
Reno, NV 89521
re: Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.
Dear Office of the Bar Counsel,
Enclosed is a copy of my file on Mr. Coughlin.
In summary, we have met 8 times to date (including the 4/29 intake
meeting). My DSM-5 Diagnoses:
309.0 Adjustment D/0 with Depressed Mood
303.90 Alcohol use D/0 Moderate, full remission
At this point, he reports a number of months totally clean and sober
and is more than just a beginner in recovery. Mr.Coughlin reports being
firmly dedicated to and involved with 12 Step Programs, principally AA.
He is a frequent meeting attender, has a sponsor, and is working the
steps. I am a big believer in the maturing and character building aspects
of the program. He appears to be benefiting and growing. My
recommendation is that he continue with active involvement with 12 Step
for life.
Ideally if funding was of no concern, psychotherapy could continue
for awhile to solidify gains with regard to depression, etc. However, I see
12-Step recovery as more important in Mr. Coughlin's case than
psychotherapy. With ongoing involvement in 12 Step recovery,
psychotherapy could discontinue or be on an "as needed" basis.
Bill C. Martin, MFT
90
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
91
Charlie Hoar, Ed.D, CADC II, CCGC I
7/22/15
Letter of Recommendation for
Zachary Coughlin.
Zachary asked if I would write in his behalf to the State Bar of Nevada and I am glad to do so.
As the documents I have forwarded to the State Bar have shown, I saw Zach as a therapy client over
June 3, 2015). He came because he wanted to be free
the course of about a month and a half ( April 30 --June
of depression and to have "peace of mind."
ed, self-disclosing, eager to learn about his weaknesses and to set about
I found him to be motivat
motivated,
correcting them. After several earlier attempts to maintain sobriety, he has thrown himself into the
fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous in the past several months, often attending 2 meetings a day while
working with painting company owned and operated by local AA member. He had been following the
- to obtain a
recommendations of Dr. Earl S. Nielsen of Reno, NV who initially evaluated him in 2014, -to
subsistence job and work on his recovery, and enter into therapy three times a week. Unfortunately,
because he was getting services from public sector MediCal, which only funds outpatient therapy once a
MediCal
Cal case manager to choose between seeing me or the other therapist (
week, he was asked by the Medi
whom he had been seeing simultaneously). He chose to continue with the other therapist
Zachary is a physically strong, hard working young man who has been performing diligently at his job,
glad to be earning a regular paycheck. He has been living frugally He has been working with an AA
sponsor.
He came to all his therapy appointments on time, open and willing to address some of his old unrealistic
beliefs. He was becoming more aware of how they may have hindered him in living an effective life.
I believe Zachary now sees that regular and continuous participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, working
with a sponsor in applying the 12 Steps to his daily life and decision making, and maintaining abstinence
from abused substances will be necessary to maintain the life changes that can go far in decreasing his
depression and isolation from others, and can increase his clarity and peace of mind.
The responsibility is his to continue on this course. Whatever the Nevada Bar sees fit to monitor in
support of his goal of reinstatement will only strengthen his course of recovery.
RespeC~fUIlY,
(JrUvW
J. U,
~
~ E'r &-41::
J ,U
.
Charlie Hoar
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
Certified Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Counselor
386 13th Street

Del Mar, CA 92014
By Appointment
Office: (858) 794-0546

Fax: (858) 7 64-0531 cell: 858
232 7788
92
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
93
8/20/2015
Online Continuing Legal Education for Attorneys - CLE | MCLE
8/20/2015
(/getCert.php?cert=1032810&action=download)

COURSE NAME
CERTIFIED STATE
CREDIT HOURS
CERTIFICATE DATE
ACTIONS
6 Steps to Improved Client Relationships and Communications
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
(#)
Behind the Cloud and How it Can Be Used in the Legal Industry
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
(#)
Business Valuation: Theory, Application, Controversies, Recent Developments & Errors

NEVADA (NV)
5.50
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
(#)
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy for the Non Bankruptcy Attorney

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Anatomy of a Financial Elder Abuse Case

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Cause Marketing: Special Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For Charities
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
Accounts Receivable Management for Lawyers

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Asset Protection Planning

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Choice of Entity
NEVADA (NV)
2.00
http://www.attorneycredits.com/userCerts.php?
8/20/2015
(#)
Basics of Entertainment Law

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
A Guide to IP Protection in the EU for U.S. Attorneys

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Bankruptcy Basics for the Non-Bankruptcy Lawyer

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
7 Steps for Legal Holds: Avoiding Malpractice and Jail!

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-16
(#)
Avoiding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims: An Expert's Perspective

NEVADA (NV)
3.00
Legal Ethics:3.00
2015-08-15
1/11
8/20/2015
2015-08-16
2/11
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses - Do You Want to Take This PI Case?
NEVADA (NV)
3.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Collections Law
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Common Issues When Licensing Intellectual Property

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
(#)
Ethics for Lawyers in the Cloud

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Conducting an Effective Deposition

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-14

NEVADA (NV)
2.50
2015-08-14
(#)
Elimination of Bias in the Legal System

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Ethics in a Web 2.0 World

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Digital Citizenship in Schools: From Policy to Practice

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)
Ethics of Cloud Computing

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
Federal Rule 26: Expert Reports

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
eDiscovery
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Eliminating Biases You Never Knew You Had

NEVADA (NV)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
Forensic Document Examination and The Law

3/11
(#)
94
4/11
8/20/2015
8/20/2015
NEVADA (NV)
3.50
2015-08-18
(#)
Fundamentals of Antitrust Litigation

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Substance Abuse:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)
(#)
5/11
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
Protecting Your Client Against Civil and Criminal Liability for Trust Taxes
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
2.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Personal Injury: Liability, Damages & Collectibility

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
Personal Injury: A Detailed Examination of Liability, Damages and Collectibility

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
Moving the Judge from Drudgery to Persuasion

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
Practical Ethics: Avoiding Trouble with Clients, Courts and the State Bar
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
Medical and Scientific Evidence Used in DUI and Drug Cases

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
6/11
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
8/20/2015
(#)
Litigation in the 21st Century

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Persuasion: The Dangers of Over-Aggressive Lawyering

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
(#)
Indian Gaming: Shared Sovereignty & Tribal Self-Government

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
Honesty is Best Policy: How Far Can You Go in Negotiations

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
8/20/2015

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
7/11
(#)
95
8/11
8/20/2015
8/20/2015
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
The Elimination of Bias & Promotion of Diversity in the Legal Profession

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-19
(#)
The Six Minute Closing: Selling Big Cases In Little Time

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
Tax Issues for Attorneys and Law Firms

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)
United States Taxation of Foreign Investors

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-19
(#)
The Anatomy of a DUI Case

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
(#)
(#)
Valuing a Business
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-19
8/20/2015
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
9/11
10/11

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)
When Bias Turns to Bullying: Strategies for Dealing with High Conflict People
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
(#)
(#)
(#)
Winning on Appeal
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
NEVADA (NV)
2.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-14
(#)
11/11
96
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
FOR
1.00 hrs
COURSE COMPLETION DATE:

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
PROVIDER: Attorney Credits

PROVIDER NUMBER: N/A
STATE COURSE NUMBER: 1242
1.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
FOR


BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473
FOR
NEVADA (NV) MCLE CREDIT
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
FOR
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: ACOA13-VD
08/16/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473

3.00 hrs
3.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
Business Valuation: Theory, Application, Controversies, Recent

Developments & Errors
Cause Marketing: Special Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For
Charities
Choice of Entity

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
FOR

3.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473



BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473



BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473



BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

FOR
Zachary Coughlin

eDiscovery
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473

FOR
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
2.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin

2.50 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/14/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR

FOR
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
5.50 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
Collections Law

TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0F12-VD
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses - Do You Want to Take This PI
Case?
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Avoiding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims: An Expert's

Perspective
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

FOR

FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/14/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473

FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
3.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473
TOTAL Hours:
Substance Abuse:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
FOR

Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

FOR
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0V12-VD
08/18/2015
9473


TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0T12-VD
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: ACOE13-VD
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0X12-VD
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin


Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

Personal Injury: A Detailed Examination of Liability, Damages and
Collectibility
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

FOR
Zachary Coughlin

1.00 hrs
08/14/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
08/18/2015
9473
Independent Contractor/Employee Distinctions: Help Clients (And Your

Firm) Minimize Liability

BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR


TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
2.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR


BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473


1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: C12AC0-VD
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: ACQJ12-VD
08/19/2015
9473
1.50 hrs
08/19/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Winning on Appeal
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
TOTAL Hours:
1.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: E12AC0-VD
08/19/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473


FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
TOTAL Hours:

FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: A12AC0-VD

1.00 hrs
08/19/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
Zachary Coughlin

1.50 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
Substance Abuse:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Substance Abuse:
FOR

TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
2.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473
97
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 7
98

" * #* '!* *

*
(* $*%&**

)
** *
PR>F2R)*,(6
#1(6.(6
$6 6

!6
6
26 %+/6-&36
,8)3"R

'6
GH#R
"4056
I+-ER=$@.;R
R
?I$RR*;J?D(K94
R

"%NR
IIMIQCR

% %@5R :;7%R
</6R%LA0IOR
B&!1'R

$%
#!%

99
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT 8
100
C. COE SWOBE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO, NEVADA 89509
December 9, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:

I first met and became involved with Zach Coughlin's recovery from alcohol and
drug abuse following his first meeting in Las Vegas with the Character and Fitness
Committee of the State Bar of Nevada. I observed him to be very intelligent and eager to
enter the practice of Jaw. He passed the Nevada Bar exam in July of 2001, the California
Bar in July of 2002, and the Federal Patent and Trademark Office Bar examination in
October of 2002. I also observed he had a serious problem with alcohol.
In September of 2002, the Character and Fitness Committee of the State Bar of
Nevada recommended to the Nevada Supreme Court that Zach Coughlin's admission into
the State Bar be placed on hold, pending further investigation.
Since September of 2002, I have been in frequent contact with Zach, either
personally or by telephone. In Las Vegas, he met with Robert Hunter, Ph.D. and Oliver
Ocskay, Ph.D. to deal with recovery issues, developing stress reduction techniques and
anger. He also attended weekly meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous while in Las Vegas.
In February of 2003, Zach moved back to Reno, where his parents reside,
continued his weekly meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and obtained an Alcoholics
Anonymous sponsor. In the early part of this year (2004), Zach began an even more
earnest attempt to live and demonstrate his recovery from the disease of alcohol and drug
abuse. He increased his attendance at A.A. meetings and his contacts and interaction
with other recovering alcoholics. Since April of 2004, he has collected signatures
verifying attendance at over 13 5 A.A. meetings and continues to meet weekly with his
A.A. sponsor. I have personally attended with him a weekly A.A. meeting practically
every week this year. 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 alcohol
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.
101
December 9, 2004
Page _2
Because of the above observations and conclusions, I hereby urge that Zach be
admitted to practice law in the State of Nevada.
'Very Sincerely,
(J
(1 _(!e,-<- .d __..,cltz--
c. Coe Swobe
CCS/kmf
102
103
104
105
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
106
Page: 1
ME D I C A L
COUGZAl
Patient: COUGHLIN, ZACH
RespPty:
DC!! 1422 E 9TH ST #2
RENO
Birth: 09 / 27/1976
,NV 89512
Prescriptions :
LastFill Rx#
E X P E N S E S
Pharmacy: SAVE MART PHARMACY #556
195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
RPh: TAYLOR, JACKIE/TOMMY
Date: 01 / 01/2008 TO 05 / 01 / 2012

Drug Name
01/30/08 6405827 BUDEPRION XL 300 MG

02/01/08 2401067 METHYLIN 20MG
03/01/08 6405827 BUDEPRION XL 300 MG
03/03 / 08 2401357 VYVANSE 70 MG
03/30/08 2401611 VYVANSE 70 MG
04 / 02/08 6413703 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
05 / 01/ 08 2401932 VYVANSE 70 MG
05/05 / 08 6416295 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
06/02/08 2402229 VYVANSE 70 MG
06 / 02/08 6416295 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
06 / 27 / 08 2402484 VYVANSE 70 MG
07/03/08 6416295 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
08 / 01/08 2402852 VYVANSE 70 MG
08 / 04 / 08 6422989 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
08/30 / 08 2403149 VYVANSE 70 MG
09/06/08 6422989 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
09 / 30/08 2403415 VYVANSE 70 MG
09 / 30 / 08 6422989 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
10/30/ 08 2403418 VYVANSE 70 MG
10 / 30/08 6430436 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
11 / 30/08 2403419 VYVANSE 70 MG
11/ 30/ 08 6430436 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
12/19/08 6434447 GUANFACINE lMG
12 / 28/08 2404354 VYVANSE 70 MG
12 / 28 / 08 6434452 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
01/24 / 09 2404356 VYVANSE 70 MG
01/24/09 6434452 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
02 / 17/09 6430436 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
02 / 18 / 09 2404355 VYVANSE 70 MG
03/18 / 09 2405234 VYVANSE 70 MG
03 / 18/09 6441680 GUANFACINE lMG
03/ 18 / 09 6441682 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
03/20 / 09 6441898 VIAGRA 50MG
04/17/09 2405236 VYVANSE 70 MG
05 / 04/09 6441682 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
05 / 18 / 09 2405237 VYVANSE 70 MG
06/05 / 09 6441682 BUPROPION 3 00 MG XL
06/13/09 2406368 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
07 / 17/09 2406369 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
07/17 / 09 6452048 BUPROPION 3 0 0 MG XL
08/11/09 2407073 VYVANSE 70 MG
08 / 11/09 64 52048 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
09 / 10/ 09 6456472 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
10 / 16 / 09 2407500 VYVANSE 70 MG
1 0 /16/ 0 9 6456472 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
11/ 15/09 2407501 VYVANSE 70 MG
11/23/ 09 6463678 BUPROPION 150MG SR
12/31/0 9 6463678 BUPROPION 150MG SR
01 / 17/10 6468474 OMEPRAZOLE 20MG
01/ 22 / 10 2409075 AMPHETAMINE 20MG
02/02 / 10 6463678 BUPROPION 1 5 0MG SR
Qty Physician Name
T/P
Price
30 Dr . RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
3 0 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
5 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
3 0 Dr . RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.COUGHLIN
90 Dr . RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
CPB
25.00
22 . 23
25.00
25 . 00
25 . 00
25 . 00
25 . 00
25 . 00
25 . 00
25.00
25.00
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
25.00
25 . 00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25 . 00
25.00
25 . 00
25.00
25.00
5 . 00
25.00
25 . 00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5 . 00
25.00
73 . 41
25.00
25.00
160.48
92. 7 2
52.68
52.68
25.00
25 . 00
25.00
25.00
25 . 00
25.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
34.67
5 . 00
107
RPh
JWH
TZ2
JT5
JH2
JH5
JT3
JH3
JTl
JT3
JT3
JT6
JT4
K06
TZ7
TZ5
JT6
KC2
KC2
JRT
JTl
JT6
JT6
JT3
JT4
JT8
TZ5
TZ5
JT5
TZ5
TZ2
JT3
JT3
TZ5
JT8
MVB
JRT
TNZ
TNZ
JT9
JG6
JG3
JTl
JT5
JG5
JG5
JG6
JTl
JG5
JT5
JG3
JG3
,L
Pharmacy:
NV 895 12
Date:
JD_ Namo
Report Date: 05101120 12
SAVE MART PHARMACY 11556

105 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
RPh: TAYLOR. JACKIEfTOMM Y
01 /0 1/2000
Qty Physician Namo
) ,.
AMINE 20MG
)210.c..
,PION 150MG SR
)2119/1v .
,{ALL XR 30MG
)2/24110 611,
.)CLOPRAM 5MG
)3/18/10 64721:tv { "'MPRAL 333MG
03/19/10 6474257 BUPROPION 150MG SR
03/20/10 2409769 ADDERALL XR 30MG
04/1 9/10 6474257 BUPROPION 150MG SR
04/21/ 10 2409770 AODERA LL XR 30MG
0 5/22110 240977 1 ADDERALL XR 30MG
06/03/10 6474257 BUPROPION 150MG SR
06/17/10 2410853 ADOERALL XR 30MG
07/121 10 6484763 BUPROPION 150MG SR
08/02/10 2411 503 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
09/02/ 10 2411 881 AM PHETAMINE 30MG
10/02/ 10 2411974 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
10/06/10 64925 11\ BUPROPION 75MG
11/01/1 0 21111973 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
12102/10 21112940 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
12/02/10 648981 6 BUPROPION 150MG SR
12/18110 2413141 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
12/23/10 6 48981 6 BUPROPION 150MG SR
0 1/31111 24 13142AMPHETAMINE 30MG
01/3 1/ 11 6489816 BUPROPION 150MG SR
03/03/11 2413 143 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
03/03/11 6505746 BUPROPION 150MG SR
04/0 4/11 24 1314'1 AM PHETAMINE 30MG
04/011/11 6505746 BUPROPION 150MG SR
0 4/22111 2114647 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
0 5/21/11 65 11008 BUPROPION 150MG SR
0 6/03/11 24 14644 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
0 6/25/1 1 6511008 BUPROPION 150MG SR
06/29/11 2414645 AMPHETAM INE 30MG
09/ 12/11 2416340 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
10/13/11 2416349 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
11/ 17/ 11 241 6350 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
12/26/11 241635 1 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
01126/12 21\179 15 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
02127/12 2'11 7919 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
04/02/ 12 2417920 AMPHETAM INE 30MG
04/28/12 652 192'1 BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
Attoclod To By:
Pago:
E XP E N SES
90 Or.RASUL
60 Or.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
40 Dr.PARROTT APN
180 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RA SUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Or.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RA SUL
60 Or.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Or.RA SUL
60 Or.RA SUL
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
120 Or.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Or.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YA SAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Or.YASAR
60 Or.YA SAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Or.YASAR
60 Or.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr. YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 g r:YASAR
60 r.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
TO 05/0 1/20 12
T/P
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
Prlco
RPh
34.67
5.00
15.00
4.87
25.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
32.95
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.t16
32.95
32.46
26.79
37.39
32.05
37.39
26.79
36.89
20.23
45.46
60.00
60.00
60.00
69. 19
69. 19
69. 19
6 1.01
JG3
JG3
JG6
JG3
JG3
JT5
LB6
Jl5
AAF
JMG
ZM4
JT4
LB1
JG5
JT4
LB4
JG 1
JT6
G 13
JG1
G 13
JG4
JT8
JT 8
ZM6
J13
JT6
JT6
JG3
JT5
JT6
ZM2
ZM4
MMO
2 11
MM7
JT5
MM4
JT7
MM7
BBS
$2.729.34
D ,rn," I M,S
oaS'k~~,"
108
MEDICAL
atlent:
:ospPty:
COUGZA 1
COUGHLIN, ZACH
Pharmacy:
DC'.'. 1422 E 9TH ST #2

Birth:
RENO
09/27/1970
NV 89512
>roscriptlons:
.astFIII Rx #
Dato:
Drug Namo
11/27/07 2400458 METHYLIN 20MG

12/27/07 24007 14 VYVANSE 70 MG
)1/30/08 6405827 BUDEPRION XL 300 MG
)2/01/08 2401067 METHYLIN 20MG
)3/01/08 6405827 BUOEPRION XL 300 MG
)3/03108 240 1357 VYVANSE 70 MG
:)3/30/08 2401611 VYVANSE 70 MG
04/02/08 6413703 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
05101/08 2401932 VYVANSE 70 MG
05/05/08 64 16295 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
06/02/08 2402229 VYVANSE 70 MG
06/02/08 641 6295 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
06/27108 2402484 VYVANSE 70 MG
07103/08 6416295 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
08/0 1108 2402852 VYVANSE 70 MG
08/04/08 6422989 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
08130/08 2403149 VYVANSE 70 MG
09/06108 6422989 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
09/30/08 2403415 VYVANSE 70 MG
09130108 6422989 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
10/30/08 24034 18 VYVANSE 70 MG
10130/08 6430436 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
11/30/08 24034 19 VYVANSE 70 MG
11/30/08 64301136 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
12/19/08 64311447 GUANFACINE 1MG
12/28108 240113511 VYVANSE 70 MG
12/28/08 643111152 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
01/211109 24011356 VYVANSE 70 MG
011211/09 6113111152 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
02117/09 6430436 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
02/18109 211011355 VYVANSE 70 MG
03/18100 21105234 VYVANSE 70 MG
03118109 64111680 GUANFACINE 1MG
03118/09 6 4111682 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
03120/09 644 1898 VIAGRA 50MG
04117/09 2405236 VYVANSE 70 MG
05/04109 64111682 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
05118/09 2405237 VYVANSE 70 MO
06/05/09 64111682 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
06/13/09 2406368 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
07/17109 2406369AMPHETAMINE 30MG
07/17/09 6452048 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
08/11109 2407073 VYVANSE 70 MG
08/11/09 6452048 BUPROPION 300 MG XI.
09/10109 64661172 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
10/16/09 2407500 VYVANSE 70 MG
10/16109 6456472 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
11115/09 2407501 VYVANSE 70 MG
11/23109 6463678 BUPROPION 150MG SR
12131/09 6463678 BUPROPION 150MG SR
01/17/10 611684711 OMEPRAZOLE 20MG
Pago:
EXPENSES
SAVE MART PHARMACY #556
195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
RPh:
TAYLOR. JACKIEffOMMY
01/0112000
Qty Physician Namo

60 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
60 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RA SUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RA SUL
00 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.RA SUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RA SUL
60 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
50r.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
60 Or.RASUL
60 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RASUi.
30 Or.RASUL
30 Dr.RA SUL
30 Or.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Or.RASUL
60 Dr.COUGHLIN
TO 05/01/201 2
TIP
OPU
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPS
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
Price
RPh
22.23
JH 1
JT3
JWH
TZ2
JT5
JH2
Jl-15
JT3
JH3
JT 1
JT3
JT3
JT6
JT4
K06
TZ7
TZ5
JT6
KC2
KC2
JRT
JT1
JT6
JT6
JT3
JT4
JT8
TZ5
TZ5
JT5
TZG
TZ2
JT3
JT3
TZ5
JT8
MVB
JRT
TNZ
TNZ
JT9
JG6
JG3
JT1
JT5
JG5
JG5
JG6
JT 1
JG5
JT5
25.00
22.23
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
26.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
73.41
25.00
25.00
160.48
92.72
52.68
52.68
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
109
Page: 2
MEDICAL
E X P E N S E S
COUGZAl
RespPty:
DC!! 1422 E 9TH ST #2
RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976

195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
,NV 89512
Prescriptions:
Date: 01/01/2008 TO 05/01/2012
LastFill Rx#
Drug Name
Qty Physician Name
T/P
Price
RPh
02/19/10
02/24/10
03/18/10
03/19/10
03/20/10
04/19/10
04/21/10
05/22/10
06/03/10
06/17/10
07/12/10
08/02/10
09/02/10
10/02/10
10/06/10
11/01/10
12/02/10
12/02/10
12/18/10
12/23/10
01/31/11
01/31/11
03/03/11
03/03/11
0 4 /04/11
04/04/11
04/22/11
05/21/11
06/03/11
06/25/11
06/29/ 11
09/12/11
10/13/11
11/17/11
12/26/11
01/26/12
02/27/12
04/02/12
04/28/12
ADDERALL XR 30MG
METOCLOPRAM 5MG
CAMPRAL 333MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
ADDERALL XR 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 75MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION lSOMG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
60
40
180
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
120
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
15.00
4.87
25.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
32.95
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
26.79
37.39
32 . 95
37.39
26.79
36.89
20.23
45.46
60.00
60.00
60.00
69.19
69.19
69 .1 9
61. 01
JG6
JG3
JG3
JT5
2409405
6471901
6472900
6474257
2409769
6474257
2409770
2409771
6474257
2410853
6484763
2411503
2411881
2411974
6492514
2411973
2412940
6489816
2413141
6489816
2413142
6489816
2413143
6505746
2413144
6505746
2414647
6511008
2414644
6511008
2414645
2416340
2416349
2416350
2416351
2417915
2417919
2417920
6521924
Report Date: 05/01/2012
Dr.RASUL
Dr.PARROTT APN
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
$2,707.11
Attested To By:
110
LB6
Jl5
AAF
JMG
ZM4
JT4
LBl
JG5
JT4
LB4
JGl
JT6
G13
JGl
G13
JG4
JT8
JT8
ZM6
Jl3
JT6
JT6
JG3
JT5
JT6
ZM2
ZM4
MM8
Zll
MM7
JT5
MM4
JT7
MM7
BBS
EXHIBIT 10
EXHIBIT 10
111
Individual Progress Note (04/02/2015)
Form#:
Unit:
SubUnit:
Server:
Supervisor:
Service:
Lab:
3663691
Date: 04/02/2015
CO NORTH CENTRAL CLINIC

CO NORTH CENTRAL CLINIC
BUNNER, scon (00037)
MED CHECK MD BRIEF 23
Client
Provided To:
Outside Facility:
Appointment Type: Scheduled
NOT APPLICABLE
Intensity Type:
Start
Service:
Travel:
Documentation:
Duration
0:14
0:05
Total Server Time: 0 Hours, 19 Minutes

Participants:
Days: 0
Quantity: 0
Provided At: Office

Contact Type: Face to Face
Billing Type: Not Applicable
Progress Note
/MED/CA TiON PROGRESS NOTE:
11120/1121
!CURRENT CONDITION (complaints, symptoms, appearance, cognitive capacity, changes from

previous visits, potential for harm, precipitators, strengths):
1He has been off addera/1 for a week and wants to stay off it. He thinks it makes him too aggressive
jand he wants to just try wellbutrin. He is living in his RV and works part time in an auto body shop so
jhe can pay for gas. He works out 5 days per week and has food stamps. He goes to daily sobriety
!meetings and has a sponsor. He also sees friends outside of meetings. He is trying to get an
vntemship with a lawyer in town. He might want counseling in the future partly because he thinks it
'r7ight help him get his law license back and partly because he thinks it would help him but he
[doesn't know what to work on in counseling. He lost his MediCa/ and is trying to get it back since he
lwas transferring it from Santa Barbara.
[PHYSICAL HEAL TH (changes to non-psychotropic medication, changes in health status,
!medication interactions, medical referrals):
inone new
!CURRENT SUBSTANCE USE:
inod,a,s
!THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION (response to treatment):
~ood
MENTAL STATUS EXAM (include current or changes to the MSE):
'!Mood is mildly depressed, anxious; affect is restricted. No SI, AH or paranoia. thoughts are goal
direct. He is casually dressed.
!RESPONSE TO MED/CATION (include effectiveness/compliance):
~ood
!CURRENT MED/CAT/ON CHANGES (indicate reason for change such as critical decision points
~ndicates change, diagnosis change, symptoms worse/lack of progress, client preference, side
ieffects intolerable):
in one
[PLAN OF CARE (include diagnostic exam, lab tests, target symptoms, psychotherapeutic needs,
!progress on recovery/resiliency goals):
irtc 4 weeks MD
!OTHER INFORMATION: mors 5
I.
112
Obj: 1.1.1 Complete Treatment as Planned
Name: BUNNER,
scan (00037), MD 155
Electronic
Date: 04/02/2015
Electronically Signed
Date:
Time:
N/A
113
''
UnPlanned Individual Progress Note (05/01/2015)
Service:
Travel:
Documentation:
I
I
Unit:
SubUnit:
Server:
Supervisor:
Service:
Lab:
CO NORTH CENTRAL CLINIC (A)I

CO NORTH CENTRAL CLINIC (A)!
BUNNER, SCOTT (00037)
MEDS EM EXPANDED LOW 26
0:05

Participants:
Days: 0
Quantity: 0
Client
Provided To:
Outside Facility:
NOT APPLICABLE
Intensity Type:
Provided At: Office

Progress Note
jD!AGNOSIS (include rule out(sffnclucTe.status: improved,
{nadequate/y controlled, worsening, or failing to change as expected):
1112011121
:dx- 296.35 stable
:CHIEF COMPLAINT:
!He is stable on the wellbutrin and thinks he is doing fine off adderall. He brought in left over adderall
lhe states he had for us to dispose of He has been working 3 weeks in cabinet making and hopes
ito keep the job. He is still tryin to work with the Nevada bar about his law license. He asked for
'vnultiple pieces of documentation for them and I told him he would need to give us something in
!writing from them stating the specific request.
IHI STORY (brief history of present illness, problem pertinent system review, associated
!signs/symptoms):
:He hopes to eventually get off wellbutrin but doesn't want to do it now.
/PSYCH/A TRIG EXAM: (description of speech, thought process, associations, abnormal or

,psychotic thoughts, judgment and insight, MSE, SI/HI, etc):
Mood is mildly depressed, anxious;affect is restricted. No SI, AH or paranoia. Thoughts are goal
!direct. Speech is regular.
'
!PHYSICAL HEAL TH (changes to non-psychotropic medication, changes in health status,

riedication interactions, medicat referrals):
ir,one new
CURRENT SUBSTANCE USE:
r,o d,a, s
RESPONSE TO MED/CA T!ON (include effectivness/compliance):

igood
114
')

!CURRENT MED/CATION CHANGES (indicate reason for change such as critical decision points,
!diagnosis change, symptoms worse/lack of progress, client preference, side-effects intolerable):
rone
I
IPLAN OF CARE: (include diagnostic exam, lab tests, target symptoms, psychoterapeutic needs,
progress on recove_rylresi/iency goals):
. .
Irle 12 weeks MD wt/I refer out to pep or hea/thplan psych,atnst at next appt.
I
;OTHER INFORMATION:
rr,ors 6
L-~~
Name: BUNNER, SCOTT (00037), MD 155
Date: 05/01 /2015
Time:
Electronic
Electronically Signed
Name:
Date:
N/A
115
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 11
116
8/19/2015
Print
Outlook.comPrintMessage
Close
NinthStepAmends
From: ZachCoughlin(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sun7/12/154:03PM
To: bhahn@da.washoecounty.us(bhahn@da.washoecounty.us)mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
(mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us)astege@da.washoecounty.us
(astege@da.washoecounty.us)zyoung@da.washoecounty.us(zyoung@da.washoecounty.us)
telcano@da.washoecounty.us(telcano@da.washoecounty.us)jgoodnight@washoecounty.us
(jgoodnight@washoecounty.us)mcovington@da.washoecounty.us
(mcovington@da.washoecounty.us)enovak@washoecounty.us(enovak@washoecounty.us)
jbosler@washoecounty.us(jbosler@washoecounty.us)jleslie@washoecounty.us
(jleslie@washoecounty.us)wongd@reno.gov(wongd@reno.gov)drakej@reno.gov
(drakej@reno.gov)sooudib@reno.gov(sooudib@reno.gov)HAZLETT
STEVENSC@RENO.GOV(hazlettstevensc@reno.gov)robertsp@reno.gov
(robertsp@reno.gov)ormaasa@reno.gov(ormaasa@reno.gov)kadlicj@reno.gov
(kadlicj@reno.gov)bdogan@washoecounty.us(bdogan@washoecounty.us)
lstuchell@washoecounty.us(lstuchell@washoecounty.us)julie.wise@washoecourts.us
(julie.wise@washoecourts.us)Joey.hastings@washoecourts.us
(joey.hastings@washoecourts.us)michelle.purdy@washoecourts.us
(michelle.purdy@washoecourts.us)jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us
(jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us)patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com
(patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com)glennm@nvbar.org(glennm@nvbar.org)
rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com(rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com)jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
(jgarin@lipsonneilson.com)csternlicht@washoelegalservices.org
(csternlicht@washoelegalservices.org)jsasser@washoelegalservices.org
(jsasser@washoelegalservices.org)pelcano@washoelegalservices.org
(pelcano@washoelegalservices.org)ksabo@washoelegalservices.org
(ksabo@washoelegalservices.org)mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org
(mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org)mashley@washoelegalservices.org
(mashley@washoelegalservices.org)dpringle@washoelegalservices.org
(dpringle@washoelegalservices.org)mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net
(mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net)hsotelo@tmcc.edu(hsotelo@tmcc.edu)
rharrison@washoelegalservices.org(rharrison@washoelegalservices.org)
cbaker@geherenlaw.com(cbaker@geherenlaw.com)msexton@washoecounty.us
(msexton@washoecounty.us)jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
(jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us)christensend@reno.gov(christensend@reno.gov)
fflaherty@dlpfd.com(fflaherty@dlpfd.com)
DearCounsel,
Iamwritingtomakeamendsformypoorbehaviortowardsyoutotheextentthatis
possible.IamverysorryforhowIbehaved.Iwasnotwellandfeelaconsiderableamount
ofshameandregretformyactions.PleaseletmeknowwhatIcandotomakethingsright,
117
https://bay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=enus
1/2
8/19/2015
ifpossible.Ihavemuchrespectforeachofyou.
Sincerely,
ZacharyBarkerCoughlin,Esq.
945W.12thSt.,Reno,NV,89503
TeleandFax:9496677402ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevadalawlicensecurrentlyinactive
118
2/2
8/20/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: rhill@richardhillaw.com(rhill@richardhillaw.com)cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
(cdbaker@richardhillaw.com)magunda@aol.com(magunda@aol.com)
DearDr.Merliss,Mr.Hill,andMr.Baker,
Sincerely
119
1/1
8/20/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: schornsby@nvdetr.org(schornsby@nvdetr.org)skent@skentlaw.com
(skent@skentlaw.com)mike@tahoelawyer.com(mike@tahoelawyer.com)
cvellis@bhfs.com(cvellis@bhfs.com)je@eloreno.com(je@eloreno.com)
tsusich@nvdetr.org(tsusich@nvdetr.org)nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net
(nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net)
DearCounsel,
Sincerely,
Nevadalawlicensecurrentlyondisabledinactivestatus
120
1/1
8/20/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net(springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net)
smeador@woodburnandwedge.com(smeador@woodburnandwedge.com)
kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com(kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com)toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net
(toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net)JProctor@mbareno.com(jproctor@mbareno.com)
info@springgatelaw.com(info@springgatelaw.com)linda.gardner@washoecourts.us
(linda.gardner@washoecourts.us)
DearCounsel,
Sincerely,
121
1/1
EXHIBIT 12
EXHIBIT 12
122
I ~-~~~ --------~~
I ~~
123
124
125
EXHIBIT 13
EXHIBIT 13
126
Moira S. Brennan, Esq.

11285 Manzanita Road
Lakeside, California 92040
(619) 895-2589
mbrennan34@cox.net
August 11, 2015
of Nevada
State Bar of'Nevada
Charleston
3100 W. C
harleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las
Uts Vegas, NV
NY 89102
Re:
Re:
Zach Coughlin Petition for Reinstatement
To Whom it May Concern:

I am an attorney licenced in California in good standing since 2006. 1I am also the point of
contact for the Other Bar in the San Diego area, a California state-wide organization of law students,
lawyers, judges, and other legal pro
professionals
substance
fessionals supporting each other in recovery from sub
stance
area as I
abuse. In this capacity, I also attend weekly ~eetings
meetings of the Other Bar in the San Diego arca
have done for the past 12 years when rI commenced law school.
school.
Ir have known Zach Coughlin through my involvement with the Other Bar where he has
attended oour
ur weekly meetings on numerous occasions. During the course my interactions with
Zach Coughlin, I have never doubted his sincerity in fully applying himself to making the necessary
necessaty
changes in his life. He has been forthright and honest with all members of our group, and Ir have
entertained the thought that he was not stable in his present commitment to recovery. Rather,
never ente.rtained
Mr. Coughlin has demonstrated insight into his recovery and acquired knowledge to prevent
recurrence of some past poor
pOOl' decisions. He has consistently maintained his commitment to overall
ove.call
mental and physical health,
healdl, despite the challenges in his life.
1I have no reservations
re.<;Clvations about endorsing Mr. Coughlin's character and his reinstatement.
Sincerely yours,
Moira S. Brennan
127
/,t ~, THE LAW OFFICE OF ;\.t ~\

DAMIAN SINNOTT ~..L~
.,.;.,L~
Damian Sinnott
576 Ridge Street
Reno, Nevada 8950
89501I
(775) 376-8378
dsinnott.esq@gmail.com
August 21, 2015

State Bar of Nevada
3100
100
3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Re: Zach Coughlin Petition for Reinstatement

1I have lived in Northern Nevada most of my life. My wife and I have lived in Reno for the past 6 years
and just started a family here. I am a practicing attorney licensed both here and in California.
andjust
CaJifomia. Currently,
I work for the Lyon County District
Di strict Attorney's
Attorney ' s Office as a Deputy District Attorney; I( have been so
employed for almost 4 years. I am a proud member of AA and have been sober for over 3 years. Coe
Swobe introduced me to the program. My current employment and familial relationships are only
possible because I am sober. IJ take my sobriety very seriously.
fLfSt started in recovery. I believe at that time Zach was already in some legal
Zach and I met when I first
trouble, but 1I was not sure exactly what was going on. Over the course of the next three years, I got to
know a bit more about Zach' s story and his addiction issues.
While IJ have seen 2ach
Zach in meetings and talked to him on and off over the years, I have recently seen an
ameliorative
change.in him. Now I see someone who is taking responsibility
incredible ameli
orative change'
responsi bility for his actions,
someone attempting to change himself for the better, someone taking positive steps to get a handle on all
facets of his life.
As an attorney in Nevada, I feel confident that lach
Zach would be an upstanding member of the Nevada Bar.
He has many attributes that lend themselves to being a great attorney. I have reviewed some of
ofZach's
Zach's
legal work, including that done on his own behalf during the time his law license was temporarily
suspended or on disability inactive status, and I feel strongly that his disability has been removed and
that he
oflaw
be is now fit to resume the practice of
law without any further demonstration of his competency or
learning in the law. As a recovering alcoholic myself, ]I am confident that Zach is committed to his
Zach's friend,
frie nd, ]I am happy that he
recovery. This is evidenced by his continued dedication to sobriety. As 2ach's
is getting a handle on his addiction problems. Ir have seen and heard the change in his attitude and his
outlook.
outl
ook..
recommend reinstatement in the Nevada Bar Association for lach

Zach Coughlin. Feel free to
1I highly reconunend
contact me for more information or with any questions.
s7 U
Si~
Damian Sinnott,
Sirmott, Esq.
128
775-201-0278
Carly Coughlin
p.1
Coughlin Vocational Counseling

Carly N. Coughlin, MS, CRC
4790
4 790 Caughlin Parkway Suite 3379
79
Reno, NV 89519
August 17,2015
R.e:
Re: Zachary Barker Coughlin
I am related to Mr. Coughlin. I have known Mr. Coughlin for 39 years. I would recommend Mr.
Coughlin be re-instated for the practice of law without reservation. Mr. Coughlin would be an
asset to the workforce. He has recently exhibited a great deal of insight into his past mistakes
and it does not appear as though Mr. Coughlin shall repeat those mistakes in the future. Mr.
Coughlin is a younger individual who will benefit society by returning to the workforce.
au
{!u
Carly
129
August
9,, 2015
August 119
20 1 5
State Bar
Bar of
of Nevada
Nevada
State
3100 W.
W. Charles
Charleston
Blvd.,
., Suite
Suite 100
100
3100
t on Blvd
Las
Vegas
,
NV
89102
Las Vegas , NV 89 1 02
SUBJECT :: Zach
Zach Coughlin
Coughlin Petition
Petition for
for Reinstatement
Reinstatement
SUBJECT
To Whom
Whom it
it May
May Concern
Concern :
To
My
My name
name is
is Lt . Theresa Donnelly
Donnelly , and
and II ' m a public affairs
affairs
in the
the U.S
U. S . Navy
Navy . My
My duties
duties , among others,
others , are to
to
officer in
Navy ' s
provide counsel to senior p r incipals regarding the Navy
messagi n g for military operations and humanitarian relief
messaging
efforts. As a paid communicator , I must make critical decisions
r egarding one ' s intent
inte n t and motivat
mot i vation
regarding
i on when interacting with
others.
I have known Zach Coughlin since December 2014 when I met
sensed
him in a recovery program . From the start , I sen
sed a kindred
oveEcoming setbacks.
soul and like myself dedicated to overcoming
setbacks . He ' s
demonstrated himself as a supportive friend , a trusted adviser ,
and his potential
potential and growth has been amazing to witness . I ' m
fully
fu l ly confident
con fident he ' s committed to making substantial changes in
his life and will one day make a profound contribution tto
o the
lega
l community . As a testament to his character , he helped me
legal
with my special needs dog accompanying me on numerous medica
l
medical
appointments and assisting with a physical therapy
the r apy program for
him.
him . He is the person
p erson I turn to when
wh e n I need a supportive ear ,
and I know he ' s tthere
h ere for me in my
my times of need .
I have
have complete faith
faith and
and conf
con f idence
idence in Mr.
Mr . Coughlin ' s
character and judgment. If
If you
you have
have additional questions
questio n s ,, I can
be
rea
ched
at
(808)
388
3423
.
be reached
(808) - 388 Sincerely
Sincerely,,
~~~~
~~l~~d
Theresa Donnelly
c::==J'
Public
Public Affairs
Affairs Officer
Officer
United
United States
States Navy
Navy
130
08-19-'15 09:02 FROM- RenoFamilyPhys
7758515710
T-272 P0002/0002 F-833
Reno Family Physicians

August 17, 2015
RE: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY
Dear Sir:
I am Zacfl's father and a fonner medical director of St. Mary's Chemical Dependency Program. I have
been very active in Nevada's Impaired Physicians Program for over 35 years.
Zack was a complete straight arrow throughout his high school years. He was a National Merit Finalist,
an Allstate in basketball as well as player of the year in the Northern AAA. He also made the law
. review while he was in law school.
Unfortunately, he developed an addiction to alcohol and drugs. He has paid a tremendous price for his
addiction. He has lost over 10 years of his life a11d has alienated himself from his family and his peers.
I feel strongly that he is now sincere in his desire to change his life and to Jive soberly. He has been .
very active in AA and I feel as though we finally have the old Zack back
He has dug himself a tremendous hole, but he is sincerely trying to rebuild his life. I have been to
multiple AA meetings with him and I have had contact with him on an almost daily basis. I know he is
remorseful and is willing to do whatever the Nevada Bar may ask of him. I feel strongly that he is worth
saving.
Sincercily yours,
,~;tl,n.
Timothy D. Coughlin, M.D.

TDC!ag
7111 South Virginia Street Reno, Nevada 89511

775-851-5700 Fax 775-851-5710
131
..
BERNARD M. HANSEN
Attorney at Law
3465 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92108-3905
283-337 1
(619) 283-3371
bernardmhansen@sbcglobal.net
bemardmhansen@sbcglobal.net
August 13, 2015

State
Sl'ate Bar of Nevada
3100 '1./.
W. Charleston Blvd., Suite
Su ite 100
Y"gas. NV
NY 89102
Las Vegas,
Re: Petition for Reinstatement by Zach Coughlin
Dear S
ir or Madam:
Sir
Since 2009, I have regularly attended the Other Bar Tuesday Night Meeting in
San Diego. The Other Bar is a network of recovering lawyers and judges throughout the
State, dedicated to assisting others within the profession who are suffering from alcohol
and substance abuse problems.
bli ndly believe that a new atltendee
attendee
Perhaps II have become too jaded, but II do not blindly
ieller of
at our meeting is without secondary motives. This includes trying to finagle a letter
suppo1t.
SUppoI1. When II met Zach at the beginning of this year at the Tuesday night meeting,
meet ing, II
placed him in the same category as all other newcomers - why is he really here?
Zack over the months, it became apparent that the message of the
As I listened to lack
psycho logically healthy life was permeating into his brain. When he shared,
need to live a psychologically
v.rrestli ng with and what he was doing
do ing to
he gave specific examples of issues he was wrestling
cope.
However, one never knows what another is truly thinking. Then, I saw Zack
lack at
"I2-step meetings around town. Meetings where there could be no temptation to
other 12-step
lach was there because he wanted (and
lener of support. Zach
solicit any member for a letter
needed) to be there.
there .
lack leads me to believe that he can be a caring and
My personal experience with Zack
on his
shou ld look kindly o,n
effective advocate for others and this Honorable Bar should
application for reinstatement.
Truly yours,
B~~ ~
BMHI
BMH/
132
HEITING & IRWIN

JAMES orro
OTTO HEITlNG
HEITING"
RICHARDH.
..
IRWIN
RICHARD H. IRWIN
5885 BROCKTON A VENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
(951)
(95 I) 682-6400
FAX
(951)
f AX (95
I) 682-4072
JOSHUA CA
TES, of
cou,uef
CATES.
oJcourucf
JEAN-SIMON SERRANO
SARA B. MORGAN
DENNIS R STOUT
KEITH PILAT,
AITORNEYS'
ATTORNEYS' INVESTIGATOR
O
o IF CHECKED,
CHECKED. RESPOND TO
TO
PO.
BOX I
P
D. 80X
WRJGHTWOOD, CA 92397
WRIGHTWOOD,
(760) 249-9000
A PROFESSIONAL LAW
LA W CORPORATION
CERTIFIED
CERTIFIED WORKERS' COMP,
COMP. SPECIALIST
July 15, 2015
Zachcouqhlin@hotmail.com
Zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Zach Coughlin
Dear Zach:
I am in receipt of your email of June 9. Sorry it has taken me this long to respond to it.
I am sorry to read of your troubles; but I am very happy to read of your current sobriety and
recovery.
I would be happy to stand by to assist, if I can; and I think you should join the LAP program.
program.
However, I do believe you will have to take the bar examination. That, of course, would be up to
Bar.
the State Bar.
Best regards,
~
.
1'''''
JAM S OTTO HEITING
JOH:gsa
133
8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB: 9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
134
135

reinstatement.

136
WILLIAM M. HENRICH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4849 RONSON COURT, SUITE 118

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
(858) 576-4484
August 10, 2015
To whom it may concern:

I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice law in the state of California since
1976. My State Bar number is 71177.
I have known Zach Coughlin for approximately a year. Over that year, I have
personally witnessed Zach come to terms with his personal and professional condition,
from the courage of his disclosures to me and others to his extraordinary growth in selfawareness for a man of his age. His rapid personal progress is evident by his
increasingly favorable (and thus more realistic) view of himself as a man, balanced with a
mature humility with others despite his high level of intelligence.
At all times, Zach has been honest about himself and with others, and his integrity
has not been questioned by me or anyone I know who knows him. I would have no
problem associating Zach as co-counsel or trusting him with client confidences should the
occasion arise. My regret, generally shared, is that Zach is a Nevadan at heart, and your
Bar's gain will be our loss.
Please feel free to contact me by telephone or letter.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed in San Diego, CA.
William M. Henrich
137
JOI-IN .J ..KADLIC
/\ TIOKNt:v
Ar
LAW
Tl:.l.lJPHONE
l3ox 2477
RJJN(), NEVADA 89505
PosT Or:r-JCE
(775) 322-7099
FAX
(775) 322-7511
December 9, 2004
To Whom Tt May Coocem:
I am writing this letter on behalf ofZack Coughlin who is seeking admission to the State Bar of
Nevada.
In my case, I have known Zack Coughlin for over fifteen years. His father, Tim Coughlin, as well
being our family physician. is the godfather and his wife is the godmother of my daughter, Blair who
is now fourteen years old.
I have had a chance to watch Zack through \us high school years and his entering college. He was
both a excellent student as well as a fine athletic. Twas very pleased when he choose to enter law
school.
Since his graduation from law school, I have had a number of opportunities to speak to Zack. In
the p~ I have used him to do some legal research for me. He did a fine job in that regard and I used
his research in my pleadings.
I think Zack has matured as a individual and possesses the qualities that would make him a fine
lawyer. It is my sincere hope that he will be given the opportunity to practice law.
138
Charlie Hoar, Ed.D, CADC 11, CCGC I
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
the course of about a month and a half ( April 30 - June 3, 2015). He came because he wanted to be free
I found him to be motivated, self-disclosing, eager to learn about his weaknesses and to set about
recommendations of Dr. Earl S. Nielsen of Reno, NV who initially evaluated him in 2014, -to obtain a
because he was getting services from public sector Medical, which only funds outpatient therapy once a
week, he was asked by the Medi Cal case manager to choose between seeing me or the other therapist (
sponsor.
~~EJ)
Charlie Hoar
139
University United Methodist Church

892 Camino Del Sur, Isla Vista
phone805-968-2620
IslaVistaUMC@gmail.com
August 20, 2015

I got to know Zach Coughlin in Isla Vista as he wondered into our church during a worship team
rehearsal in October 2014. Talking with him, it became clear that he was undergoing a time of soul
searching. He became part of our faith community and volunteered to help with at least two ministries,
our music ministry as well as our hospitality ministry until the early part of 2015.
We got to appreciate him for his gentle spirit and welcoming and encouraging stance toward others.
I, along with our congregation, pray God-speed on all his endeavors.
Please feel free to call me at 717.304.9215
Respectfully,
__________________________________________
Frank Schaefer, pastor
140
Knute Knudson
1720 Dakota Ridge Court
Reno, NY
NV 89523
(775) 448-1528
knute.knudson@igt.com
August 17, 2015
State Bar of Nevada

3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
My wife and I have lived in Nevada for approximately 11 years. We have been in Reno for all those years
and I've worked for IGT for a total of 24 years in a variety of positions. My current position is Vice
President of Business Development. I have also been in recovery for over 23 years. I've attended AA
meetings during that time and regularly sponsor men in a variety of age groups. My sponsorees include
construction workers, physicians, lawyers, and businessmen. I take AA and recovery seriously and
attribute the program to my business success and personal happiness.
I first met Zach about 10 years ago when both of us were attending the South Side meeting here in Reno.
At that time Zach was practicing law and was a member of a firm. I have followed Zach's career and
efforts with recovery during the time since our first meeting. Most recently, I would see Zach at the
Thursday night Coe's Group AA meeting. We would always discuss his progress and status in recovery.
During the past few years, I've observed Zach embracing the most basic and essential elements of AA
and recovery. Included in these efforts are coming to terms with the manner in which he has led his life
and his desire to be professionally productive and personally happy. He continues to make significant
progress and has remained clean and sober for a significant period of time now. He continues to work on
humility which is a major part of AA and recovery.
While there are many interesting and exceptional things about Zach, the most impressive is his
intelligence. He is one of the smartest people I know. The best thing about Zach now is his developing
desire to use this intelligence productively in the service of society as a practicing attorney. He really
wants to be clean and sober and he is dedicated to AA and a solid program of recovery.
I want to recommend Zach for reinstatement based on these observations. He has much to contribute to
society.
I/
s~~fly,
S~~~ly,
~
-~ZZLc_;~,tg._-e7~(--" \/1:j_
.~zz- k:;~~g.--e'
Ki{ute Knuds6n
.<Jute
........
....
-I-I - -. / /
'*'</ \/lJ...
141
C. COE SWOBE
ATIORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO, NEVADA 89509
December 9, 2004

enter the practice of law. He passed the Nevada Bar exam in July of 2001, the California
February 1, -2003. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's
and drug abuse. I believe, from my observation of Zach's performance and attitude over
142
December 9, 2004
Page2
admitted to practice l~w in the State of Nevada.
Very Sincerely,
(, _ (!0.e_
_A__._;..,;L
C. Coe Swobe
CCS/kmf
143
Bill Martin, MFT

MFC33939
205
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-755-2407
2525 Camino Del Rio S. , Ste.

San Diego, CA 92108
619-686-9302
bill@shrink.tv
www.counseling-connection.com
July 20, 2015

Reno, NV 89521
for life.
Bill C. Martin, MFT
144
To whom it may concern

Re: Zach Coughlin
For the past three months I have had contact approximately two times a
week to know and observe Zach Coughlin through recovery meetings in
the San Diego area.
I have been impressed by his sobriety, dedication to recovery, and
consistency in attending meetings. He frequently participates in social
fellowship with the groups following the meetings.
As a retired businessman having been intimately involved in recovery for
over 18 years I am optimistic about his continued recovery and his ability
to be able to use productively his talents.
I would be willing to communicate with anyone who might wish further
conversations.
Roger W. Rasmusen
Rancho Santa Fe, CA
858 245-0929
RRSCA@AOL.COM
145
HALE LANE
- - - - - A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W - - - - -
5441 Kiotzl<~ unc I Second Floer I RellO, Na-.iu 89511

Tclcphon<: (715) 327-3000 I FOGSiniilc (J7S) 781>6179
Website: hnp://......-w.halclaDc.com
December 9, 2004
I;,Jwud Evcmt Biilo

(1929-1993)
Su:ve UJIC
J . SrephcnPook
K1rcu D. Donni,.on
~ Craig Hovr.u<l
S1cpbion V. Nov-.1eek
Richan! L. Elmore
To:
The State Bar of Nevada and

The Nevada Supreme Court
Re:
Zach Coughlin
Dear Sirs:
ltichard Bonne
Alex 1. Fl~ng:u
Krimn B. McMiJJ3.11
Jam:sLKolly
Kelly Testolin
N. l'anick Plnn;,g,n
M:lllhcw E. Woodheod
),fahcDc D. Muni"'
Jloger W. Jeppson
L"-nceC. &rl
Jeremy J. Nod:
D:tvid A. G,rcia
F,ed D. Gib,on, 111
.Slissa F. Cndish
Timothy A. LuhS
Frederick 1. Scl.midt
Jame, Newman
,
David G. ueit.1lld
Julin S. Gold
Tony R. Somers
Patrick]. R~llly
Score D. flemiug
Icny M. Snyd!r
Brem C. .r;:cker.,Jcy
Frcdaick ~ Baru,hcr
Palricia C. Jlilst...d
MaI!hcw J. KreuiZer
Mallhcw B. Hippl<t
Bud M. Johns!On
Bryce X. KummolO
DouiJ.. C. Flower.i
Justin C. Iono:$
Alexi, G. Mleh:md
Thomas R. Ryan
Dora V. Djili:u1ova
I am proud to recommend a close personal friend, Zach Coughlin, as a member of the

Nevada Bar. I was asked to write as one who has functioned in the capacity of a
mentor or sponsor to Zach, but I would first like to say a few words about him as a
student ofrecovery.
Zach is a highly intelligent, perceptive young man. I came to know him in March of
2003, and through a shared friend, was introduced to Zach. Zach requested that I
work with him in his recovery from alcohol abuse and in getting his life back on track.
Zach grew in learning, in character, in depth of understanding. I personally witnessed
Zach attend 90 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in 90 days between March 2003
and July 2003. He was a regular at the 6:45 a.m. "Beginners Are Winners" meeting
that meets each day of the week. At that time I don' t think Zach appreciated fully the
seriousness of his situation, as he failed to gather signatllres attesting to his attendance
at these meetings. He has since started collecting signatures at each meeting he
attends and his current collections numbers over one hundred signatures, each
signature representing a one hour meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. Further, I am
aware that Zach has checked out and listened to audio cassettes of over 200 speaker
meetings (one hour long personal narratives from A.A. member attesting to own story
and its courage strength _and hope) from Reno' s main office of Alcoholics
Anonymous.
Roy Farrow
P~uli11e Ng L:c
Andrew Ptarl
Zach is constantly trying to better himself. He has taken great efforts to read the best
self help literature directed at the difficulties he is faced with, including many books
and handbooks on depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adult children
of alcoholics, chronic pain, relapse prevention, spirituality, and a large number of
other texts devoted to recovery and personal improvement.
He seeks truth in each and every area of his life. whether in learning, discussing
philosophy, or relating to his colleagues and fellow man. Because of his positive
disposition, his reflective way of operating, and all of the character traits that make
him so special, Zach's questions never go unanswered, and his searches always bring
HALE LANE PEEK DENNISON AND HOWARD
(76rliii-------.
LAS VEGAS O!'FJCB: 2.300 Wcsl Salwa Avenue I fighd1 Floor I Bo1< B j Las Vegas, NiOY<h 891021 Phone (702} 222-2500 Il'acilmile (702) 3656910
CARSON CITY OFFICE: 777 East William Stn:ct I Suite 200 I Ctnon Ciiy, Ncvndo. 89701 I Phone (nS) 684-6000 I Fa<:simtle
146
December 9, 2004
Page2
HALE LANE
-
--A.TTOtltNEY &T L A W - - -
him to exciting new discoveries. As a student of recovery, Zach is outstanding. As a sponsor, I

have watched him grow, seen his understanding and abilities not only in the context of our
weekly one hour meetings (which have totaled to nearly 40 hours). but when interacting with the
myriad types of people in our fellowship, as well.
Zach has done every single thing I have asked him to do in order to further his recovery. This
has included meeting on Saturday mornings for an hour each week to read recovery literature
and work on each of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Doing so has involved an
enormous amount of self searching and personal betterment, neither of which, from my
experience, comes without an enormous amount of individual effort, honesty, open-mindedness,
and willingness. Zach bas regularly attended the weekly meetings of the State Bar of Nevada's
"Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers." Additionally, Zach has taken great effort and care to
perform amends for the wrong he has done. This has included calling each and every party at the
Boyd School of Law whom he offended and apologizing with clarity and specificity for each of
his transgressions. He has attempted to make restitution for the movie theater incident and has
served 10 hours of comm.unity service (handling calls and preparing pamphlets at Reno's main
office of Alcoholics Anonymous) in atonement for his dry reckless driving conviction. Further,
Zach has performed a good deal of commuruty service in the form of making coffee for
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, helping to set up and put away chairs at meetings, and lending
support to fellow A.A's.
Certainly there is no question whatsoever that Zach has what it takes to make a fine attorney. He
passed three.of the most difficult bar exams in the country in a matter of 15 months (the Nevada,
California, and Patent bar exams). He made the Dean's List several times while at the Boyd
School of Law and was a member of Boyd's law review, The Nevada Law Journal. Zach
maintained a high g.p.a while earning a B.S. in Biology during his time at the University of
Washington and the UniversityofNevada, Reno.
His work ethic is further demonstrated by his accomplishments as an athlete. Zach was selected
as a znd team AU-State basketball player in Nevada's large school division in both 1994 and
1995_ He was All-League three times. In 1995 the Nevada-Appeal chose Zach as the large
school division Player of the Year for Northern Nevada High School Basketball. Zach was also
a National Merit Finalist and member of the National Honor Society in high school. In addition
Zach is an extremely accomplished musician who plays several instruments and bas done much
composing.
Always, in his work, Zach is consistent, dedicated and passionate, enthusiastic, cheerful, and a
pleasure to work with. He has incredible creative energies and a refreshing idealism tempered
only enough to accomplish what needs to be done. I highly recommend him for any position of
work, leadership, education, or any other capacity in which he can spread his excitement and
share his talents with others. lb.is most certainly includes being a member of the Nevada Bar.
Zach has already been a member of the Patent Bar for over a year.
In my opinion, it is vitally important that we give people like Zach a chance. It would surely set
a very dispiriting example if a young man like Zach, whose infractions were relatively minor
;;ODMAIPCDOCS\HLll.NODOCS\416792\I
147
HALE LANE
December 9, 2004
Page3
---A.TToaM&YS. .AT L A W - - -
(involving personality much more than principle), whose efforts at amelioration have been
legion, and whose dedication and tenacity throughout his academic career has been profmmd
were not given a chance. It has been three and a half years since Zach passed the 2001 Nevada
bar exam. and as such there has been more than enough time for Zach to learn from his mistakes.
And indeed, Zach has learned from his mistakes and made more than enough effort to grow
sufficiently enough to be worthy of a license to practice law. For me, this is not a close call at
all.
Thank you once again
for the.opportunity to recommend such a special and impressive young
man.
Vecytruly~
lf:/R ~~/--Kell~~olin
::ODMA\PCDOCSll-ll.RNODOCS\416792\t
148
ToWhomitMayConcern:
IhaveknownZachCoughlinsincehighschool,andhavekeptinregulartouchthroughtheyears.OflateI
havebeenimpressedwithZachscommitmenttorecoveryandtorebuildinghislife.Hehastakenmany
positivestepsincludingstayingcleanandsober,maintainingregularemployment,andstayingclearof
anylegaltrouble.Ithinkthathehaseffectivelychangedthetrajectoryofhislife,andcouldbeagain
trustedtopracticelaw,andtofunctionasacontributingmemberofsociety.
Thankyou,
JaredSwanson
Owner,JDPublishingInc.
Jared@TahoeQuarterly.com,
4065393715cell
149
AA
V
1
Morishita
Law Finn L.L.c.
1NTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
ROBERT RY1\N MORI5HIT.t\
2725 S. Jones Blvd., Suite 102
Registe~d Patent i\ttorney

Utah and Nevada Bars
La:; Ve.e,as, Nevada 89146

tel {702) 222-2113
fox (702) 227-0615
e-mail rrm@andersonmorl:.hita.com
OF COUNSEi,, HO\VARD &. HOWARD P.C.
October 13, 2004
State Bar of Nevada

600 E. Charleston Blvd
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Re:
Application of Zach Coughlin

It is with sincere pleasure that I recommend the admission of Zach Coughlin to the State
Bar of Nevada. Zach worked with my firm as a law clerk from September to December 2002.
During that time, I directly supervised Zach. Zach performed competently and ethically in all the
work he performed. In my opinion, Zach has a moral character that would be an asset to our bar
association and our profession.

If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert Ryan Morishita

RRM:kdc
G:\Anderson & Morishita\ooughlin letter.wpd
----
150
EXHIBIT 14
EXHIBIT 14
151
1I
<2
12
FILID
FILED
RENO
RENO MUNICIPALcCOURT
MUNICIPAL COURT
DEPT.
DEPT. NO.3
NO. 3
CaseNo.
No. 11
Case
11 TR.
TR 26800 21
APR
201~
APR -17 2014
i1<' :
Dept. 3
Dept.
T1ME:wr-_ _ _ _ __
TIME
BY
BY
COROT~
NASH HOLMES,
HOLMES, JUDGE
JUDGE
DOROT Y NASH
33
44
55
IN
IN THE
THE MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL COURT
COURT OF
OF THE
THE CITY OF RENO
66
COUNTY
COUNTY OF
OF WASHOE,
WASHOE, STATE
STATE OF NEVADA
...............
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER
OFDISMISSAL
DISMISSAL
ORDER OF
vs.
12
BARKER COUGHLIN,
ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN,
13
Defendant.
Defendant,
______________________
~I
14
15
16
IT IS
IS THE
THEORDER
ORDEROF
OFTHIS
THfSCOURT,
COURT, for good
good cause
cause appearing
appearing and
and in
in the
the
IT
interest of
justice, that
of justice,
thatthis
thiscase
casebe,
be,and
andhereby
herebyis,
is,DISMISSED.
DISMISSED.
17
IT
IT IS
ISSO
SOORDERED.
ORDERED.
18
18
Dated
Dated this
this 77thth day of
ofApril,
April, 2014,
2014.
19
19
20
20
21
21
.&~~~
.Dorothy
Dorothy Nash
NaSlfOfmes
. .
Valmes
Municipal Judge
Judge
Municipal
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
RENO
RENO
MUNICIPAL.
MUNICIPALCOURT
COURT
P.O.
P.o.Dm
!lor1000
1Il00
Reno.
W 0605
Reno,"",""
(102)
335400
(7II2)3u-mo
28
28
152
..
'
- '
C4RTIFJCATI OF SERVIC
ceBTIEICAIE
SERVIQfi
Pursuant to NRCP
NRCP 5(b),
5(b), IIcertify
certify that
that I am
employeeofofthe
theReno
RenoMunicipal
MunicipalCourt,
Court,
am an employee
Reno, Nevada,
Nevada,that
thatIIam
am over
overthe
theage
ageofof18
18years
yearsand
andnot
notaaparty
partytotothe
theabove
aboveaction,
action,and
andthat
that
on this date, served
servedaatrue
trueand
andcorrect
correct copy
copy of
of the
the attached
attacheddocument
documenttotothe
thefollowing
following as
asset
set
forth
forth below:
...L
Placing
said
document
a sealed
envelope
and
placed
collectingand
andmailing
mailingby
by
X Placing
said
document
in in
a sealed
envelope
and
placed
forfor
collecting
Unites States
States mail
mall in
in Reno,
Reno, Nevada,
Nevada, postage
postageprepaid,
prepaid,following
followingordinary
ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile
(FAX)
Facsimile (FAX)
X
...L
Electronic
Mail (E-mail)
(E-mail) to
toCity
City Attorney
Attorney
Electronic Mail
Inner-office mail following
practices
following ordinary
ordinarybusiness
business practices
Personal
DeliverytotoCity
City Attorney
Attorney
Personal Delivery
Mr.
Mr. Zachary
Zachary B. Coughlin
Booking
1317551
Booking ## 1317561
Washoe
CountyDetention
DetentionFacility
Facility
Washoe County
911 Parr
Parr Blvd
Blvd
:Reno
Reno NV 95512
96512
Dan Wong
Chief
Criminal Deputy
DeputyCity
City Attorney
Attorney
Chief Criminal
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
DATED:
DATED: April",
April 7, 2014.
2014.
Marilyiinrogn
Judici I Assistsint
Depa rtment Three
Reno Municipal Court

P.O. Box 1900
1800
Reno.
89505
Reno, NV
NV 80505
(776)
3343822
(770 334-3822
153
1I
22
FILED
FILED
RENO
RENO MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL COURT
COURT
OEPT.
DEPT. NO.3
NO. 3
Case No.
No. 11
11CR
CR 26405
Case
26405
APR
2014
APR -77 2014
TIME
~~E<tk:::
BY 411LAC
Dept. 3
Dept.
33
44
55
IN THE
THE MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPALCOURT
IN
COURTOF
OFTHE
THE CITY
CITY OF
OF RENO
RENO
66
..
COUNTY
COUNTY OF
OF WASHOE,
WASHOE, STATE
STATE OF NEVADA
'" '" '" '" '"
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
DOROTHY NASH
DOROTHY
NASH HOLMES,
HOLMES, JUDGE
JUDGE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
OFDISMISSAL
DISMISSAL
ORDER OF
vs.
12
ZACHARY BARKER
BARKER COUGHLIN,
COUGHLIN,
13
Defendant,
Defendant.
________________________
~I
14
15'
THISCOURT,
COURT, for good cause
cause appearing
appearing and
and in
in the
the
IT IS THE ORDER OF rigs
16
interest of
justice, that
of justice,
thatthis
thiscase
casebe,
be,and
andhereby
herebyis,
is,DISMISSED.
DISMISSED.
17
IT
IT IS
ISSO
SOORDERED.
ORDERED.
th day of
ofApril,
April, 2014.
2014.
Dated this 77th
18
19
19
20
21
21
=~~
Dorothy Nash Holmes

Municipal Judge
Judge
Municipal
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
RENO
RENO
MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPALCOURT
COUFtT
P.O.
Be, 1900
1'.0.8011_
28
28
Reno,
W 49606
A.no,~UI06
(10E)
5344200
~33f.D80
154
EXHIBIT 15
EXHIBIT 15
155
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
IN RE: THE MATTER OF

ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
)
)
) CASE 60975
)
)
)
11
12
13
14
15
NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE OF COURTS ORDER OF 4/23/14 AND RESPONSE TO

SCR 117 PETITION
The undersigned, Coughlin, submits this on his own behalf to apprise this
Honorable Court of the fact that he never received a copy of its Order of 4/23/14 and only
16
became aware of it upon it being referenced in the attachment to an email of 7/9/14 from
17
18
19
the State Bars Laura Peters, which also attached an Order of 6/30/14 in this same case.
Coughlin has confirmed with the Clerks Office that such 4/23/14 Order was
20
mailed to the Washoe County Detention Center, and received as return to sender by the
21
Clerks Office on May 2, 2014. Coughlins incarceration ended on 4/18/14. Coughlin
22
apprised the Clerks Office and OBC of his change of address shortly after his release (see
23
24
attached 5/7/14 correspondence to Clerks Office attached in addition to Coughlins filing
25
of 5/7/14 in 65587 listing his current address therein), however, the Clerks Office did not
26
remail such returned to sender 4/23/14 Order to Coughlin.
27
28
- 1/27 -
156
Coughlin has made several respectful telephone calls (leaving voice mails) and
1
2
3
emails to the SBN since April 18, 2014 (please see attached Coughlins correspondences
to the OBC Of 5/2/14 and 5/12/14 and one of 7/22/14 informing the OBC that Coughlin is
scheduled to be evaluated by Dr. Nielsen on 7/25/14) and received nothing in the way of a
5
6
response other than the filing by the OBCs Machado of 6/3/14 in 62337, until Peters
email of 7/9/14. The late filed Status Report filed by the OBCs Pattee on approximately
7/11/14 indicates that this Courts Order of 4/23/14 was received by the OBCs Las Vegas
9
10
Office, then forwarded to its Reno Office, yet not, apparently, received by the Reno
Office. Coughlin did, on July 12th, 2014, finally receive a copy of this Courts 6/30/14
11
12
from this Court. The delay in Coughlins receiving from this Court its 6/30/14 Order in
13
60975 seems to indicate that Coughlins address of record with this Court, at least as far as
14
this case is concerned, had yet to be updated at the time entry of such 6/30/14 Order.
15
Coughlin recognizes that he should have (if indeed he failed to) specifically
16
indentified to the Clerks Office each case he is a party to and presented a more obvious
17
18
indication that he was no longer incarcerated and that the address listed on the pleadings
19
he filed following his release was then his current address. Nonetheless, had the OBC
20
contacted Coughlin to inform him of the medical expert chosen by the State Bar (as
21
required by this Courts 4/23/14 Order) and thereafter timely complied with its dictate that
22
the OBC file a status report by 5/23/14, over two months progress in this matter, and,
23
24
25
26
seemingly, in the companion disciplinary proceeding in 62337 could have been better
utilized.
27
28
- 2/27 -
157
1
2
3
It is relevant to note that the substance of NNDB Chairman Susichs SCR 117
Petition in 60975 has been addressed by Respondents filings in 62337, and Respondent
seeks to incorporate such herein again here now. The undersigned hereby denies the
allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 22 of the SCR 117 Petition.

5
6
Gist of the SCR 117 Petition is:
-numerous complaints received,
-Screening Panel believes Coughlin is either mentally ill or addicted to something,
yet they are not sure which and offer nothing in the way of evidence to support any
10
accusation that Coughlin is suffering any sort of chemical dependency, much less one
11
12
sufficient to render him incapable of practicing law. As support for the apparent
13
accusation that Coughlin is incapable of practicing due to mental infirmity or illness
14
the Petition makes mention of only three filings (one of 2/21/12, another of 3/5/12,a dn a
15
third of 3/7/12) Coughlin submitted on his own behalf, as a pro se criminal defendant
16
forced to represent himself where Coughlin had never practiced on a single criminal matter
17
18
19
at any point in his career at such time.

-some unattributed hearsay alleging that Coughlins admission had been deferred,
20
with some condition that he receive psychological counseling, thereafter admitting that
21
Coughlin was admitted to practice law, albeit managing to incorrectly state the date of
22
Coughlins admission to practice (off by some eights months).

23
24
25
26
27
-some alleged refusal to cooperate with Bar Counsel regarding the investigation
and resolution of such purported grievances
-an alleged conviction for petty larceny of a candy bar and cough drops from a
Wal-Mart store, which was allegedly affirmed on appeal
28
- 3/27 -
158
-an alleged contempt citation purporting Coughlin to have disregarded the
directives of the judge making demeaning statements such WOW and laughing during
testimony and questioning the judges authority
-another petty larceny arrest occurring 17 days prior to the Wal-Mart petty larceny
5
6
7
8
9
arrest. No conviction alleged.

Neither of the filings the NNDB attached to its SCR 117 Petition establish that
Coughlin demonstrated any inability to render adequate legal service by reason of mental
or physical illness or infirmity, or addiction to, or dependence upon, intoxicants or drugs.
10
They may establish that Coughlin was undergoing an adjustment reaction to a tumultuous
11
12
period in his life (breakup of a four year long domestic partnership, extreme familial strife,
13
difficulty finding employment during a period in Washoe County witnessing 15%
14
unemployment, and at least two wrongful arrests) wherein he was not a very likable or
15
charming fellow. Coughlin was never committed, nor ever subject to inpatient treatment
16
for drug or alcohol addiction.

17
18
One, RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacated both of the orders attached as Exhibits 4
19
and 5 to such SCR 117 Petition herein by way of her attached 4/9/14 Order(s) of Dismissal
20
(which begat this Courts 5/16/14 Order in 62337 in response to Coughlins attaching such
21
Orders of Dismissal to his 4/22/14 filing in 62337) of such case (which Coughlin was
22
never permitted to appeal nor even challenge by Writ of Mandate to whatever extent
23
24
25
26
27
Pengillys proviso applies to a pro se attorney defendant found in contempt).i

CJS ATTNCLI 70: Grounds for suspension; Mental or physical
illness, alcoholism, or drug addiction 45k38; Civil Rightsk1072
Commitment for the treatment of mental illness likewise may
warrant suspension or disbarment.[2] Under some disciplinary rules, the
inability to render adequate legal service by reason of mental or physical
28
- 4/27 -
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
illness or infirmity, or addiction to, or dependence upon, intoxicants or

drugs warrants suspension.[5]
[FN2] Fla.The Florida Bar v. Major, 270 So. 2D 7 (Fla. 1972).
Extended hospitalization The fact that a hospitalized attorney was
suffering from a depressed state of mind and would require treatment over
an extended period of time warranted suspension, under circumstances.
Mont.In re Meyer, 141 Mont. 167, 377 P.2D 364 (1962).
Indefinite suspension permitted Under compelling facts, a
court has the power to suspend an attorney indefinitely until such
time as his or her mental competency is confirmed. N.Y.Matter of
Rochlin, 100 A.D.2D 263, 474 N.Y.S.2D 14 (1st Dep't 1984).
Personality disorder Continued suspension from practice on an
indefinite basis, subject to further order of court, is merited where an
attorney suffering from a personality disorder is continuing to undergo
treatment on a regular basis in psychoanalytical psychotherapy.
N.J.In re Fleisher, 66 N.J. 398, 331 A.2D 611 (1975). [FN5] Md.
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cooper, 279 Md. 605, 369 A.2D 1059
(1977). Indefinite suspension appropriate (1) The appropriate sanction for
appearing in the office in an intoxicated condition, while conferring with
clients, and depositing moneys of clients in a personal account is
indefinite suspension, not disbarment. S.C.Matter of Rushton, 286 S.C.
543, 335 S.E.2D 238 (1985). CJS ATTNCLI 70
14
15
Simply put, Coughlin has at no time been incapable of practicing law, and has not
16
done anything bad enough to get disbarred for, much less to justify a suspension of the
17
length to which his current temporary suspension has already run (ie, over two years).
18
Coughlin has punished himself enough, it is time to let him get on with his life.
19
The SCR 117 Petition her does not allege anything even close to Coughlin
20
21
appearing in the office in an intoxicated condition while conferring with clients, much less
22
misappropriating any client funds. Further, it is interesting to note that, while the SBNs
23
8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint at issue in 62337 included amongst its vague charges both of
24
the filings by Coughlin attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 in the SCR 117 Petition in 60975 of
25
5/30/12, come time for the disciplinary hearing, the SBN completely abandoned any
26
27
28
attempt to paint such as misconduct of any sort (not even within the faux SCR 117 style
RPC 1.1 competence approach the SBN constantly took during such SCR 105,
- 5/27 -
160
102/111(8) formal disciplinary hearing (versus the plural proceedingsto reference the
distinction between the process set forth in an SCR 111(8) referral and those inherent to
SCR 105 Complaints and or SCR 102 Petitions being filed).
Clearly, the SBN abandoned any attempt to paint those two filings by Coughlin as
5
6
misconduct considering what they really revealed was that Coughlin brought to light the
fact that the Washoe County Sheriffs Office currently burglarizes tenants instead of
following the dictate of NRS 40.253 requiring a tenant be given 24 hours from receipt of
a summary removal order prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout. The fact that it
10
is the Washoe County District Attorneys Office (which employs the same NNDB member
11
12
DDA Bruch Hahn that sat on Coughlins April 2012 Screening Panel) which defends the
13
Washoe County Sheriffs violations of NRS 40.253 incident to the manner in which it
14
conducts summary lockouts, its obviously quite troubling.
15
One could go on about Washoe Legal Servicess Director Elcanos daughter also
16
being an attorney employed with the WCDAs Office and DDA Kandaras (also a NNDB
17
18
member) and WLS failing to accord Coughlin access to legal tools during a curiously
19
lengthy recent incarceration (November 7th, 2013 to April 18th, 2014) (apparently a public
20
officer for the purposes of an SCR 111(6) analysis is not the same as for an NRS
21
169.163/NRS 193.019 inquiry, see SBNs January 30th, 2014 SCR 111 Petition in
22
64903) but surely there are better ways to cultivate the access to justice in Nevada than
23
24
25
to continue on with some of these losing battles.

Additionally, such trespass conviction was vacated by RMC Judge Nash Holmes as
26
well, though, and only after Washoe Legal Services and its Director Elcano got the
27
dismissals and waivers and withdrawals it sought, did RMC Judge Gardner purport to
28
- 6/27 -
161
somehow undo the 4/9/14 Order of Dismissal in such trespass case entered by Judge
Holmes (please see SBNs 6/3/14 filing in 62337 and Coughlins response thereto).
Further, the IFP attached as Exhibit 6 to the SCR 117 Petition has been addressed
in 62337 at length. In summary, such was filed 12/14/11 (though an Order by Judge
5
6
Howard contained a seeming scriveners error in according such an 11/14/11 filing
datewhich contributed to some vague sense the SBN and NNDB attempted to put
forward that Coughlin somehow failed to identify himself as an attorney either within such
filing (he did, in both the fax cover page thereto and in the email to the Reno Municipal
10
Court he attached such to after RMC Clerk Ballard communicated, in writing, permission
11
12
to submit such filings by email..never mind the fact that the trial was 11/30/11at the
13
conclusion of which attorney Coughlin plead for a stay of his summary three day
14
incarceration of any length at all in an attempt to avoid prejudice to his clientswhich
15
RMC Judge Howard summarily dismissed, only to subsequently refuse to file the
16
transcript Nevada Constit. Art 6 Sec 8 specifically allowed the Legislature to require the
17
18
19
justice file per NRS 189.030(3).

This is one of the SBN and NNDBs darker moments here, this baseless IFP quasi-
20
allegation. Curiously, the SCR 117 Petition fails to allege Coughlin failed to identify
21
himself as an attorney prior to such IFP Motion being filed (whereas the SBNs 8/23/12
22
Complaint in 62337 sort of manages to feebly allege that, whereas the Panel in 62337 free23
24
styled on that by deemimg some alleged failure to identify any income from the practice
25
of law be at least close to a violation of RPC 8.4(c) (despite such alleged being not pled
26
in violation of Schaefer). Whichever, it is all ridiculous and grasping. Coughlin was
27
making next to no money trying to practice law and do whatever else he could to make
28
- 7/27 -
162
ends meet at such time as that IFP Motion/Declaration was signed (November 22, 2011,
which Coughlin refilled on December 14, 2011some local judges refuse to acknowledge
Buckwalter, insisting broke people with no money pay a notary $5 for every IFP
Application to have an Affidavit rather than a Declaration (very ironic this Courts fine decision in
5
6
7
60302 reversing in part where Coughlins suit against WLS and its Director Elcano was dismissed based
upon a ruling that Coughlin using the 2JDCs own Declaration of Proof of Service of the Summons and
Complaint somehow was ineffective where NRCP 4 references an affidavit) despite NRS 53.045).
The court there was well aware Coughlin was then an attorney licensed in Nevada
10
11
representing clients. To suggest that Coughlin thereafter either attempted to mislead

anyone (which is not what the SCR 117 Petition alleges) by listing his self employment as
12
a Jack of All Trades making $800 a month (RMC Judge Howard cares not for ADKT
13
14
15
411s dictates, finding them optional) is unsupportable.

Indeed, the SBNs 8/23/12 Complaint in 62337 (which is not at issue here, but
16
since Coughlin got to litigate 60975 (or was forced to) in the setting of 62337, why not?...)
17
failed to even allege Coughlin failed to identify any income from the practice of law
18
(rather, the Panel threw that in in an attempt to bolster its embarrassing 12/14/12 Findings
19
20
21
of Fact; Conclusions of Law and the Recommendation buried therein.

This SCR 117 Petition, though, rather, seems to just point out that Coughlin was
22
poor and appears to point to such as a stand in for his being crazy, mentally ill, unfit,
23
whateverSusich wrote: 18. On December 14, 2011, Respondent filed an Affidavit of
24
Poverty in support of his Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis. In his Affidavit,

25
26
Respondent alleges that he has almost no income and refers to himself as being employed
27
as a 'Jack of All Trades." Funny, when was the last time Susich/OBC/NNDB filed an
28
SCR 117 Petition because an attorney was making too much money? Since when is
- 8/27 -
163
indicating one has almost no income (not hard to believe during the time period of
November 22nd, 2011 to December 14th, 2012, here, given the wrongful arrest of Coughlin
on 8/20/11 (the first of many), which, by the way, involved and allegedly depended upon
the warrantless search of a smart phone, something the United States Supreme Court has
5
6
recently decided is a Fourth Amendment violationnice precedent: attorneys in Nevada
arguing for the Fourth Amendment must be SCR 117 mentally ill), a wrongful arrest by
a tribal police office on 9/9/11 (in violation of NRS 171.136 and 171.1255, never mind
that Coughlin did not steal anything) for the alleged theft of a candy bar and some cough
10
drops, followed quickly by a wrongful no cause summary eviction of a commercial tenant

11
12
in violation of NRS 40.254 served upon along with the Washoe County Sheriffs Office
13
and Reno attorney Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey D. Baker, Esq. burglarizing Coughlins
14
former home law office on 11/1/11 and again at the time of the wrongful criminal trespass
15
arrest of 11/13/11 (where WCSO refuses to obey NRS 40.253s 24 hours dictate and the
16
WCDA/NNDB/SBN/ and Washoe Legal Services (home of landlord tenant legal aid,
17
18
allegedly) all just countenance such because when you are part of the in crowd, why make
19
waves, right? Who wants Washoe County to have anything better than a sub-Third World
20
level tenants rights landscape anyways? Never mind that Hill and Merliss had to lie to the
21
police to get Coughlin arrested, alleging they warned Coughlin to leave and he refused to
22
(once they sussed out that a Summary Lockout Order (particularly one executed
23
24
prematurely, and therefore, stale, void, expired) is not tantamount to a criminal trespass
25
warning (oh, I could go on for hours about all the fraud Hill, Baker and Merliss engaged in
26
(lying that the term of the lease was 12 months when it plainly states not less than 12
27
months and contains nothing in the way of a landlords no cause termination right
28
- 9/27 -
164
(Coughlin submitted for filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in response to 61383
going under but, for some reason, it has never been accorded a case number by this
Courts Clerks Office. http://www.scribd.com/doc/233302390/10-23-13-Submission-of-
Petition-for-Cert-or-Mandamus-Re-Merliss-1708-03628-61383-Receipt-Pending-EFlex
5
6
Mr. Whittemores defense in his disciplinary matter may have been aided by
Coughlins setting out all the arguments that Panel Chair turned attorney for Whittemore
Echeverria (whom curtly dismissed such positions when Coughlin made them and or
sought to lay them out further) later would make on his behalf at to the lack preclusive
10
effect of a conviction of a crime (where Coughlin made such arguments with the caveat
11
12
that he did not admit to any convictions existing) (or in Coughlins case in essence, a
13
conviction (see p 225 of transcript in 62337, or some conviction allegedly affirmed
14
with respect to the matter at issue in 60838, where the SBN and Coughlin now disagree as
15
to whether such conviction was even affirmed on appeal (which conviction? The one for
16
summary contempt or the petty larceny conviction, where both were allegedly entered on
17
18
the same day, 11/30/11, such contempt conviction being attached to the SCR 117 Petition
19
as Exhibit 1) ) or as to such not operating to make irrelevant a respondents intent incident
20
thereto (especially for the mitigation analysis, extent of punishment calculus, and, even, as
21
to whether respondent guilty of violating, say, RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting
22
adversely on moral character or fitness), or 8.4(c), etc., etc.).

23
24
To specifically address the SCR 117 Petition more clearly than did Coughlins
25
6/18/12 submission, where such reads, in relevant part (Respondent hereafter excerpts the
26
relevant portions of the SCR 117 Petition with his responses and arguments directed
27
thereto in parentheses interspersed therealong):
28
- 10/27 -
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The State Bar of Nevada (State Bar), by and through 1. Thomas

Susich, Esq., Chair of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB),
petitions this Honorable Court, as follows:
1. The NNDB Chair has been informed that the State Bar of
Nevada has received numerous (NOTE: more than two? Again, the
OBCs coy attempts to make it appear that 2JDC Judge L. Gardner
somehow submitted a grievance or complaint attaching her vacated
4/13/09 Order After Trial in DV08-01168 brings about curious use of
terms like received and numerous) complaints and/or grievances
regarding the behavior of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Bar #9473
(Respondent).
2. The State Bar designated a Screening Panel to review the
complaints and grievances concerning Respondent Coughlin. The
Screening Panel met on or about April 16, 2012
(NOTE: the Panel actually met on April 10, 2012 and told King he
needed more to get the go ahead to file an SCR 105 Complaint, so King
gathered some more alleged firepower and met again with the Panel on
13
4/16/12), and made various findings and recommendations, (NOTE:

14
15
Coughlin has repeatedly been denied access to such, and the conflict
16
inherent to having WCDA Hahn sit on such NNDB Screening Panel is
17
nearly as troubling as having CAAW Executive Board President 2JDC
18
Judge Stephen P. Elliott preside over Coughlins lawsuit against CAAW
19
and Washoe Legal Services at issue in the appeal in 60317)

20
21
22
23
24
25
including the following: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

("SCR") 117(2) the Screening Panel believes that Respondent is incapable
of continuing the practice of law because of mental infirmity, illness or
addiction. The Panel recommends the filing of a petition with the Supreme
Court seeking a determination of the attorney's competency. Respondent
has been asked if he wishes to stipulate to the filing of a joint petition
and he does not.
26
(NOTE: while it may not even be true to indicate that Coughlin expressed a firm
27
refusal to so stipulate, any suggestion that Coughlin did not indicate a willingness to go
28
- 11/27 -
166
on a temporary suspension of something less burden of proof shifting than the SCR 117
joint disability petition variety, is not true, as Coughlin did express an interest in such an
arrangement with the SBN and NNDB.).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3. The NNDB Chair has reviewed various materials to evaluate the

recommendation of the Screening Panel to file a petition with the Supreme
Court regarding a mental evaluation of the Respondent under SCR 117.
4. The State Bar Office has informed the NNDB Chair that the
Respondent may have a history of mental illness. The NNDB Chair has
been informed that the Supreme Court issued an order on December 18,
2002, deferring the admission of Zachary B. Coughlin as an attorney at
law in this state. The NNDB Chair has been informed that said deferral
was at least partially based upon a condition that Mr. Coughlin receive
psychological counseling. The NNDB Chair has been informed that
Zachary B. Coughlin was finally admitted to practice law on October 1,
2004.
12
13
(NOTE: well.Coughlin got an email from Christiansen, Esq.s (Sanft) Office

around September 27th, 2004 announcing thatbut, for whatever reason (never made
14
15
known to Coughlin), he was not admitted until May, 2005perhaps another instance of
16
something like Coughlin not being served the 4/23/14 Order here, or the SBNs Patrice
17
Eichman unilaterally and secretively failing to submit the Request for Consideration
18
Coughlin submitted for filing at the conclusion of the deferral period in November
19
2003?).
20
21
Regardless, Coughlin does not believe he has any history of mental illness.
22
Regardless, the OBC/NNDB offer absolutely nothing in the way of actual factual
23
support or even anecdotal evidence to support this innuendo.
24
25
26
27
5. The NNDB Chair has received and reviewed the multiple

grievances referred to above.
6. The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has been
notified of the grievances and complaints; but, Respondent has refused
to cooperate with Bar Counsel, regarding the investigation and resolution
of same.
28
- 12/27 -
167
1
2
3
(NOTE: that is not really true, as Coughlin demonstrates in 62337 (see the 665
pages of correspondence between Coughlin and the SBN prior to the filing of the formal
Complaint on 8/23/12 (nearly all of it from Coughlin to the SBN addressing the
grievances and disproving them), the OBC was quite coy about just what was a grievance,
5
6
how many there were, how many were written by judges, whom submitted what and at
whose behest (which is problematic now that 2JDC Judge L. Gardners 4/13/09 Order
After Trial referred to in Paragraph 21 of the SCR 117 Petition has been shown to have
been vacated by way of her 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce (so, perhaps, Susich and
10
King ought review RPC 3.1 some and apply it to their own workand perhaps RMC
11
12
Judge William L. Gardner should not take vacated orders passed to him by his sister
13
(especially where he refuses to recuse himself from the criminal trespass trial involving
14
attorneys Hill and Baker here, only to then violate the mandatory competency evaluation
15
stay per NRS 178.405, .415, only to the purport to speak for Judge Nash Holmes in
16
answering the OBCs ex parte imploration to set aside the Order of Dismissal vacating
17
18
such criminal trespass conviction that RMC Judge Nash Holmes entered on 4/9/14
19
(attached to Coughlins 4/22/14 filing in 62337), exiting 2JDC Judge L. Gardner, three
20
years after the fact, and then pass them on to his fellow RMC Judge Nash Holmes without
21
mentioning that such order (which allegedly was a sanction) had been vacated by the
22
6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce (but not before WLSs Elcano managed to justify his
23
24
firing legal aid domestic violence attorney Coughlin based solely on such alleged sanction,
25
Elcano refusing to back off such decision upon such Order After Trial being vacated, then
26
Elcano compounding that questionable approach by showing up to testify at Coughlins
27
11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing and feigning to be unaware such had been vacated.
28
- 13/27 -
168
1
2
3
Also, as to the alleged criminal trespass conviction, RJC Judge Sferrazza

(presiding over the underlying summary eviction proceeding in RCJ Rev2011-001708, see
61383) did not grant Hills Motion for Order to Show Cause pursuant to NRS 22.020, so
no such conduct by Coughlin could possibly be criminal trespass, much less an RPC
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
8.4(b) violation, much less support for any SCR 117 disability finding.
The SCR 117 Petition continues:
7. The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has not
requested to be placed on disability status and refuses to acknowledge
that he has any mental infirmity, illness or addiction.
(A review of Coughlins correspondence with the SBN disproves this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233304377/2009-to-12-24-12-0204-Emails-to-Nvbar-org925-Pages-Bate-Stamped-Needs-Attachments-With-5-14-and-7-31-RX-PrescriptionHistory
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233304379/5-14-12-Email-to-Dad-and-MelissaApology-and-Zach-Coughlin-Prescription-History
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233304378/7-31-12-0204-email-to-nvbar-orgresending-this-FW-Apology-and-Zach-Coughlin-prescription-medications-information
15
16
It is plainly inaccurate for the OBCs King to stand before the NNDB and
17
Panel and indicate Coughlin failed to acknowledge he had some issues. Worse
18
still is King, during a face to face meeting with Coughlin in July 2012, imploring
19
Coughlin not to provide him with things like his prescription records history,
20
21
which plainly establish a causal correlation between Coughlins divorce from
22
his domestic partner of four years in July 2011 and his being unable to afford two
23
potent medication he has taken for over a decade (Adderall and Wellbuttrin) in
24
August 2011, followed sharply less than two weeks later by the first of what
25
would be a number of arrests on 8/20/11(the iPhone case

26
27
28
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxOg8Z0VmuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiW0vnGv6l4 ) involving the warrantless
- 14/27 -
169
search of an abandoned smart phone (verboten under the fourth Amendment) the
finder thereof had given to Coughlin in lieu of following through on his threats to
thrown it in the nearby Truckee River if someone did not claim it (where
Hill/Merliss initiated the wrongful no cause summary eviction of commercial

5
6
tenant Coughlin on 8/22/11), and the candy bar and some cough drops petty
larceny arrest of 9/9/11 at issue in 60838 and 62337).
8
9
(Why is the NNDB always indicating it has been informed? Does not SCR
117(2) have any RPC 3.1 requirement? Need not the NNDB even call up a respondent
10
to say, Hey, Guy, whats going on here? Tell us why you are not incapable of
11
12
continuing the practice of law because of mental infirmity, illness, or addiction? Nope,
13
the NNDB just took a vacated sanction it attached as Exhibit 6 (2JDC Judge L. Gardners
14
4/13/09 Order After Trial), (Coughlin had not even sustained the momentary and void,
15
and subsequently vacated criminal trespass conviction of 6/18/12 at the time of the
16
NNDBs 5/30/12 SCR 117 Petition filing here, soreally, just what was such based on,
17
18
the allegation that Coughlin had been found trespassing at his former home law office
19
during the period in which a stay of such a wrongful summary removal order was entirely
20
likely, or misunderstandings incident thereto entirely plausible? Now that Coughlin has
21
not been found guilty of criminal trespass, does not that mean Richard G. Hill, Esq. and
22
Casey D. Baker, Esq. need to explain their breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and
23
24
invasion of Coughlin and attorney Coughlins clients privacy rights incident to their
25
multiple ill advised break ins at Coughlins former home law office and lies incident
26
thereto resulting in Coughlins wrongful arrest?)
27
28
- 15/27 -
170
1
2
3
Just like SCR 102 requires the NNDB, not the SBN (as was de facto the case here
with King essentially being permitted to stretch out the SCR 111(6) temporary
suspension for now over two yearsEcheverria thinks three felony convictions equals
six months suspension in Whittemores case, but somehow finds over two years for an
5
6
alleged conviction of petty larceny of a candy bar and some cough drops to be just such
that the SBN and NNDB need not actually file and win on the SCR 102 Petition for a
temporary suspension of Coughlins law license sufficient to justify this embarrassing
deprivation of Coughlins protected Fourteenth Amendment property right, his license to
10
practice law? Again, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which
11
12
has been informed of everything involving all these various matters, has yet to suspend
13
Coughlin a single day. Does not say much for what it thinks of these patently invalid
14
alleged convictions and sanctions (funny how the $42K prevailing party fee award
15
given Merliss receives no mention in the SCR 117 Petition where it became the SBNs
16
cleanup hitter at the 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing at issue in 62337) (whether they
17
18
were not affirmed on appeal or subsequently vacated or not)The NNDB not once
19
contacted Coughlin prior to filing this SCR 117 the SBN spoon fed it from what it itself
20
had been spoon fed by Hill and RMC Judge Nash Holmes. RMC Judge Nash Holmes, in
21
a demonstration of her extreme character, has ameliorated this situation with her two
22
Orders of Dismissal (which vacate anything to do with the alleged criminal contempt
23
24
conviction in the traffic citation outside Hills office trial in 11 TR 26800, as well as
25
vacating the criminal trespass conviction incident to the Criminal Complaint Hill signed
26
shortly after he and Merliss lied to the police to get Coughlin wrongfully arrested on
27
11/13/11).
28
- 16/27 -
171
1
2
3
8. Bar Counsel has reported to the NNDB Chair that the

investigation of the grievances against Respondent show a serious pattern
of misconduct and bizarre behavior.
(NOTE: what is bizarre is getting fired from legal aid as though it was a summer
job at Hot Dog on A Stick over an alleged sanction that was quickly vacated shortly
5
6
after the firing, but thats Paul, and thats Renoand thats me. I get it. I am difficult, a
little weird, could stand to take a refresher course at charm school, and just plain do not
always do that which is most likely to result in me getting paid more and more money
and becoming more and more popular in legal circles. How awful. But, please know
10
this. This has been an awful, awful time for me, and I do not have any interest in being
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
this much of a sore thumb ever again.)

9. Bar Counsel reports that on November 30, 2011, Respondent
was found guilty, after a trial, of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation
of RMC 8.10.040, in the Municipal Court for the City of Reno. Said
conviction was based on an incident occurring on September 9, 2011.
Respondent shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops with a value of
approximately fourteen dollars ($14.00) from Wal-Mart. Respondent
appealed the judgment of conviction. The judgment of conviction was
affirmed on appeal.
(NOTE: please see Coughlins filings in 62337 and 65587 of 6/6/14 for
19
explication of why such conviction was not affirmed on appeal). Funny how
20
21
neither the SBN, City of Reno, nor NNDB ever manage to copy and past the
22
actual language of the Order they are purporting affirmed a petty larceny
23
conviction where such actually speaks to a ruling and could just as well be
24
affirming the summary contempt ruling Coughlin also specified as being appeal
25
in his notice of appeal and associated petitions for writ of mandamus to whatever
26
27
28
extent Pengilly limits such to be the only avenue of review availing to a pro se
attorney criminal defendant denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel where
- 17/27 -
172
ADKT 411 was also violated. Regardless, the SBN failed to receive a ruling from
the Panel that such alleged conviction was tantamount to an RPC 8.4(b) criminal
act reflecting adversely on Coughlins fitness, as such, there ought be some
preclusive effect from the Panels 12/14/12 FOFCOL and Recommendation

5
6
preventing such from being relitigated here). If such alleged behavior is such a
fitness issue, rather than one involving honesty or trustworthiness, than why
no mental health court and how is it that RMC Judge Howard was able to hold a
trial on 11/30/11 after deciding not to bring Coughlin in to the courtroom for the
10
original trial date of 11/14/11 where Coughlin was brought to Howards court in
11
12
custody in the red jail clothing associated with one placed in mental
13
administrative segregation, all without Howard ever ordering a competency
14
evaluation or suspending the proceedings pursuant to NRS 178.405. Oh, wait,
15
that would require paying an evaluator.).
16
17
18
19
20
21
10. On November 30, 2011, Respondent was found to be in

contempt of the Reno Municipal. Court, Department 4, for "disorderly,
contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge...." The Respondent
was found to have disregarded the directives of the judge and of making
demeaning statements such as stating "WOW" when the court made
rulings. The Respondent was also cited for "laughing during testimony"
and questioning the judge's authority. A copy of the contempt citation is
attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference.
22
(NOTE: while note Respondents finest hour, no doubt, a review of the audio
23
24
recording (better than a written transcript in some ways) reveals Coughlin to be quite
25
professional throughout such trial (if saying WOW once is all Judge Howard could
26
think to add as a criticism along with continuing lines of inquiry after being instructed
27
not to do so, then, really, how bad could Respondents conduct have been? Complete
28
- 18/27 -
173
audio of trial purchased from RMC with no changes whatsoever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7C_3JzIoL4 ).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11. On August 20, 2011, Respondent was arrested and charged

with Petit Larceny and Possession of Stolen Property, misdemeanor for
stealing a cell phone. Respondent recorded his arrest and has posted the
video on You-Tube. The video was publicly posted by Respondent and
may be viewed at the following internet address:
http://www.Youtube.com/watch?V=5PR7q4OI5b0
12. On January 14, 2012, Respondent was arrested and charged
with Abusing 911 Emergency Services, a gross misdemeanor. Respondent
recorded his arrest and posted the video on You-Tube. The video is posted
at the following internet address:
http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=CvK6kvJrwFA
10
(NOTE: Respondent is not sure that the links in such as the above
11
12
in the SCR 117 Petition ever worked, but a video of such arrest can be
13
found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3t_kRR0RA The
14
police department audio of the arrest along with a slideshow of pictures
15
from the events surrounding is available here:
16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_dxbsEXsBY )
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13. Concerning the criminal proceedings involving the charge

referenced in paragraph 12, above, Respondent filed a document in the
Reno Justice Court, Case No. RCR2012-065630, entitled, "Notice of
Appearance, Entry of Plea of Not Guilty, Waiver of Right to Arraignment,
Motion to Dismiss.' This document is attached as Exhibit 2 and
incorporated herein by this reference. The document commences with the
following statement: To all those in Reno, Washoe County, and beyond
who want to perpetuate this chicanery: `Okay, you're A goon, but what's a
goon to a goblin? The document contains a rambling and essentially
incoherent recitation of arguments and alleged facts. It also contains
disparaging remarks about various court officers and officials.
Noting what Judge Schroeder stated to Respondent at the conclusion of the
26
hearing wherein Hill voluntarily dropped his TPO against Coughlin, is hardly
27
disparaging. Coughlin could have done a bit better at page 5 thereof by pointing out
28
- 19/27 -
174
how DDA Youngs criminal complaint ignored Shepp and Staab in failing to specify
which another or other person it was whom Coughlin allegedly received such
stolen property from (ie, the existence, much less the identity of the Finder of such
iPhone whom thereafter threatened to throw it in the river nearby unless someone
5
6
claimed it) is noticeably not mentioned in any way in such Criminal Complaint criticized
justifiably in such filing by Coughlin attached as Exhibit 2 to the SCR 117 Petition.
14. On November 13, 2011, Respondent was arrested by Reno

Police Department and charged with Trespassing, a misdemeanor.
Respondent recorded his arrest and has posted the arrest video on YouTube. The Internet address of the video is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssE0FWHFNEY
9
10
11
12
(NOTE: for whatever reasons (not sure) that link does not work, but
13
Respondent has gone to great lengths to transcribe and make available to actual
14
videos Hill and Merliss themselves filmed, which show Hills testimony at
15
Coughlins 11/14/12 formal disciplinary hearing to be fraudulent (wherein Hill
16
departed from what is clearly conveyed on not only these videos, but in his
17
18
testimony during the trespass trial itself, in suddenly alleging that he heard the police
19
communicate to Coughlin not only that they were the police, but also that Coughlin
20
had to leave, upon Hill sensing that trespass requires a failure to leave after being
21
warned to do so and that a summary removal orders (especially one prematurely
22
executed and during the pendency of a stay thereof) is not tantamount to a criminal
23
24
25
26
27
28
trespass warning. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6I3t7tTlPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh2xyc-9cg0
15. Respondent's trespass arrest arose after an eviction hearing
before Justice of the Peace Peter Sferrazza. Respondent was evicted from
his residence per order of the court effective November 1, 2011. After
being evicted, Respondent was later found living in the basement of the
- 20/27 -
175
1
2
3
4
residence. The locks on the residence had been broken. (NOTE: this is
not true and has never been supported by any testimony or evidence. Hill
merely testified that the locks were unlocked, not broken. Regardless,
Coughlin had every right to be at his former home law office, it was Hill
and Baker whom, along with the WCSO, did the breaking and entering)
The Reno Police tried to convince Respondent to Leave the premises, but
he would not voluntarily leave.
5
6
(NOTE: add to this language the SBN and Hills curious use of the term coax,
as in the police attempted to coax Coughlin out of the basement and Hills subsequent
remixing of these events to sound like an actual order/warning by anyone whom had
identified themselves as having the authority to issue such a warning to leave, plays as
10
extremely suspect. The police do not try to convince one they are ordering to leave a
11
12
13
premises of anything. They issue and if it is not complied with they arrest the suspect.
Regardless, and this is proven by the videos (which NNDB Susich obviously did
14
not watch, Coughlin is seen and heard in the videos asking the police why they do not
15
just order him to leave and provide him an opportunity to do so if they feel he is
16
trespassing, whereupon the police fail to do anything of the sort, but rather, take the fraud
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Hill and Merliss feed them and run with it (all dissected in excruciating detail in 61901
and 62337).
The owner kicked a door open and Respondent was arrested
thereafter. Respondent filed a 36-page "Notice of Appearance as CoCounsel, and Motion to Dismiss" the trespass charge on March 5 2012, in
the Second judicial District Court, bearing Case No: 11 CR 26405. A copy
of the "motion" is attached as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by this reference.
The document is incoherent, confused and rambling.
Paragraphs 16 to 17 of the SCR 117 Petition have been addressed by
25
Judge Nash Holmes vacating such orders referenced therein.

26
27
28
19. On March 22, 2012, Respondent arrived at the Reno

Municipal. Court. He spoke with a clerk of the court and with the clerk's
supervisor. His conduct became so disruptive that security had to be
- 21/27 -
176
1
2
3
called to remove him from the courthouse. The claimant was wearing
smiley face flannel pajama bottoms and a white tee shirt. Underneath the
tee shirt, the claimant was wearing a dress shirt and a tie. See, Affidavit of
Officer Scott Coppa, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
RMC Filing Office Supervisor Ballards own attached Affidavit admits that no one
5
6
asked Coughlin to or directed Coughlin to leave prior to Ballard summoning the RMC
Marshals over to ask Coughlin to leave. The entire incident revolved around the RMC
refusing to turn over/allow Coughlin to purchase the audio of the 2/27/12 and 3/12/12
traffic citation outside Hills office trial before Judge Holmes.
10
Regardless, all orders from and that entire case has been dismissed.
11
12
Further, NNDB Susichs characterization here is incredibly misleading, as it sounds as
13
though Coughlin had to be physically removed from the court house, perhaps even after
14
refusing to leave.rightlike that would not have resulting in yet another trespass
15
arrest. This was simply a case of the RMC Marshals walked over to Coughlin out of the
16
blue while Coughlin was asking the filing office counter clerk questions relative to
17
18
obtaining an audio recording of a trial that he had/has every right to obtain, and telling
19
Coughlin to leave, whereupon, at which point, Coughlin immediately did without
20
incident. Hardly worthy of sicking the NNDB on some poor solo practitioner. Here is
21
how the RMCs Supervisor Ballard put it herself in her 4/11/12 Affidavit that the NNDB
22
conveniently omitted from its Petition: This type of conversation went on until I could
23
24
no longer help him and felt we had done everything we could at this point. I walked back
25
to my desk and heard him asking Daniel what the docket said. I could see that he was
26
writing down what Daniel told him and at this point I contacted Bill Williams in the
27
security office and told him we have had enough of Mr. Coughlin and he needs to leave.
28
- 22/27 -
177
Marshal Thompson arrived with another Marshal and Mr. Coughlin left. See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233318487/4-11-12-0204-62337-26800-26405-00696-RMC-
Donna-Ballard-Affidavit-to-the-SBN-Bates-1865
Such is typical of the RMC and Ballard. Refuse the public that to which they are
5
6
entitled, then passive aggressively attempt to manufacture some situation allegedly
calling for bringing in armed guards prior to anyone from the RMC or even Ballard
herself communicating anything to Coughlin in the way of a warning or order to leave, or
even any indication that the RMC counter clerks would no further address Coughlins
10
inquiries. Just skip straight to send over the armed guards commanding the indigent
11
12
defendant seeking a copy of the audio of a trial completely necessary to the defense of his
13
law license to leave without anything in the way of an explanation as to how the RMC
14
can possibly get away with such a thing or justify it.
15
19
20. Respondent has posted on You-Tube and on his Law practice

webpage, Under the moniker: 25TeddyJames, several videos. In the
videos, Respondent is seen driving in his car or sitting in pajamas
discussing both the court and its staff. In the videos, he states that a
named police detective admitted taking bribes from a named local
attorney. He also discusses court staff and states how much income they
make.
20
Respondent has demonstrated, in excruciating detail in 62337, that, not only did
16
17
18
21
the officer or detective referenced say, verbatim what Coughlin has repeatedly quoted
22
him as saying as to attorney Hill, but, further, that Respondent has always gone out of his
23
24
way to point out such was likely poorly chosen moment of sarcasm by the officer rather
25
than an actual admission of having taking bribes. Even Hill had to admit in his testimony
26
that such had been so couched during Coughlins invocation of such statements by the
27
officer involved.
28
- 23/27 -
178
1
2
3
Paragraph 21 of the SCR 117 Petition is irrelevant in light of such 4/13/09 Order
After Trial being vacated by the 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce, which did not sanction
Coughlin and which did, actually, award the very alimony Coughlin was previously
criticized for pursuing for his victim of domestic violence legal aid client.
5
6
7
8
9
DECLARATION
The assertions herein are made, pursuant to NRS 53.045 under penalty of perjury
and based upon my first hand knowledge of these matters, and all the documents linked to
herein are true, correct, and complete copies thereof.
10
11
Dated this 7/22/14
12
13
/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed electronically
14
Zach Coughlin
15
Respondent
16
17
1471 E. 9th St.

Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 24/27 -
179
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
1
2
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I do hereby certify that, on this date, I, Zach Coughlin I
placed in the USPS mail a copy hereof to the STATE BAR OF NEVADA
3
4
PATRICK O. KING
DAVID CLARK/ GLENN MACHADO/ PHIL PATTEE
6
7
600 E. Charleston Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89104

Also email to all four OBC attorneys
DATED THIS: Dated this 7/22/14

9
10
/s/ Zach Coughlin
11
Zah Coughlin
12
Respondent
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25/27 -
180
Index to Exhibits:
100 pages of relevant materials
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
- 26/27 -
181
1
2
3
4
5
Which is/was, apparently, the fate of Coughlins attempts to appeal or challenge by writ
of mandate RMC Judge Howards Order For Summary Punishment of Contempt attached
as Exhibit 1 to the SCR 117 Petition (please see debate over Judge Elliotts 3/15/12 Order
in the appeal/petition for writ challenging both the candy bar/cough medication petty
larceny conviction (see 60838 as well) in SBNs filings of 6/3/14 in 62337 and Coughlins
response thereto)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 27/27 -
182
7/22/2014
Outlook.com Print Message
Print
Close
Request for consideration of stipulated resolution of appeal in

62337
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 5/02/14 2:26 PM
To: patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org); je@eloreno.com (je@eloreno.com)
2 attachments
4 22 14 Notice of Orders of Dismissal of trespass and contempt conviction in 62337 1412934.pdf (301.2 KB) , Order Reinstating Beckett were conviction was dismissed 11-09965.pdf
(1138.4 KB)
Dear Chair Echeverria and Asst. Bar Counsel King,

I hope you both are well and do not mind me writing to you.
In Re Beckett case 57763 reveals that the Nevada Supreme Court (SCR 123(3) allows for citing to such)
views the dismissal of a conviction as a basis for dissolving a temporary suspension under SCR 111(10), as the
4/4/11 Order in such case held: "SCR 111(10) gives us discretion to reinstate an attorney whose underlying
conviction has been reversed. The petition is accompanied by a certified copy of a February 2, 2011, order
from the Pahrump Township Justice Court dismissing Case No. 10CR01587 with prejudice. In light of the fact
that the charge underlying our order of temporary suspension has been dismissed with prejudice, and our
previous determination that Beckett's California misdemeanor conviction did not warrant imposition of a
temporary suspension, we conclude that there is no longer a basis for Beckett being temporarily suspended
pending the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings. We therefore grant the petition. Attorney Robert S.
Beckett, Bar No. 3383, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law pending the outcome of his disciplinary
proceedings."
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=25910
Please note that in the appeal of the Recommendation to irrevocably disbar me, on 4/22/14 I attached to my
filing two Orders of Dismissal by RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacating the criminal trespass conviction (11 CR
26405) and the contempt conviction that was characterized by the Panel as "criminal contempt" (11 TR
26800): http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=30514
Further, both the summary contempt order of 11/30/11 and the 11/30/11 conviction for petty larceny of "a
candy bar and some cough drops" (where such "cough drops" were a potentially lethal dose of
Dextromethorphan, which acts as a halucinogenic as such levels) underpinning the current temporary
suspension of my law license in 60838 were remanded back to the RMC "for all further proceedings" via the
3/15/12 Order in CR11-2064, which notes that only in a civil case does NRS 4.410(2)(a) apply, and
https://bay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
183
1/2
7/22/2014
references NRS 189.030(1), which required the RMC to file the transcript of the trial, which the RMC failed to
ever do. NRS 189.035 provides that a remand for a new trial is required under such circumstances. As such,
that conviction has been vacated as well. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=30514
I respectfully request that consideration be given to some stipulated resolution of the appeal in 62337. I do
not believe the Panel has technically been divested of jurisdiction in light of the 12/14/12 FOFCOL not being
titled a "Decision" as required by SCR 105(3) and the fact that I did file a tolling motion on 1/3/13,
supplemented on 1/16/13. I have recently been release from Washoe jail after serving 5.5 months there and
hope it is evident to all that I am a humbled, changed man, and that being reinstated to slowly begin practicing
law in baby steps is in my best interest, and presents no threat of harm to anyone.
Further, I know that such an approach would greatly assist Washoe Legal Services and its Executive
Director Paul Elcano in their efforts to help me move on with my career and in life.
The attorney fee award at issue in formal hearing exhibit 2 (the NRS 69.050 prevailing party fee award to
Hill's client, Merliss, which Judge Flanagan expressly characterized as not a sanction) has been satisfied.
Further, the 4/13/09 "sanction" in formal hearing exhibit 3 that Mr. Elcano testified with regard to in the Joshi
divorce trial in DV08-01168 was vacated by way of 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's 6/19/09 Final Decree of
Divorce.
Washoe Legal Services assisted me in satisfying the judgment owed Merliss, and I would like to repay WLS
via working pro bono on its behalf, but I need to be reinstated to do so. If you do not feel a stipulated
resolution of the entire matter in 62337 is appropriate at this juncture, I ask that you consider stipulating to
dissolve my current 23 month temporary suspension incident to the referral in 60838 for a conviction that is no
more, consistent with SCR 111(10) and the approach detailed above from In Re Beckett.
Sincerely and Respectfully Submitted,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
184
2/2
7/22/2014
Print
Close
substitution of counsel
Sent: Mon 5/12/14 9:02 AM
To: patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org)
Cc: laurap@nvbar.org (laurap@nvbar.org)
185
1/2
7/22/2014
Dear Mr. King,

I've got new representation...my new chihuahua, Lupita. Just kidding. But, she is watching out for and taking
care of me. I know you are a dog person, so you can appreciate that. I am trying to get an attorney to
represent me in these bar matters as I feel that I have been so terrible towards you and Ms. Peters that the
most considerate thing to do would be to limit the amount you have to interact with me. I am hoping to get a
remand of the sort Mr. Briggs has benefited from, and am writing to see if you are amenable to such, and, if
not, if there is anything I can do or show to get back in your good graces. I met Coe Swobe's replacement,
Mitch Cobeaga, at last Thursday's Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers meeting. I saw my psychiatrist Dr.
Stepanova last week, and will see my psychologist Bill Jackson, Ph.D. on May 15th, 2014, both of Northern
Nevada Adult Mental Health. Please consider this a full release to speak with either of them about anything
you wish to, and I have provided a release to both assenting to as much as well.
I've got a home group for my twelve step program, the 6:45 am Beginner's Are Winners meeting, my sponsor is
Bubba, and Mary K. can keep close tabs on me that way.
Respectfully,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel 775 338 5334 and Fax: 949 667
186
2/2
7/22/2014
Print
Close
RE: SC Case 60975

Sent: Tue 7/22/14 11:48 AM
To: Phillip Pattee (philp@nvbar.org)
Dear Mr. Patee,

I am now scheduled to be evaluated on Friday, July 25th, by Dr. Nielsen at his office on Willow St.
Sincerely,
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq. (USPTO) 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel 775 338 5334 Fax: 949 667
From: philp@nvbar.org
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: SC Case 60975
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:46:40 +0000
Zach,
Thank you for your message, and for your efforts. I shall keep the Supreme Court
informed.
Phil
187
1/3
7/22/2014
Phillip J. Pattee
600 E. Charleston Boulevard

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Office: (702) 382-2200
Fax: (702) 382-8747
Fr om: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

Sent : Monday, July 21, 2014 9:30 PM
To: Laura Peters; Patrick King; Phillip Pattee
Cc: aingersoll@nvcourts.nv.gov; tlindemann@nvcourts.nv.gov
Subject : RE: SC Case 60975
Dear NV Bar,
I have been trading voice mails with Dr. Nielsen and finally just asked him to tell
me a date and time and indicated I would be sure to show up for such for the
evaluation, and asked if he would let me know of any releases or records he
188
2/3
7/22/2014
would like to have in connection with the evaluation. I left him another message
today.
Sincerely,
From: laurap@nvbar.org
To: ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: SC Case 60975
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:14:31 +0000
Please see attachment
Laura Peters
Paralegal
Office of Bar Counsel
189
3/3
Print
Close
Apology and Zach Coughlin prescription medications

information
Sent: Mon 5/14/12 12:37 PM
To: tcoughlinmd@hotmail.com; davidc@nvbar.org; patrickk@nvbar.org; glennm@nvbar.org;
marybarkbark@yahoo.com
1 attachment
Zach Coughlin rx history since February 2008.pdf (1163.3 KB)
D ear
Dad, Bar Counsel, Mom and Melissa,
I am sorry for all the hurtful things I have said and done in the last
year. I haven't been on my Wellbutrin/Buproprion antidepressant
for quite awhile (I pulled my pharmacy records recently to try to
learn from some things). I have taken anti-depressants since I was
18 years old. I wasn't on either my Wellbutrin or Adderall for all of
August 2011 until September 14, 2011. I was arrested on August
20th, 2011 and September 9th, 2011. The Walmart arrest involved
chocolate and cough drops. The cough drops have
dextromethorphan in them, which is a dissociative in high enough
doses. Chocolate (sugar) is, of course, an old time palliative. The
banned cough drop (the melt or dissolve very quickly and contain
30 mg in each one...so rather than powering through a whole bottle
of cough syrup to take 300 mg of DM, one could eat 10 cough drop
melts rather easily and quickly). These drops were pulled from
shelfs for awhile when they first came out a few years ago, I believe
because of the abuse potential or dangers of being able to ingest
that high a quantity of a powerful dissociative so quickly (the cough
syrup version of dextromethorpan is extremely difficult to just drink
190
a whole bottle of, whereas the sugary cough melts are pretty much
similar to candy). I went off the Adderall on approximately
August 2, 2011. I went of the Wellbutrin in July 2011, right after
the breakup of a four and half year. Okay, I went and found the
records and am attaching them to this email. I wondered whether
the switch from Vyvanse to Adderall coincided with my getting
fired from Washoe Legal Services, but actually, it does not appear
to have. I was suspended on April 20th, 2009 from WLS. Then,
my termination date was May 12th, 2009. I only started taking
Adderall instead of Vyvanse on June 13th, 2009. I was wondering
if I became more irritable upon starting Adderall instead of
Vyvanse and though maybe that cause the problems with the family
court Judge during the March 2009 trial and then with Washoe
Legal Services. I am actually kind of relieved to see their does not
appear to be a causal connection given the chronology. I think I
just felt WLS was a bit of a dead end job for me, was ruining my
work ethic and motivation, and was, perhaps, an environment where
white males had to conform to a certain prototype to fit in, one
which I was not entirely at home with.
You can see I filled one prescription for Campral. See this forum
for evidence that tolerance to Adderall is sometimes thought to be
counteracted by a class of medications that includes Campral,
Dextormethorphan (DM is also being used to treat chronic pain
patients in some experimental studies), etc.:
http://addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36078
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10875724
I recall researching this in an attempt to be ultra cautious in
my use of Adderall.
191

My chronic pain levels seem to be much, much, more manageable
when I am taking Wellbutrin and Adderall. I believe that the
chronic upper back pain I dealt with for years was due, in part, to
emotional/mental stress related to not appropriately addressing my
ADHD and the spotty use of antidepressants I exhibited during
those years (if my Dad and I were getting along, I would get
Wellbutrin from him for free, if we weren't, I would rarely secure
my own health insurance or pay out of pocket for that
antidepressant, but would rather "rough it" to save money). When I
went off the Wellbutrin and Adderall, the chronic pain returned,
plus, I was basically in the early stages of a "divorce" from Melissa
(whom I dated and lived with since April-ish 2007 until May 17th,
2011. Melissa and I had been fighting since we moved into the
home/office on River Rock on February 20th, 2010. From probably
June 2010 until she moved out on May 17th, 2011, we fought
almost daily, sometimes in a fairly hostile way (I was never
physically violent with her, but she got a bit with me). I was
existing on $400 a week in unemployment benefits, receiving them
for 99 weeks. I actually worked quite hard the entire time. I
learned a lot about a lot of different things, including some things
related to the business of law, practice management, employment
law, computers, software, hardware, cars, home improvement, I did
focus on music for about 6 months straight (though I always
continued to apply for jobs and send out resumes during this 99
weeks...Washoe County had 15% unemployment during those 3
years and jobs were in short supply and starting my own law
practice seemed overly risky), and I was basically Melissa's maid
and helper with proofreading her schoolwork for a couple years (in
192
my mind at least, of course she may have a vastly different view of

things). She worked a significant amount of hours and was in
school full time and was irritable, extremely emotional, and
stretched pretty thin. I implemented the "I pay for dinner one time,
then you pay for dinner one time" rule for going out to dinner, and,
of course, that took a lot of the romance out of things. I think I
became very insecure about money and my career and getting fired
from WLS was very, very discouraging. But, I worked their for 18
months. Previous to that my longest tenure of employment at any
job whatsoever was literally 4 months at Hale Lane. I am talking
ANY job, my whole life. I realize my father has concerns about
someone in recovery taking a controlled substance like Adderall,
but I have exhibited symptoms consistent with a strong case of
ADHD my entire life, and feel to potential for substance abuse
inherent to untreated ADHD presents a great risk than does taking
Adderall, though, admittedly, it is something that one must watch
and realize that it can effect one's behavior and mood, sometimes in
good ways, sometimes in bad ways. But so can drinking or not
drinking water. So can taking or not taking insulin. Same with
coffee. So, in some ways I consider adding the Adderall to the
Wellbutrin a success and feel that I may have purposefully gotten
fired from WLS because the malaise there and institutional politics
were tough to deal with. Plus, it just occurred to me there that I
could work there forever, it was an incredibly easy job, but their
was not a pension, the pay was like $55K, they didn't give me the
$5K raise after a year they promised (it seems small, but watching
them heat half and empty building for months on end to 84 degrees
round the clock because the office manager couldn't figure out how
to fix the thermostat was just irritating), and that the law just held a
193
different destiny for me than to be a legal aid domestic violence

attorney for years and years, as honorable and admirable as that
may be. Interestingly, a couple of the people I had the most
problems with appear to have been fired from WLS after me.
Previously, the Executive Director basically would not fire anyone
unless they embezzled. It appears I changed his approach and got
him to implement firing people as a management tool. He fired that
office manager, RK,and he also fired ZL (I believe, though she
might have just left, though I cannot imagine that because what
other job would allow her to call in sick, with full pay, 30 Fridays a
year and be accountable to absolutely no one and call herself a
paralegal with no apparent legal training at all? Plus she, allegedly,
had borrowed money from various employees without paying them
back, so...).
Speaking of borrowing money, when we broke up, Melissa stayed
at Mom's for awhile (Mom now says Melissa "uses her tears to her
advantage" and that she "feels a bit used by Melissa"), and Mom
bought her a $500 mattress from Costco (we had two very nice
memory foam beds I build with spare foam from Mills End fabrics
and all bought with my $400 a week and thrift, and I just didn't
want to give Melissa one when I felt she had been so unappreciative
of things just like my building those beds and doing the research,
etc.). We both agreed though that Melissa being an insulin
dependent diabetic undoubtedly presents challenges to her in
regulating her mood and emotions and that Melissa has
demonstrated extraordinary courage and resolve in meeting those
challenges. Then, Mom just admitted to me that Carly loaned
Melissa several hundred dollars. Apparently Carly is pissed
194
because Melissa is in New York City right now and still hasn't paid
Carly or Mom back(she also went in September 2011, and we were
supposed to go in July 2011, bought the tickets and everything
$450, but her Aunt decided to change her travel to Ireland dates, so
I basically lost that $450 due to the change fees Delta and American
charge-Melissa bought the tickets and did not think to utilize
Southwest...). Melissa also made off with at least one and possibly
two months of my rent contribution that I gave her to give the
landlord, plus, she didn't pay the landlord her contribution for May
2011, June 2011, etc. However, as in all 4.5 year relationships,
things get blurry, etc., and she is a wonderful person.
SOMETHING PRETTY INTERESTING:
One thing I note from the prescription history is I filled a
Buproprion (note, I am using the terms Buproprion and
Wellbutrin interchangeably) script on 3/18/09, then did not fill
another one until 5/4/09...meaning a period of some 16 days
or so where I was either out of Buproprion or did not take it
or took less than my typical dose. I was suspended from
WLS on 4/20/09. My final termination date was 5/12/09.
That is pretty interesting. I seem to recall sometimes when
my script for Buproprion ran out and there could be some lag
time getting the doctor to fax a renewal to the pharmacy, and
I believe at one point during the past couple years I
complained to the pharmacy and the doctors office about an
extended delay in getting my prescription renewed and filled
and I specifically took them to task about the dangers of
patients suddenly going of there antidepressants and recall
being upset about what I perceived to be the doctor's office's
or pharmacies negligence in so renewing the prescriptions. I
195
do not believe I was blame shifting and avoiding my own

responsibilities in that regard, but it is possible I should have
done more in advance of running out of my Buproprion to
renew the prescription and or should have followed up more
on the failure to so renew after I made the renewal
request....I believe this was during that 5/4/11 to 5/21/11
period, but am not sure at this point, but I recall being upset
that somethign like 3 weeks went by and my prescription was
not ready...or I may have been late in making the request. I
seem to undervalue what Bupropion does for my mood and
behavior, I recall often thinking they were just "sugar pills"
and it was all in my mind, any benefit....But, I didn't always
believe that, sometimes finding the efficacy apparent.
Looks like I went off Buproprion between 5/21/20 and
6/17/10 as well. I went off Buproprion again between 8/12/10
and 10/6/10....I notice that my copays stopped around
7/12/10, which was went I stopped getting the reduced Cobra
premiums under the Obama bailout, and had to start paying
out of pocket (though it was essentially a wash, because the
Cobra was $180 a month, plus $20 in copays, whereas, out of
pocket was probably less overall, though it was $105 ever 3
months for the psychiatrist and the prices of Adderall and
Wellbutrin (I dropped Adderal XR probably because it cost
more) spiked somewhat during that time). Then again from
11/6/10 to 12/2/10, though its possible that I used that
10/6/10 prescription, which consisted of 120 of the 75mg
Buproprion generic versions to try to effect a discount by
taking less Buproprion per day, ie, stretch one month of a
script out 3 months or so by only taking 150 mg or 75 mg or
196
something, I do remember trying to save money like that. I

am very startled to see that from 5/4/11 to 5/21/11 I would
have been out of Wellbutrin/Buproprion. Melissa and I broke
up and she moved out on 5/17/11. I did have trouble with
the ignition cylinder turning the key to start the car when
trying to go to Melissa's graduation party on 5/15/11, and
was at least 45 minutes late, causing her embarassment and
pain. However, despite the fact that the key would not turn
the cylinder causing me some delay, I believe it did not cause
that much of a delay in finding some other way to get to the
graduation party, but rather, my ADHD and depression led
me to trying to do to many other things that day, misjudging
time and the ability to get a reasonable amount of things
done (I was probably trying to finish fixing Melissa's car or
something else that was no where near as important as
showing up to that party on time....but that is typical of
people with depression and ADHD, the prioritizing and
misjudging time, lateness, etc....). I do recall saying very
mean things to Melissa during that 3 week stretch in May
2011...however, both she and I were stressed out preparing
for her graduation and final exams, having a great deal of her
out of town family coming into town, my fighting with my Dad
starting on 4/28/11 and having a bad argument about
something rather small and minor, etc., and my
unemployment benefits stopping right about late April 2011
(99 weeks from May 21, 2009 start date would mean my
unemployment ran out in early April 2011, I believe).
I switched to the cheaper generic version of Adderall from the
perhaps more steady consistent Adderall XR in June 2010.
197
Melissa and I fought constantly from June 2010 until our

breakup in June 2011....There were news reports of the price
of Adderall XR skyrocketing out of the blue at about this time
and there was a fair amount of controversy about Shire
retaining the rights to make the generic and the generic
version being essentially, garbage, according to many
patients.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=112229
It is pretty crappy when you think about it, these drug
companies increasing the copay from $29 on a mental health
medication once month to $180 the next...and artificially
forcing people to avoid the generic by retaining the rights to
the generic and purposefully making the generic lack efficacy.
http://www.drugs.com/answers/why-has-the-price-ofadderall-generic-30-mg-gone-455000.html
http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/2/16/anatomy-of-thegreat-adderall-drought
http://www.thefix.com/content/pay-attention-adderall-addbig-pharma7004
I then went off my Wellbutrin/Buproprion from 7/25/11 until
4/28/ 12..From filling the Buproprion at a cost of $20 in June
of 2011 until recently filling the prescription in late April 2012,
the cost has gone up 300%. That medication has been off
patent for some 20 years now, it should not be rising in price,
198
especially during a period where the economy has struggled

so mightily. Interestingly, the cost of those cough drop melts
with 30 mg of Dextromethorphan per melt rose form around
$6.50 a box in 2007 or so to $8.88 in September 2011 for the
exact same quantity/dosage. I simply could not afford it
though on at least two occasions I called up Northern Nevada
Adult Mental Health and inquired about the possibility of
getting the cost paid for by the state or subsidized. In
evaluating the time and relinquishment of my privacy rights
(there is a fair amount of shame and worry about one's
professional reputation and how those in recovery or AA will
view one's taking these medications associated with taking
ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder medications) that I felt
it would require to achieve the savings of around $125 a
month for these two prescriptions, I never decided it was
worth it to go to NAMS, but rather just stopped paying for the
Buproprion (again, I sometimes viewed it as a sugar pill,
whereas the Adderall I felt had an effect, both for controlling
ADHD and for the supplemental uses as a treatment resistant
antidepressant and the off label use for the control of OCD.
In that time period I was put in jail 8 times and, essentially
evicted 3 times and fought with and alienated myself from my
entire family, lived a very secluded, reclusive life, etc...
exhibited poor impulse control, a temper, and symptoms
consistent with untreated Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)
and perhaps some type of hoarding behavior or Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder, including tiling the River Rock home
office, collecting car seats, recarpeting the entire home office
with scraps in a patchwork, and tiling the crumbling front
steps, and putting green carpet on the dirt lawn.
199
I was arrested on:

8/20/11 for petit larceny (the lost mislaid iPhone thing where
the finder said he would "throw it in the river if someone
doesn't claim it right away"). 7 days in jail.
9/9/11 for petit larceny at Wal-Mart of a chocolate bar and
two boxes of the cough medication drops/melts with
Dextromethorphan 30 mg per melt. 1 day in jail.
11/12/11 for criminal trespass at my former home law office
(i was issued 3 traffic citations days later when I went to the
opposing attorney who signed the criminal trespass
complaints office to retrieve my wallet and driver's license and
was told to leave by the RPD. While driving away the RPD
pulled me over and charged me with a "California Roll"/failure
to come to a complete stop and a couple fix it tickets, that
were ultimately fixed). 3 days in jail
11/30/11 for summary contempt during the trial for the WalMart chocolate bar and cough medication drops Trial before
Judge Howard in RMC 11 CR 22176. 1 day in jail.
1/12/12 for jaywalking while filming personal property at my
former home law office being placed in a dump truck for
hauling to the dump. 1 day in jail
1/14/12 for "misuse of 911 where no actual or perceived
emergency exists), a gross misdemeanor incident to the
domestic violence I was victimized by on E. 9th St. by my
housemates. 3 days in jail
2/27/12 for summary contempt during the trial for the
11/15/11 traffic citations "California Roll"/failure to come to a
complete stop at stop sign deal....5 days in jail
4/19/12 for contempt, I believe, for failing to fully participate
200
(concern for privacy rights, shame, etc) in the ordered

competency evaluation that Judge Elliot ordered I undergo
with the Lake's Crossing doctors. I spent 7 days in jail.
I am feeling better and better since starting to take my
antidepressant, Wellbutrin again, and now realize I need to be
much more diligent in filling that prescription in a timely
manner and making preparations for situations where I might
not be able to afford it. I plan to write many apology letters,
including to judges, bar counsel, opposing counsel, etc. I
always fought and worked hard for my clients though for an
extremely competitive price.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
201
Page, 1
ME D I CAL
E X PEN S E S
COUGZA1
Resppty:
DC E ST # 14229TH
RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976

195 W. PLUMB LANE
NV 89509
RENO
RPh: MENDJI, MELISSA/MOHAMMAD
,NV 89512
Date: 08/28/2007 TO 08/28/2012
prescriptions :
LastFill Rx#
11/27/07
12 / 27 /0 7
01/30/08
02/01/08
03/01/08
03/03/08
03/30/08
04/02/08
05/01/08
05/05/08
06/02/08
06/02/08
06/27/08
07/03/08
08 /0 1 /08
08/04/08
08 /30/08
09/06/08
09/30/08
09/30/08
10 /30/08
10 /30/08
11/30/08
11 /30/08
12 / 19/08
12 /28/08
12/28/08
01/24/09
01/24/09
02/17/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
03/18/09
0 3/ 18/09
03/20/09
04/17/09
05/04/09
05/18/09
06/05/09
06 /13/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
09/10/09
10/16/09
10 / 16 /0 9
11 / 15 /09
11 /23/0 9
12/31/09
01/17/10
2400458
2400714
6405827
2401067
6405827
2401357
240 1 611
6413703
2401932
6416295
2402229
6416295
2402484
6416295
2402852
6422989
2403149
6422989
2403415
6422989
2403418
6430436
2403419
6430436
6434447
2404354
6434452
2404356
6434452
6430436
2404355
2405234
6441680
6441682
6441898
2405236
6441682
2405237
6441682
2406366
2406369
6452048
2407073
6452048
6456472
2407500
6456472
2407501
6463678
6463678
6468474
Drug Name
METHYL IN 20MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUDEPRION XL 300 MG
METHYLIN 20MG
BUDEPRION XL 300 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 l"'(}
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
GUANFACINE IMG
VYVlINSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 3 00 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
GUlINFACINE IMG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VIAGRA sOMG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
AMPlfETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
OMEPRAZOLE 20MG
Qty Physician Name

60
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
5
30
30
30
30
60
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
60
60
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr. COUGHLIN
T/ P
OPU
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
Price
RPh
22.23
JH1
JT3
25.00
22.23
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
JWH
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25 . 00
5.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
73.41
25.00
25 . 00
160.48
92.72
52 .68
52.68
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
TZ2
JTs
JH2
JH5
JT3
JH3
JT1
JT3
JT3
JT6
JT4
K06
TZ7
TZ5
JT6
KC2
KC2
JRT
JTl
JT6
JT6
JT3
JT4
JT8
TZs
TZ5
JTs
TZs
TZ2
JT3
JT3
TZ5
JT8
MVB
JRT
TNZ
TNZ
JT9
JG6
JG3
JTl
JT5
JGS
JG5
JG6
JTl
JGs
JT5
202
Page: 2
M E D I CAL
E X PEN S E S
COUGZAl
Resppty :
DC E ST # 14229TH
RENO
Birth, 09/27/1976
Pharmacy: SAVE MART PHARMACY #SS6

195 w. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89S09
RPh: MENDJI, MELISSA/ MOHAMMAD
,NV 89S12
Prescriptions:
Date: 08/28/2007 TO 08/28/2012
LastFil1 Rx#
Drug Name
Qty Physician Name
01/22/10
02/02/10
02/19/10
02/24/10
03/18/10
03/19/10
03/20/10
04/19/10
04/21/10
OS/22/10
06/03/10
06/17/10
07/12/10
08/02/10
09/02/10
10/02/10
1 0/06/ 10
11 /0 1 /10
12 /02/ 10
12 /02/ 10
12/18/10
12/23/10
01/31/11
01/31/11
03/03/11
03/03/11
04/04/11
04/04/11
04/22/11
OS/21/11
06/ 03 / 11
06/25/11
06/29/11
09/12/11
10 / 13 / 11
11 / 17 / 11
12 / 26 / 11
01/26/12
02/27/12
04 /0 2/12
04/28/12
05/06/12
OS/24/12
06/06/12
06/23/12
07/22/12
08/28/12
AMPHETAMINE 20MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
METOCLOPRAM SMG
CAMPRAL 333MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
ADDERALL XR 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
ADDERALL XR 30MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 75MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPION lS0MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30t-'JG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPN HCL lS0MG X
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
90
60
60
40
180
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
120
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
2409075
6463678
240940S
6471901
6472900
6474257
2409769
6474257
2409770
2409771
6474257
2410853
6484763
2411503
2411881
2411974
6492514
2411973
2412940
6489816
2413141
6489816
2413142
6489816
2413143
6505746
2413144
6S05746
2414647
6S11008
2414644
6S11008
2414645
2416340
2416349
2416350
2416351
2417915
2417919
2417920
6521924
2417921
6521924
2419421
6S21924
2419422
2419423
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr. PARROTT APN
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr . RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr . YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr. YASARDr . YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr . YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr . YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr . YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
Dr.YASAR
T/P
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
Price
RPh
34 . 67
5.00
lS.00
4.87
2S.00
5 . 00
15.00
5 . 00
15.00
15 . 00
5.00
lS.00
5.00
32.95
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
32.9S
32.46
32.95
32.46
26.79
37.39
32.9S
37.39
26.79
36.89
20.23
45.46
60.00
60.00
60.00
69.19
69.19
69.19
61.01
69.19
42 .00
69.19
42.00
69.19
69 . 19
JG3
JG3
JG6
JG3
JG3
JT5
LB6
J15
AAF
JMG
ZM4
JT4
LBl
JG5
JT4
LB4
JGl
JT6
G13
JG1
G13
JG4
JT8
JT8
ZM6
J13
JT6
JT6
JG3
JT5
JT6
ZM2
ZM4
MM8
Z11
MM7
JT5
MM4
JT7
MM7
BB5
MH5
B25
MM1
BRB
JT5
MM9
203
Page : 3
M E D I CAL
COUGZA1
Resppty:
DC E ST # 14229TH
RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976
,NV
Prescriptions:
LastFill Rx #
EXPENSES
195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
RPh : MENDJI, MELISSA /MOHAMMAD
8~512
Date: 08/28/2007 TO 08/28/2012

Drug Name
Qty Physician Name
T/ P
Price
RPh
$3,090.10
Attested To By:
204
NOTE: this email is reproduced in truncated form here given it is a

resending of the same email from 5/14/12 to the SBN.
Print
Close
resending this FW: Apology and Zach Coughlin prescription

medications information
Sent: Tue 7/31/12 1:39 PM
To: patrickk@nvbar.org
1 attachment
Zach Coughlin rx history since February 2008.pdf (1163.3 KB)
Dear Mr. King,
I am resending this too you just in case it went into your "junk mail" folder the first time I sent it (given
that it was addressed to numerous people, as sometimes results in an email being declared "junk mail"
by one's email server)....Its admittedly fairly rambling, but I believe it does demonstrate a willingness to
look within for a cause of the problems I have encountered in the last year.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Apology and Zach Coughlin prescription medications information
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:37:17 -0700
D ear
Dad, Bar Counsel, Mom and Melissa,
year. I haven't been on my Wellbutrin/Buproprion antidepressant
205
RENO MUNICIPAL COURT

HON. JAY D. DILWORTH
Department I
"'''
1
,"
'
.",
HON. WILLIAM L. GARDNER
1
t
Department 2
"
CASSANDRA JACKSON
Court Administrator
JUSTIN ROPER
Chief Marshal- Department
of Alternative Sentencing
,
I
HON. DOROTHY NASH HOLMES

Department 3
HON. KENNETH R. HOWARD
Department 4
Affidayit
To: Nevada State Bar

Re: Zach Coughlin
I, Donna Ballard, Senior Court Specialist, of Reno Municipal Court, a court of law organized, incorporated
or existing under the laws of the Cityof Reno,
and with its principal business located at: 1 South Sierra Street. Reno. NY 89501.
Being duly sworn, do depose and say:
On 3/22/12 I heard Vanessa Garcia state that Coughlin was coming and he was in his pajamas. She
made a comment about them looking like Christmas pajamas. I looked up but was unable to see him. I
am unsure of the time at this point.
When Mr. Coughlin was called to Daniel Casillas' window #8, Daniel did his best to help Mr. Coughlin
for quite some time and then Daniel came to my desk and asked me to assist Mr. Coughlin. I began
speaking with Mr. Coughlin and noticed that he had on slightly shiny, polyester looking, white long sleeve
tee shirt that to me looked like the same fabric as an athleticjersey. I seem to recall a logo on the right
side. I could clearly see that he had a burgundy dress shirt and a lighter color tie under the white tee shirt.
During my conversation with Mr. Coughlin he was rude and repeated the same questions several times.
As he has asked in the past, "If Judge Howard told you to jump off a bridge would you?" The conversation
continued with Mr. Coughlin asking for records to which I answered that he could fIll out a records
request. Mr. Coughlin stated that he would depose me and I would be found negligent.
Mr. Coughlin kept insisting on copies of documents. I advised him to add them to the records request
he was mling out. He argues each time about being treated the same as anyone else that comes to the
court and asked why he can't email a request. After I had advised him several times that he could not
email or fax due to Judge Howard's order, I finally said that he was different because he abused it and
sent 176 pages.
This type of conversation went on until I could no longer help him and felt we had done everything we
could at this point. I walked back to my desk and heard him asking Daniel what the docket said. I could
see that he was writing down what Daniel told him and at this point I contacted Bill Williams in the
security office and told him we have had enough of Mr. Coughlin and he needs to leave. Marshal
Thornp",' arrived >rith another marsho! and
.1\
: !,.
Signature
State of Nevada
County of Washoe
4-\\-\
Date
SS
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
dtHlt .f>
day of-'--'.......
_,
UJI?..-.
1.012..
206
01865
FILED
APR 22 2014
207
12
FILID
DEPT. NO.3
Case No. 11 TR 26800 21

Dept. 3
APR -1 201~
i1<' :
T1ME:wr-_ _ _ _ __
BY
COROT~NASH HOLMES, JUDGE
4
5
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
...............
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
vs.
12
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
13
Defendant.
______________________
~I
14
15
16
IT IS THE ORDER OF THfS COURT, for good cause appearing and in the
interest of justice, that this case be, and hereby is, DISMISSED.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated this 7th day of April, 2014.
19
20
21
.&~~~
. Dorothy NaSlfOfmes
. .
Municipal Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
RENO
28
MUNICIPAL COURT
P.o. !lor 1Il00
Reno,"",""
(7II2)3u-mo
208
..
'
- '
ceBTIEICAIE OF SERVIQfi
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
Reno, Nevada, that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above action, and that
on this date, served a true and correct copy of the attached document to the following as set
forth below:
...L Placing said document in a sealed envelope and placed for collecting and mailing by
Unites States mall in Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile (FAX)
...L
Electronic Mail (E-mail) to City Attorney

Inner-office mail following ordinary business practices
Personal Delivery to City Attorney
Mr. Zachary B. Coughlin
Booking # 1317551
Washoe County Detention Facility
911 Parr Blvd
:Reno NV 95512
Dan Wong
Chief Criminal Deputy City Attorney
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
DATED: April", 2014.

P.O. Box 1800
Reno. NV 89505
(776) 3343822
209
1
2
FILED

OEPT. NO.3
Case No. 11 CR 26405
APR -7 2014
~~E<tk:::
DOROTHY NASH HOLMES, JUDGE
Dept. 3
..
'" '" '" '" '"
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
vs.
12
13
Defendant.
________________________
~I
14
15'
16
IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, for good cause appearing and in the
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21
=~~
Municipal Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
RENO
28
MUNICIPAL COUFtT
1'.0.8011_
A.no,~UI06
~33f.D80
210
CEBIIEJCAIE OF SERVICE
forth below:
-L Placing said document in a ".Ied envelope and placed for collecting and mailing by
Unites States mail in Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile (FAX)
-L

Booking # 1317561
911 Parr Blvd
Reno NV 96512
Dan Wong
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
DATED: April 7, 2014.

P.O. Box 1VOO
Reno, NV 89106
(776) 334-3822
211
1+--//----,---__~L.JL~._,~___~~_-jj~JL~-. -----~.~<~<.__<
I
I "" -.e-~ ~ N!Vt':(),H-'V' ("'.
/t-_ "-"'- -,
e.,J-" (..;.e-- f" ~)
.-~-- ---"-.--'-<--~-. -.-../..-.-<-..--<,..--~.--~~.-.~--- - - -
l'~4-~
liL
fl~'<~.,
_ _ _ _,
~.
______
~_ ._.~~.<_=.~,~ _-.~. "~"'

.
...
. <_._....... ,..
<.
<,~~_.<"_
.." _ _
<
zJ:q;..v-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-_ _ _- - - - _
Zl~/---------------
212
NORTBERN NEVADA ADULT MENrALEEALTH SERVICES

'.
.
.. 480 GALLETTI WAY . .
'SPARKS, NEVADA 89431
. 775-688-2025
CONFIDENrrALINFORMATION
'.
'fhi9. intbrm.ation has b~ disclosed ~ yon from records whose confidentiality is
:
protected by State and ~ laws and mguIations, inc.hlemg the Health. Insurance
Portability and Accormtabffity Act (fUPAA) an.Ci FederalReguIation 42 ~ Part 2.
4?o ~ Part 2 prohibits you from mBking iirrther disclosure of this ~rmation without
the s~ific written cansem ~~the person to whom ~ pertains..
.
,
'The. ~al ~ restrict 8lly use bfthls fuformation bJ crlmrnally investigate or

pro~ any alcohol or ~ ~ pent.
....... -.
.'
Destroy ~ infur.mation after its stated need has been fiillilled. rfyou are not the
iptegded recI.pi~ you are hereb-y ootffied that my dfscJosun; COpying; d:istrif:nItion or
n tabn in re.T.iaJloe OIl the ccmfents ofthes~ docunmIlf:s'is sf:Ill?tIy prohibited. ,Ifyoil
haw.received thls imQrmEion in
please notifytha sender,~ ~ the ,
a:w
.mdress-' or phone mmber abo~.
error,
..
...
-- ... ...... ,
~
....
'
'
.
213
Progress Notes for COUGHLlN,ZACHARY B

PATIO: 282636 Facility Chart Number: 282636
Entered During the Period: 01/01/2011 - 06/17/2014
Agency: Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Svcs

Date Written: 05/23/2013
Written by: NN - BILL JACKSON at 09:10 AM
Note Type: Psychologist
Episode: 8 - NNAMHS OP Counseling Adult
Duration: 60
Svc Code: 902 Date of Group Svc: 05/23/2013
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Thursday, May 23, 2013:
DATA:
Client did not appear and did not call to cancel today's 0800 appointment.
Client telephoned at 0830 to ask his appointment time, then asked for telephone therapy until 0850. I refused.
Client again requested telephone therapy, and asked my grounds for refusing, asked whether I would provide services in
jail, and why not, etc., and quoted my replies slowly back, as though noting them. We reviewed my notes cancelling his
previous appointment. We set an appointment for 6.24.13 11 am. Etc. We hung up at 0850.
ASSESSMENT: deferred.
PLAN: continued therapy.
Bill Jackson, PhD., Psychologist, 688-2074

Duration: 15
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, May 06, 2013:
DATA:
I cancelled this appointment earlier.
Client telephoned at 0823 to confirm that it was cancelled. We set another appointment for 5.23.13 8am.

Episode: 6 - NNAMHS OP Counseling Wait List
Duration: 15
Note: I have not received a response from client (because he is presumably in jail). I telephoned client and left a voice mail
message to cancel his appointment of 5.6.13.

Written by: NN - EKATERINA STEPANOVA at 03:42 PM
Note Type: Psychiatrist
Episode: 7 - NNAMHS Med Clinic Adult
Duration: 30
Note: Pt reports feeling more depressed and irritable. Discussed with pt possibility of bipolar d/o. Pt denies any hlo manic sx. He
does become irritable, but is never energetic. His sleep can be disrupted and he is extremely fatigued the next day. He was
very irritable with the RN prior to this visit. Discussed with pt how he is making poor choices in terms of his life and career,
he is having difficulty understanding it.
MSE: labile affect, tearful when talking about his past, speech is RRR, no FOls or LOAs, mood is"depressed", affect is
congruent, labile
Plan: COnt current meds. Discussed possibility of starting Risperdal to address irritability as adjunct to antidepressant. Pt
refused at this time. E.STepanova, MD
214
COUGHLlN.ZACHARY B
3/11/2013
NNAMHS Med Clinic Adult
PATIENT NAME:
PATID:
282636
CHART NO.:
282636
ADMISSION DATE:
PROGRAM:
EPISODE NO.:
EVALUATION DATE:
3/11/2013
Status: Final
General Information
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
Information was obtained from chart, patient.
Information is deemed to be reliable.

IDENTIFICATION: Pt is a 36 year old man, who lives alone, currently unemployed (worked as a
lawer), not in a relationship, has a hlo ADHD and depression, can not afford an outpt
psychiatrist.
INFORMATION RELIABILITY:
Depressed mood, inability to focus

REQUIRES HOSPITALIZATION: Yes
CHIEF COMPLAINT:
Patient History
Pt reports he has been off Wellbutrin and Adderall for several days. His
mood worsened, he is more often tearful, especially when thinking about his lost
relationship. He has poor attention and concentration. He can not watch long movies as he
gets distracted. He has a hard time sustaining a conversation, unless he is extremetly
interested in the subject. He pays little attention to details, disorganized, often late for
important appointments (court). He is impulsive, acts quick before thinking (took
somebody's cell phone on the street impulsively). Forgets to pay bills on time. From the
examples he gave about getting in trouble at work, it sounds like he voices his opinion
before thinking of a more appropriate way to phrase it.
He denied sx of anxiety, obsessions or compulsions, psychosis, eating dlo
Pt reports sexual problems. He believes it is due to narcotics he used 7 years ago. He
takes a long time to reach orgasm, which was not the case prior to him starting the
medications
PRESENTING ILLNESS:
Pt was seeing Dr. Rasul for "adhd and mdd", who provided him with
medications. He had some counseling back in law school for "emotional problems". He was
seen at NNAMHS on May 2012 for Mental Health Court, but became argumentative to the
point that he could not complete an evaluation.
Past meds: Paxil (made him sweat), Prozac (sexual SE), Effexor,
Vivanse, strattera (both no effect)
Neurontin for chronic pain
PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY:
MEDICAL HISTORY:
Chronic pain, took narcotics 7 years ago. No hlo hospitalizations.
215
COUGHLlN.ZACHARY B
3/11/2013
PATIENT NAME:
PATID:
282636
CHART NO.:
282636
ADMISSION DATE:
PROGRAM:
EPISODE NO.:
EVALUATION DATE:
3/11/2013
Status: Final
Pt currently lives alone in a trailor (for 75 dollars a month). He is single,

his ex-GF broke up with him 2 years ago. Since then pt got into trouble with the law. He got
arrested 15 times since 2011 (see legal Hx). Pt is his own lawer and wonders if he is
making the right decisions regarding his own case. He states he is often argumentative,
and stands his ground when he feels he is right. He gave an example of other lawers telling
him that if he complies with what the judge is telling him, he could have been working
already, but he believes that he should do "what's right". Pt has very few friends, although
states that he wants to have friends. He finds it difficult to do small talk with people, but will
talk about law or something of great interest to him. There was a time his family did not
support him after his GF broke up with him. Pt does not understand why people just don't
like him. He states that many judges in Reno do not like him because he "defends his
clients too hard".
SOCIAUFAMILY HISTORY:
Pt went to college and then law school. He did not

get his license rightaway although he passed all tests. He stated the reason was
"interpersonal issues". It took him 3.5 years to get his license. He has not had a steady
employment. His last job was as a domestic violence attorney, he got fired for arguing with
the judge. He believed that the judge wanted him to convince his client of something that
was not of benefit to her. He stood his grounds and got fired.
EDUCATIONAUVOCATIONAUOCCUPATIONAL HISTORY:
15 arrests since 2011. The first one was for petty larceny. He saw somebody
screaming they will through out the cell phone, he took it and then PO was called. He
stated he should have given it back rightaway, but got scared that they will have evidence
against him and did not. He was evicted from his apartment several times, has
tresspassing charges, also being late for court. He spend several days in jail because his
family would not bail him out.
LEGAL HISTORY:
Medications and Substances

COMMENTS ON PSYCHOTROPIC MEDS:
Wellbutrin 300 mg BID
Adderall 30 mg BID
COMMENTS ON NON-PSYCHOTROPIC MEDS:
None
COMMENTS ON ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES:

ALLERGIES:
NKDA
ADVERSE REACTIONS:
denied
Addictive Behavior
THC, last 7 years ago. Denies EtOH abuse, but attends AA

meetings. He states he told the barr that he is an alcoholic because it would get him out of
trouble. He also attends Alanon meetings
SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY:
ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS:
Denied
216
PATIENT NAME: COUGHLlN.ZACHARY

ADMISSION DATE: 3/11/2013
PROGRAM:
PATIO:
282636
EPISODE NO.:
CHART NO.:
EVALUATION DATE:
282636
3/11/2013
Status: Final
Mental Status Exam
Well dressed (wearing a suit), cooperative, pleasant,

good eye contact. Labile affect, tearful a few times when talking about the breakup with GF
or past stressors that he did not elaborate on. Mood is depressed, affect is congruent,
appropriate
APPEARANCE, BEHAVIOR. AFFECT AND MOOD:
Pt is able to verbalize his thoughts in a coherent manner, however,

he frequently loses the train of thought and asks what he was talking about. No LOAs,
FOls, coherent. Denies AHNH/SI/HI
THOUGHT CONTENT/PROCESS:
A+Ox3
LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS/ORIENTATION:
MEMORY FUNCTION:
Fair, forgets some of events of the past
Good. Pt is a lawer, has very good expressive language, which

suggests superior intellectual functioning
INTELLECTUAL FUNCTION:
JUDGEMENT/INSIGHT/IMPULSE CONTROL:
I/J is fair. Impulse control is poor
ASSETS IN DESCRIPTIVE (NOT INTERPRETIVE) FASHION:
Has family in the area, good intellect, realises
the need for treatment.

Diagnosis
Admission
314.00 ATTENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
PREDOMINANTLY INATTENTIVE TYPE
TYPE of DIAGNOSIS:
PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS:
AXIS I:
314.00 ATIENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER

PREDOMINANTLY INATTENTIVE TYPE
Primary:
Secondary:
311 DEPRESSIVE DISORDER NOS
AXIS II:
301.9 PERSONALITY DISORDER NOS
Primary:
AXIS III:
338.29 OTHER CRONIC PAIN
Primary:
AXIS IV:
AXIS
Econ.
Educ.
Health
Housing
Legal
Occup.
Support
Social
Other
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
v:
Current GAF:
(48) 41 - 50 Serious Symptoms Or Impairm
Previous 12-month HIGH:
Previous 12-month LOW:

Comments on Diagnosis:
Initial Treatment Plan
,"
~~)'
30f4
217
COUGHLlN.ZACHARY B
3/11/2013
PATIENT NAME:
PATID:
282636
CHART NO.:
282636
ADMISSION DATE:
PROGRAM:
EPISODE NO.:
EVALUATION DATE:
3/11/2013
Status: Final
Pt reports clear sx of inattention and impulsivity. It's unclear how much better those are
when he is on meds. In addition, he has multiple interpersonal conflicts. It could be due to
impulsivity secondary to ADHD (he blurts out things that are inappropriate or rude). It is
also possible that he has baseline irritability as part of a mood disorder, which makes him
appear arrogant and rude. Another possibility is a personality disorder (borderline vs
narcissistic, vs histrionic, possibly obsessive-compulsive). More info needed. Social
difficulties could be a result of a POD, mild form.
Start pt on Adderall 30 mg BID (gave 2 wks supply) and Wellbutrin SR 300 mg daily. Will
re-evaluate pt in 2 weeks when he is on meds. He already had an evaluation for individual
counseling, would follow up. Will attempt to get collateral info regarding his social
difficulties.
Electronically signed:
Completed by: STEPANOVA,EKATERINA
M.D.
Date: 3/11/2013
Time: 12:22 PM
218


Written by: NN - BILL JACKSON at 02:22 PM
Duration: 15
Note: Friday, 3.8.13, I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call.
Client telephoned and left a voice mail message asking me to call. He said that he was out of medication and asked me to
help him get medication before his Medication Clinic appointment set for 3.13.13.
Today I telephoned client and left a verbal message with a woman, asking client to call.
Written by: NN - EKATERINA STEPANOVA at 11:54 AM
Duration: 90
Note: Mr. Coughlin presented for an initial assessment. He has been seeing an outpt psychiatrist, but can no longer afford office
visits or medications. He has been off medications for several days. He is feeling more depressed, has poor energy, sleep,
feels overwhelmed with stressors. He has poor attention, concentration, can't focus on tasks, forgetful. During the session,
he is tearful when talking about stressors, can't focus on a topic, frequently asking what he was talking about. Making poor
choises.
Plan: Start Wellbutrin SR 300 mg QAM, Adderall30 mg BID. See initial eval for details. E.Stepanova, MD

Duration: 15
Note: I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call.

Written by: NN - JIM DISS at 11: 13 AM
Duration: 15
Note: d: pt attended OP Psych Orientation 2125, and has called, making a request to start treatment. a: Orientation. p: Case will
be assigned at the next weekly staff meeting.

Written by: NN - JIM DISS at 04:02 PM
Duration: 15
Note: d: pt attended OP Psych Orientation Monday, 2125113, and was instructed to call by 5pm this Friday if interested in starting
treatment. a: Orientation. p: will await call.
219


Duration: 30
Note: Mr. Coughlin reports having a difficult time going through the paperwork for his trial. There is a chance that he will go to jail
for 6 months after his next hearing. He showed his paperwork that he was reading in the waiting room. It's covered in
multiple notes he made on the side and across the writing (shows lack of organization?). Patient gave multiple examples of
making people angry with him. He believes he is making the right choices and standing for what he believes is right,
however, he does not see the pattern of alienating people while doing that. Today he appeared frustrated, his affect was
labile at times, tearing up when talking about stressful events. In addition, he continued to have trouble concentrating on a
conversation, asking multiple times what he was talking about.
Meds: Adderall 30 mg BID, Wellbutrin SR 150 mg BID
Dx:Mood d/o NOS, ADHD, innattentive type
Plan: Cont current meds. Consider adding another antidepressant or Strattera on next visit. Wrote a note for court stating
that I am questioning pt's fittness to aid in defence or stand a trial. Pt's is impulsive and has trouble focusing on interview
here, unclear how he is able to stand an 8 hr trial. Also, he has a self-destructive behaviors, mainly he makes people dislike
him while he believes that he is standing his grounds. He does not understand how he is hurting his own case by behaving
that way. He has always been polite during the sessions with me. RTC in 2 wks. E.Stepanova, MD

Duration: 15
Note: Client telephoned yeaterday evening and left a voice mail message confirming that he had received my voice mail message
setting an appointment for 5.6.13.
He said that he would be there if he were not incarcerated, he facing criminal trial between now and then.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call by 5.1.13 to confirm the appointment, or I would
consider it cancelled secondary to his being incarcerated.

Duration: 15
Note: Client telephoned and left a voice mail message asking me to call to set an appOintment.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message with a tentative appOintment of 5.6.13 11 am, asking client to call to confirm
it.

Written by: NN - EKATERINASTEPANOVAat 01:43 PM
Duration: 30
Note: Pt reports feeling better. He has been able to defend himself in court, organize his court case. He has not had any
confrontations with authorities since last visit. No new legal problems. He has another court hearing coming up in a week,
where he might be sentenced to 6 months in jail, which he is extremely concerned about. Pt reported feeling lonely, trying to
date, but unsuccessfully. He is reconnecting with his family, spent some time with sisters and nephews. Today he appears
brighter, but mood is still labile. He teared up several times when mentioning his ex GF (he reported similar experience in
court). He denies SIII/P, denies HI/I/P. His TP is more organized, although at times he loses the train of thought and has to
repeat the question.l/J improved
Meds: Adderall 30 mg Bid
Wellbutrin SR 150 mg daily
Ox: Mood dlo NOS, ADHD, inattentive type
Plan: To address mood, increase Wellbutrin to 150 mg BID. ContAdderall at current dose. Pt attended psychological
orientation, encouraged him to attend groups and counseling. Pt would benefit from therapy addressing his social skills,
interpersonal difficulties. Supportive therapy provided today. E.Stepanova, MD
220
Progress Notes for CQUGHLlN,ZACHARY B


Duration: 15
Note: Client's mother, Mary Barker (telephone numbers: 747-4346, cell: 722-8772) telephoned and left a voice mail message that
client was in custody for six months, maybe longer, and that he had asked her to cancel his next appointment with me and
with Dr. Stepanova. She also expressed concern that client not receive Adderall while incarcerated.
I forwarded the voice mail message to the Medication Clinic director.
I called Ms. Barker and said that I could neither acknowledge nor deny client was my client. Ms. Barker again expressed her
concerns about her son. I suggested that he could probably sign the relevant Authorization for the Release of Information to
permit the jail to communicate with Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services.

Note: No Show
Duration: 5


Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Friday, October 18, 2013:
DATA:
Client telephoned earlier and left a voice mail message to cancel today's appointment.
Client telephoned again and we set an appointment for 11.15.13 9am.

Note: No Show
Duration: 5


Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Friday, September 27,2013:
DATA:
Client telephoned at the time of his appointment to say that his car would not start. We reset his appointment to 10.18.13
9am.
Bill Jackson, PhD., Psychologist,688-2074

Episode: 8 - NNAMHS. OP Counseling Adult
Duration: 10
Note: I telephoned chent and left a voice mail message asking client to call to reset his appointment and suggesting that we meet
9.27.13 at 9am.
Client telephoned and we agreed on that appointment.
221
Progress Notes for COUGHLIN,ZACHARY B


Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, September 09,2013:
DATA:
Client telephoned earlier and left a voice mail message to cancel today's appointment secondary to illness.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call and setting a tentative new appointment for 9.26.13
10am.

Duration: 60
Svc Code: 9083: Date of Group Svc: 08/12/2013
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, August 12, 2013:
DATA:
Observed behavior: Talkative; unkempt; wearing an inside-out shirt again.
We began discussion of client's treatment plan, clarifying that the situation is not the problem, and beginning an exploration
of the notion of a "personality disorder".
ASSESSMENT: no significant change.
PLAN: Complete treatment plan. Placement in Monday mindfulness group. Provide introduction to group therapy guidelines.
Next individual therapy session: 9.9.13 10am.
Bill Jackson, PhD, Psychologist. Telephone: 688-2074
222


Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Thursday, July 11, 2013:
DATA:
Client did not appear and did not call to cancel today's appointment.
I will request that client be sent a letter requesting contact.

Duration: 30
Note: Pt reports spending 2 weeks in jail for past charges. He has several charges pending. He has been continuing to work on
his own case, not having time for anything else. He is still not working, parents pay for his housing. Pt is more inclined to
follow judges orders and not try to fight with the courts. He reports that he is more interested in the process of getting his
law license back than actually having his license. Discussed different options for employment given that he does not have a
good reputation as a lawer after multiple charges against him. He reports feeling fairly well. He has good sleep and appetite.
Mse; Pleasant, cooperative, good grooming and hygiene. Speech is RRR, coherent, linear. Mood is "good', affect is full,
congruent, appropriate. Denies SIIIIP, no psychotic sx. No Hl/i/p. IIJ is fair.
Meds: Adderall30 mg BID
Wellbutrin SR 150 mg BID
Plan: Cont current meds. Cont individual therapy (pt states he is going monthly). Recommended to increase frequency of
visits, if possible. Recommended to start a routine of exercising. Also, pt needs to find a job and start earning money,
discussed several legal possibilities. RTC in 1 month. E.Stepanova, MD

Duration: 60
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, June 24, 2013:
DATA:
Observed behavior: talkative, restrained. Client presented a lot of information about his chaotic, conflict-filled life.
We began Outpatient Psychological Evaluation, MR204.
Client reports:
"My life's just kind of been a disaster zone," for two years. "Just not getting along with people&."
"I've been fired a lot in my life." "I've had so much antagonism in my life&. [I think] it's a by-product of' depression and
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, etc., perhaps a form of release from other distress. "But I've been a troubled person
for a while now," and was seeing Dr. Osckay for five years, secondary to conflicts with professors, etc. His initial licensure
was delayed.
Client denied suicidal ideation.
Client denied homicidal ideation, or thoughts of hurting others.
Client denied ever hallucinating.
I introduced client to mindfulness meditation.
Homework: mindfulness meditation.
ASSESSMENT: Diagnosis deferred.
PLAN: continued assessment. Complete treatment plan, MR204 etc. Placement in group. Provide introduction to group
therapy guidelines. Next individual therapy session: 7.11.13 11am.
223


Duration: 60

224


Note:
Regarding individual therapy on Friday, July 26, 2013:

DATA:
Observed behavior: wearing golf shirt inside out. Disheveled.
We continued Outpatient Psychological Evaluation, MR204.
Client reports: he had two court dates since we last met. He turned down a plea bargain for one. One arrest is on YouTube.
He spent some time with his family, "and that's been good."
"My schedule is all messed up. I just woke up&. in this screwed up rush to get things done."
This electronic progress note is submitted by William S. Jackson, PhD (telephone 688-2074) in place of the paper form,
Nevada Mental Health Institute Outpatient Psychological Evaluation, MR 204. This information was gathered on Monday,
June 24, and Friday, July 26, 2013.
1. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Client described himself as a 36-year-old, single, childless, Caucasian, heterosexual man.
2. REFERRAL SOURCE
Self.
3. PRESENTING PROBLEM
as an attorney was delayed.
May, 2009: fired from legal position. Client went on unemployment benefits; he said that he was "&Lashing out at family,"
engaged in heated arguments with girlfriend, almost daily.
May, 2011 unemployment benefits ran out.
May 2011: break-up after four years living together.
June, July, and August, 2011: rent not paid for home and law office, combined in same building. Contention over
landscapers damaging his personal property. .
August 2011: "I went off my medications abruptly in August." Client said that he went off medications (used for over a
decade: Adderall and Wellbutrin).
August 20,2011: was arrested for petty larceny secondary to cell phone possession.
September 9, 2011: "I was convicted of shoplifting," some cough drops with DXM.
November 1, 2011: client was evicted from home and law office, combined in same building. Eviction was started in August
2011.
November 13,2011: June, 2012: attorney license (since 2005) was suspended.
September, 2011:
April 2012: Back on Adderall.
April, 2013: Back on both medications.
May 7-24,2012: briefly in Mental Health Court. Ejected for being on Adderall.
Relationship of 4 years ended 6 weeks before that, and he couldn't afford his medications. And stole again a few weeks
later. Jailed on petty larceny charge. Was arrested for trespass at his former law office. Since August 2011 client has been
incarcerated 18 times, evicted 10 times, etc.
Client was arrested the day we last talked for not obeying a bailiff. Client has developed antagonism with Reno Justice
Court, conflicts with WCSO re lock-out orders.
"I'm out of money. I'm pretty exhausted." Client has a large negative internet presence.
"I had a protection order hearing this morning."
Medications now? Wellbutrin 300 mg daily, and Adderall, 30 mg bid; this dose has been the same for about three years.
4. HISTORY OF IMPAIRMENT (include medical and substance abuse history)
225


History of presenting problem:
Medical history: "I think it's pretty good."
Surgery: denied.
Fractures: fingers: bike fall.
Seizures: "I think as a baby I did."
Loss of consciousness: denied.
Substance abuse:
Last use of substances:
Caffeine: yesterday; less than two cups of coffee daily.
Tobacco: over 7 years ago; first use in 20s. smoked less than daily for five years.
Alcohol: over 7 years ago; first use in late teens; denied daily use. Stopped "just to simplify things."
Marijuana: "If I have ever smoked marijuana, it would be over 7 years ago;"
Methamphetamine: denied.
Cocaine: denied.
Opiates: denied.
Hallucinogens: denied. "Never, and/or, over 7 years ago;"
Inhalants:denied.
Steroids: denied.
Prescription Abuse: "I don't think so." He said that he ran out early.
OTC abuse: "They said I shoplifted cough medicine."
Gambling: denied.
5. OTHER IMPORTANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Friday, July 26,2013: "I've seen this movie before."
Client said that he has been burgled by the Washoe County Sheriff three times.
6. MENTAL STATUS (include attitude, general behavior, affect, stream of mental activity, perception, estimate of
abstraction, orientation, memory, and judgment)
Attitude: "I like what I'm doing sometimes, which is scary." Client described his attitude as trying to make the best of things,
but in the process sometimes making things worse. He said that he is vulnerable to depression if he does not stay busy.
Sleep: disrupted.
Appetite: "it's good."
Client appeared fully oriented.
Memory: "it's pretty good."
Judgment: distorted. "I'm probably still too impulsive." For example filing something without proof-reading it, but "I'm anxious
to get some of this out there before they attest me again&."
Affect: somber to bemused.
7. STRENGTHS (descriptive, not interpretive, strengths such as knowledge, interests, skills, aptitudes, experience,
educational status, which may be useful in developing a meaningful treatment plan)
"I think I can tell when people are saying something by not saying something." "I can get a sense of whether somebody is
engaged in what they do." "I'm not sure I have any strengths. People say I can write, but then my writing just gets me in
trouble," as does client's persistence.
8. HOPE FACTORS (what motivates the person to go on living?)
"Love for my family, probably." "Just an innate appreciation for life&. My nieces and nephew." "& Wanting to have my own
family."
9. QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS (what is missing in the person's life right now that would make the person's life more
226

PATID: 282636 Facility Chart Number: 282636

enjoyable?)
"Probably love." "Probably more of a place in society."
10. INSIGHT INTO EMOTIONAL DYNAMICS (does person have some understanding of his/her problem?)
"Probably by sensing what people are predisposed to feeling about me or towards me&. And then not going out of my way
to disprove that&. [allowing me to] feel superior to them&. [which] engenders animosity between the two of us."
11. BARRIERS TO TREATMENT
"I'm just too scattered&. Doing a marathon hundred yard dash."
12. DIAGNOSIS
Axis I: 296.90 Mood disorder not otherwise specified.
Axis II: 301.9 Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.
Axis III: Per medical history
Axis IV: Problems with primary support group
Problems related to the social environment
Occupational problems
Housing problems
Economic problems
Problems with access to health services
Problems related to interaction with the legal system
Axis V: Current GAF: 55; 0; O.
DISPOSITION AND PLAN FOR INTERVENTION
Individual and group therapy.
ASSESSMENT: above
PLAN: Complete treatment plan. Placement in group. Provide introduction to group therapy guidelines. Next individual
therapy session: 8.12.13 10am

Duration: 15
Note: Client telephoned 7.13.13 and left a voice mail message apologizing for his missed appointment and confirming 7.26.13
10am.

Duration: 15
Note: Client telephoned and left a voice mail message that he could not find his appointment information, and asking me to call.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message that he had missed the appointment yesterday, and tentatively setting
another for 7.26.13 10am, and asking client to call to confirm that.
227


Duration: 30

228
Progress Notes for COUGHLIN,ZACHARY 8


Note:
DPBH MEDICATION CLINIC PRESCRIBER SERVICES

Progress Note/Plan of Care
DATA/DESCRIPTION: 5/8/14/ minutes 30 min Billing Code: 99213
Vitals Reviewed: yes
Current psychotropic/nonpsychotropic/over-the-counter medications:
Adderall30 mg BID
Adherence to treatment: Yes, per client report
Response to current medications: good
Side Effects:
denies
HISTORY:
Family Member/Other Supporter Involved in Session:no
CC: inability to function
HPI: Pt continues to have significant difficulty functioning. He was in jail for 6 months for past charges, where he did not get
is Adderall. He had a difficult time functioning and was not able to concentrate and work on his case. He stated that he is
now taking responsibility for his behavior and alienating people. He is trying to work on rescuing some of the relationships
that he ruined by his behavior. However, he continues to be involved with several lawsuits and does not understand why
people from these companies would not hire him back.
On 5/13/2014 spoke with Paul Elcano, who is pts prior employer. He reported that Zach has not been stable in a long time.
He would speak nice to Paul one day and would be verbally aggressive the next day. He was verbally aggressive to Paul
last week and Paul would not talk to Zach in person. No information about Zach was related to Paul since he did not sign
release of information form.
Pertinent medical history: denies
ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
Affect: Appropriate
Appearance: Casually dressed,
Approach: Cooperative
Behavior: Engaged
Eye Contact: Appropriate
Insight: Fair
Judgment: fair
Language: Appropriate
Memory: WNL
Mood: good
Orientation: X3
Motor Activity:wnl
EPSlTardive Dyskinesia: none
Speech: WNL
Thought Content: No noted thought disorder
Delusions: denies
Hallucinations: denies
Suicidal Ideations: denies
Homicidal Ideations: denies
Aggressive Ideations: denies
Obsessions: denies
Diagnosis: ADHD
PLAN OF CARE:
Medications: Cont current medications
Risk/Benefits/Side Effects/Alternatives to proposed treatment discussed with client and Medication Consent Form signed.
Provided 30 day supply of current medications with 2 refills.
Potential impact of drug and alcohol use on psychiatric symptoms discussed with client.
Interactions of street drugs and alcohol with prescribed treatment discussed with client.
Safety plan discussed with client and emergency contact numbers provided.
Labs: Ordered
229
Progress Notes for COUGHLlN,ZACHARY 8


Done
Results discussed with client Yes
Discussed need to present to clinic/urgent care/ER prior to follow-up appointment if symptoms worsen or side effects
appear.
Referral to/Continue with AAlNAldrug and ETOH rehab/co-occurring disorders program (resources information provided).
Diet and exercise discussed with client.
Sleep hygiene discussed with client.
Avoiding caffeine intake and smoking discussed with client.
Adequate hydration and sunscreen discussed with client.
Follow-up with PCP and/or dental services (resources information provided).
Ekaterina Stepanova, MD, PhD

Written by: NN - BILL JACKSON, PHD at 05:07 PM
Duration: 5
Note: Client telephoned and we set an appointment for 5.15.14 11 am.
Bill Jackson, PhD, Psychologist (tel.: 688-2074)

Duration: 5
Note: I telephoned client and heard only a recorded female voice speaking the message: "Good-Bye."
I telephoned client again and heard only a recorded female voice speaking the message: "Have a nice day!" followed by a
tone, after which I (think I) left a voicemail message asking client to call.

Duration: 5

Duration: 0
Note: April 21, 2014: Client telephoned and left a voice mail message asking me to call. He said that he had been released after 5
months incarceration and was interested in continuing therapy.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call.

Duration: 10
Note: Discharge Note:
According to client's mother, client has been incarcerated and will not return for services for at least six months; he is now
discharged from outpatient Psychological Services.
William S. Jackson, PhD, Psychologist, 688-2074
230


Housing problems
Economic problems
Axis V: Current GAF: 48 54
Written by: NN - TERRI PITTENGER, PHD at 11:56 AM
Duration: 60
Note: D. Individual session at NNAMHS. Confidentiality risks and benefits of services were reviewed. Explored previous therapy
and what aspects client would like to continue in current tx. Client talked about propensity to
dominatelmanipulateladversarial position and developed historical hx of same and explored consequences to behavior.
A. Depressive dlo, ADHD by hx. Stage of life issues.
Concepts of Transactional Analysis, CBT and ACT were reviewed.
P. Individual session in 1 week. Monitor mood; increase future orientation and behavioral activation to move toward goals.
Tpittenger psyd

Duration: 5
Note: I telephoned client and left a voice mail message that he had been transferred to the care of Dr. Pittenger.

Duration: 15
Note: D. Additional call to client at alternate number. left additional message to call regarding initiating services @ 775 338
5334. tpittenger psyd

Duration: 30
Note: D. Reviewed file; attempted call to client and left detailed message advising of client transfer and requesting call to set up
initial apt. A. psychotherapy P. transfer client tpittenger, psyd

Written by: NN - BILL JACKSON, PHD at 10:47 AM
Duration: 60
Note: I consulted 5.7.14 with colleagues about this client in a general way in light of the fact that I know his mother and stepfather.
I consulted 5.15.14 more particularly with Doctors Diss and Corpuel.
Regarding individual therapy on Thursday, May 15, 2014:
DATA: client was talkative; even-mannered; reflective; and, given enough rein, prone to meandering into legal territory and
self-defense.
We reviewed: client's status as a client; a third-party relationship that raised the prospect of a dual relationship likely to
influence therapy (I know client's mother and stepfather.); and, the prospect of transfer to another therapist. We agreed that
I will seek to transfer client at the next departmental staffing.
Client said that he experiences himself now as more resilient, less drawn to interpersonal conflict. He aims to seek
reinstatement after his two-year suspension. He asked me for a letter of support in that regard, "Or just something saying
I'm getting treatment."
We completed a Suicide Risk Assessment.
ASSESSMENT: client appears more hopeful than when I saw him last in August, 2013.
PLAN: transfer to a colleague for continued assessment and treatment. Next individual therapy session: not set.
231
1
2
3
Electronically Filed
Jun 06 2014 08:54 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Court
4
5
6
7
8
IN RE:
10 NEVADA BAR NO: 9473
9
11
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 62337
OPPOSITION TO SBNS RESPONSE TO ORDER OF MAY 16, 2014.
14
COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY
15
16
BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby requests permission to file this Opposition to the SBNs
17
6/3/14 Response and apprise this court of his Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10) in
18
65587.
19
20
FACTS:
Perhaps most important of all to note is the fact that the SBN failed to even get into evidence
21
in the matter now on appeal in 62337 that there was any conviction for either petit larceny or criminal
22
trespass. FHE 12 and 13 simply were not admitted and Kings splatter paint shot gun carpet bombing
23
style of Complaint drafting and hearing presentation had its drawbacks.
24
As such, a clearly motivated Panel was forced to purport that Coughlin had not filed a verified
25
26
answer or response, and therefore, the SBNs Complaint could be deemed evidence. Indeed, the
27
Panels 12/14/12 Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law points to nothing beyond the Complaint
28
itself for proof of any petit larceny conviction, and nothing beyond a controverted assertion by
232
Docket 62337 Document 2014-18375
hostile/biased witness Richard G. Hill, Esq. that there existed any criminal trespass conviction. So
whether or not some petit larceny conviction was affirmed on appeal, and whether Judge W. Gardner
has rescinded the recent Order by Judge Holmes vacating any criminal trespass conviction really is of
no import here as Asst. Bar Counsel King simply failed to meet his burden to prove any such
5
6
7
8
9
convictions exist.
There are plenty of things Coughlin wishes he had argued and wishes he had gotten into
evidence at the formal disciplinary hearing of 11/14/12. And King got 5.5 hours to put on his case
compared to the Panel only giving Coughlin 2.5 hours to put on his and denying him the right to call
10
Judge Holmes, Richard G. Hill, Esq., etc. in Coughlins case in chief, and denying Coughlin any
11
12
time, much less the purportedly order fifteen minutes per side to conduct a cross-examination of
13
himself despite the SBN being given 45 minutes, at least, to conduct a direct examination of
14
Coughlin.
15
So, the SBNs OBC must be held to what it proved, and what it did not prove. As such,
16
extended discussions of whether some petit larceny conviction was affirmed or not really is
17
18
19
unnecessary, as is the case with any criminal trespass conviction.

It is important to note that Coughlins protected Fourteenth Amendment property right, his
20
license to practice law, has now been suspended for over two years due solely to an automatic
21
temporary suspension pursuant to SCR 111(6). To be clear, the disciplinary board never filed an
22
SCR 102 petition to obtain a temporary suspension of Coughlins law license, and, necessarily,
23
24
Coughlin never received any pre-deprivation hearing connected thereto. Further, neither the SBNs
25
8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint nor anything filed thereafter nor any argument made as the 11/14/12
26
formal disciplinary hearing ever moved to continue Coughlins temporary suspension (from 60838)
27
during the pendency of the disciplinary matter at issue in 62337.
28
233
Well, unless one counts Kings writing at page 6:1-3 of his Complaint: 3. That pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 102, such disciplinary action be taken by the Northern Nevada Disciplinary
Board against Respondent as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, SCR
102 does not allow for a disciplinary board, much less this Panel1, to enter temporary orders of
5
6
suspension. Thats because a law license is importantand not just to the attorneyit (and the
attorneys possessing them) are important to the public. Making law licenses too easily suspended
weakens the legal system dramatically. There is simply too much competition and static out there to
9
10
allow otherwise. If a bunch of attorneys (mostly prosecutors and others with economic interests (like
NNDB Members Hill, Kandaras, and Hahn2/WLSs Elcano, the well paid Reno City Attorneys
11
12
Office deputies, etc) can just go merrily about suspending anyone who has a position contrary to their
13
own then you get what we have herethe Reno City Attorneys Office running to the SBN to co-sign
14
its unsupportable citations to NRAP 9 and State v. Hill, Barkley, and Mitchell (which RCA Roberts
15
neglected to even trot out when she viewed Coughlin as opposing counselinterestingly) with
16
respect to its contention that NRS 189.030(1) somehow can be ignored or re-imagined to allow for
17
18
shifting the burden to file the transcript (the trade off for not having to provide a trial de novo in the
19
district court) to the defendant (even obviously indigent ones). It cannot:
20
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900173/2JDC-Judge-Polaha-on-NRS-189-030-1-RMC-MustFile-Transcript-Prior-to-Payment-by-Defendant-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900176/RCA-Hazlett-Stevens-RPC-3-1-Violation-Re-NRS189-030-1-Transcript-Requirement-Citing-Mitchell-and-NRAP-9
Coughlin did not steal any candy bar and some cough drops from Walmart (though it would
21
22
23
24
certainly be easier and more convenient for Coughlin to now lie and assert that he did steal such),
25
and, regardless, the conviction for such was not affirmed on appeal (though the SBN and Reno City
26
Attorneys Office keep trying to legislate away NRS 189.030(1) (which can not be done given
27
Nevadas Constitution expressly imbued the Legislature with the exclusive authority to enact
28
234
procedural rules for appeals from justice and municipal courts of record to the district courts in
Art 6. Sec. 8.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
AMJUR Courts: However, where the conflict is irresolvable, a procedural rule

generally prevails over a statute on procedure,[FN2] absent a constitutional provision
subordinating the court's rulemaking authority to the legislature in regard to practice and
procedure.[ FN3] State rules of civil procedure supersede all previous court
decisions.[FN7]
[FN2] In re Opinion of Clerk, 606 So. 2D 138 (Ala. 1992); Hickson v. State, 316 Ark.
783, 875 S.W.2D 492 (1994); Haven Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2D 730
(Fla. 1991) (Declaring conflicting statute unconstitutional); Shaw v. Shaw, 603 So. 2D 287
(Miss. 1992); Williams v. Cummings, 191 W. Va. 370, 445 S.E.2D 757 (1994). [FN3] Stokes
v. Denmark Emergency Medical Services, 315 S.C. 263, 433 S.E.2D 850 (1993). [FN7]
Thomas v. Cornell, 316 Ark. 366, 872 S.W.2D 370 (1994); Shaw v. Shaw, 603 So. 2D 287
(Miss. 1992).
McElroy v. State, 172 S.W. 1144 (Tex.Crim.App.,1915) Supreme Court rule 116 102
Tex. Liii, 142 S.W. Xxv, adopted under Vernon's Ann.St.Const. Art. 5, 25, Held invalid,
because inconsistent with Code Cr.Proc.1911, Arts. 930, 931, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Arts. 842,
843, Providing for the preparation of transcripts in criminal cases and their filing with the
clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Watkins v. Kelley, 80 So.2D 247 (Ala.,1955) Where both Supreme Court rule and
statute purported to regulate time for filing transcripts and securing trial court's ruling on
exceptions to the transcript, but were conflicting in their terms and mutually exclusory in
their effects, the act of the Legislature prevailed. Supreme Court Rules, rule 48, Code 1940,
Tit. 7Appendix; Code 1940, Tit. 7, 827(1) Et seq., 827(1A), 827(4).
Tuttle v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.2D 351 Ky.,1934 Statute permitting Court of
Appeals to adopt rules "consistent with law" does not empower court to set aside Code
provision respecting time for filing transcript by adoption of inconsistent rule. Const.
110; Ky.St. 949; Cr.Code Prac. 336.
Further, even if NRAP did apply here (it does not), due to the provision N.R.S. Const. Art. 6,
20
8, there is a constitutional provision prohibiting even NRAP from overriding NRS 189.030(1)s
21
22
requirment that the justice file the transcript with the district court:
23
terms of office and jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace; appeals; Courts of Record...The
24
Legislature shall also prescribe by law the manner, and determine the cases in which appeals
25
8. Number, qualifications,
may be taken from Justices and other courts.
26
27
28
AMJUR Courts 51. Limitations on authority The state constitution may grant the
legislature limited authority to make procedural rules where necessary.[FN1] The state's
supreme court cannot contradict the state constitution by court rule.[FN9] The court also
may not promulgate rules in order to diminish constitutional rights,[FN10] A trial court is
4
235
1
2
3
4
5
without authority to adopt local rules or procedures that conflict with statutes or with
rules of court adopted by the Judicial Council, or that are inconsistent with the
Constitution or case law. Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4Th 1337, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3D 483,
163 P.3D 160 (2007).
[FN1] R. E. W. Const. Co. V. District Court of Third Judicial Dist., 88 Idaho 426, 400
P.2D 390 (1965). [FN9] Sackett v. Santilli, 146 Wash. 2D 498, 47 P.3D 948 (2002); State v.
Saintcalle, 309 P.3D 326, 349, Wash. [FN10] City of Auburn v. Brooke, 119 Wash. 2D 623,
836 P.2D 212 (1992).
6
7
Coughlin filed Motions to Dismiss the SBNs Complaint at issue in 62337 based on lack of
service of the Complaint, then, under protest, filed a Verified Response and or Answer to the
Complaint plainly denying, under oath, each and every allegation in Kings 26 (sicsuch skips
10
from count/paragraph 19 to 26) count Complaint.
11
Validity and construction of procedures to temporarily suspend attorney from practice, or

12
13
14
15
16
place attorney on inactive status, pending investigation of, and action upon, disciplinary charges. 80
A.L.R.4th 136.3
Further, RMC Judge Howard failed to find that Coughlin possessed any intent to commit
larceny, but, rather, merely found that Coughlin failed to "purchase" "a candy bar and some cough
17
drops". As such, even where there still a conviction, such would not be a "serious crime" given the
18
19
requisite specific intent was not proven. Further, SCR 111(6) and Sloan seem to contemplate that the
20
crime need be committed in one's stead as an attorney.
21
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228372827/3-10-14-to-4-22-14-Couglin-s-Handwritten-Filingsin-Jail-in-Disbarment-Appeal-in-62337
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228375119/8-13-13-SCR-102-4-d-and-SCR-111-7-Petition-toDissolve-Temporary-Suspension-61462-in-Re-Coughlin-77-Pages
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228375239/5-7-14-65587-Coughlin-Petition-for-ReinstatementSCR-111-10-Stamped
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228374844/5-22-14-Supplemental-Petition-for-Reinstatement65587-14-16680
22
23
24
25
26
Coughlin timely moved for an extension of time to file his Opening Brief in this matter.
27
28
Coughlin filed his Brief on 3/14/14. The SBNs Answering Brief was due 4/14/14. The SBN has
236
failed to file a brief, and failed to move for an extension of time to do so, much less timely move for
such an extension. Asst. Bar Counsel Machado, whom heretofore has had no connection to this
matter, filed the SBNs Response on 6/3/14, and at many points therein admits he lacks much in the
way of knowledge about this case. However, that did not stop Machado from making many
5
6
inflammatory allegations, largely premised upon unsworn hearsay, whilst providing absolutely no
citation to legal authority for the key contentions he made therein.
8
9
For instance, the SBNs 6/3/14 Response reads: Coughlin's claim that his conviction (as to
60838 petty larceny conviction) was not affirmed on appeal is false and Coughlin knew or should
10
have known of its falsity when he filed his notice on April 22, 2014.
11
12
Actually, Coughlins Notice of Appeal clearly appealed both the 11/30/11 Judgment of
13
Conviction and Court Order as well as the 11/30/11 Order Punishing Summary Contempt.4 Such
14
contempt order notes it is against Coughlin the defendant, not Coughlin the attorney representing a
15
client. As such, Pengillys mandate that any challenge to such a contempt order by a sanctioned
16
attorney ought come by way of petition for mandamus is inapplicable. Regardless, the district court
17
18
19
20
21
has the jurisdiction and discretion to treat a notice of appeal of such a summary contempt order as a
petition for writ of mandamus.
Machado does not even seem to be aware of the fact that Judge Elliott merely affirmed the
rulingwhich even RCA Sooudi admitted to Coughlin he was unsure whether such was in
22
reference to the Order Punishing Summary Contempt or the Judgment of Conviction and Court
23
24
Order. RCA Sooudi also had to admit to Coughlin that he was stumped as to why the district court
25
judge would remand for all further proceedings (plural) if, consistent with Sooudis contention,
26
such was done merely to impose the fine (sentence). RCA Sooudi also admitted to Coughlin that he
27
had no answer for the fact that NRAP 1 clearly spells out that NRAP only applies to appeals to the
28
237
Nevada Supreme Courtwhich makes rather puzzlingly the district court judges later 8/27/12 Order
claiming he was divested of jurisdiction to even address Coughlins NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing.
(The SBNs 6/3/14 Response indicates: Further, Coughlin moved for a new trial, but the
court denied the motion. The Reno Municipal Court case docket for this matter and the Order
5
6
Denying Appellant's Motion for a New Trial are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
Coughlin filed a timely functional equivalent of an NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing5 (arguing
that the RMC had failed in its duties to transmit that required of it under NRS 189), which the district
court judge then refused to adjudicate, indicating in his 8/27/12 Order6 denying such that: On March
10
15, 2012, this Court entered an Order denying the Appeal and affirming the decision of the Municipal
11
12
Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case and the Appellant's Motion for New
13
Trial is moot.. However, NRAP 40 provides that Coughlin is to have 18 days to file such after any
14
order disposing of his appeal, and that remittitur shall not occur until the passing of such period of
15
time. Judge Elliott, after all, invoked NRAP 28, 30, and 32 in affirming the ruling of the RMC.7
16
A loose but apt analogy may be found in our criminal practice. A Rule 59(e) motion is the
17
18
19
20
21
functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial or, on appeal, of a petition for rehearing." Bruce
v. 2. Bruce, 587 So. 2d 898, 903 (Miss. 1991)).
A case from Utah, Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097 (Utah 2012)8 is instructive here,
especially where Utahs Rules of Appellate Procedure parallel NRAP 1 in specifying the
22
applicability of such to certain courts of which neither the court there nor the court here (ie,
23
24
NRAP does not apply to appeals from the justice courts (or, as here, from a municipal court that is
25
allegedly a court of record) to the district court), are included amongst and as to whether the
26
relationship between remittitur and jurisdiction, concluding that remand to the justice court does not
27
necessarily divest the district court of jurisdiction. However, one key distinction between such and
28
238
the issues arising here is that this Utah case did not involve a question of whether a district
court, borrowing the jurisdictional principles from a set of rules of appellate procedure that do
not apply to it (but, rather, to high courts in such state) may apply one such rule where such
expressly contradicts a statute requiring the filing of the transcript by a justice or municipal
5
6
court of record with the district court, as NRS 189.030(1) plainly does in Nevada:
110k1193 k. Jurisdiction and proceedings of appellate court after remand.
Even after a remittitur returns jurisdiction to the lower court, the appellate court may retain
limited jurisdiction over certain matters, particularly where constitutional rights are implicated.
10
Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P.3d 1097 Utah App., 2012.

11
12
Coughlin has to proceed with all the ambiguity dealt him, combined with dealing with the, uh,
13
spin giving to the plain wording of the Nevada Constitution and statutes like NRS 189.030(1) by
14
some. As such, even where the district court judges 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC
15
is not clear which ruling it was affirming (The Judgment of Conviction? The Order Punishing
16
Summary Contempt?
17
18
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900173/2JDC-Judge-Polaha-on-NRS-189-030-1-RMCMust-File-Transcript-Prior-to-Payment-by-Defendant-s
19
Further, compare Judge Elliotts Order Affirming the Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court
20
21
in Coughlins case in CR11-2064 (where Elliotts Order is not clear as to whether it is affirming the
22
Order for Summary Punishment of Contempt or the Judgment of Conviction and Court Order or
23
some other ruling), to Judge Elliotts standard phraseology in the following, where the term
24
conviction is specified and where there is no remand for all further proceedings as there is in
25
his 3/15/12 Order in Coughlins case, where the RMC failed to file the transcript as required by NRS
26
27
189.030(1), which requires a remand pursuant to NRS 189.035
28
239
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900174/2JDC-Judge-Elliott-Order-Affirming-Appellants-Conviction-Compare-to-CR11-2064-Order-Affirming-Ruling-of-the-RMC
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
It is real clear from the plain text of NRS 189.030(1) that the justice (or municipal court judge
where a court of record is involved) must file the transcript within 10 days of the filing of the notice
of appeal, regardless of whether the defendant (much less the indigent criminal defendant) has paid
for such up front:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225901665/Legislative-history-NRS-189-030-1-189-050-SB2671979-2064-22176-60838-ocr
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900171/NRS-189-030-1-2JDC-Judge-Flanagan-ApplyingCivil-Rules-of-Procedure-to-Excuse-RMC-s-Failure-to-File-Transcript
Its pretty, uh, interesting to consider that Judge Elliott failed to recuse himself9 (much less
even divulge his being the President of WLSs co-defendant CAAWs Executive Board10) where
presiding over Coughlins wrongful termination suit in CV11-01955 (see 60317), when considering
the view of Elliotts 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC the Reno City Attorney and
SBN wish one to take (ie, that such was not obeying NRS 189.030(1), and NRS 189.035, 189.050)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900172/2JDC-Judge-Elliott-Order-Granting-Motion-toDismiss-Without-Prejudice-NRS-189-030-1
The OBCs Machado also writes: The court order relied upon by Coughlin is titled "Order
Affirming Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court." See Exhibit 1. The district court, on page 3 of this
order, specifically affirms the Reno Municipal Court's finding that Coughlin was guilty of Petit
Larceny in violation of Reno Municipal Code 8.10.040. The district court then remanded the matter
for all further proceedings.
Actually, that is not true. Far from it. Nothing specific to the finding of one being guilty
of Petit Larceny compared to the ruling found in the municipal court judges Order Punishing
Summary Contempt. Here is what page 3 (emphasis added) of such order actually reads in its
entirety (nothing specific to a Judgment of Conviction and Court Order compared to an Order
Punishing Summary Contempt about it):
his burden in providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affirm
the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court. fn1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court is AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the Reno Municipal Court for all further
proceedings. Dated this 15th day of March, 2012 /s/ Steven P. Elliott District Judge
(Fn 1: 1 It is worth noting that, pursuant to NRS 4.410(2), "[T]he fees for transcripts
and copies [of municipal court proceedings] must be paid by the party ordering them. In a
civil case the preparation of the transcript need not commence until the fees have been
deposited with the deputy clerk of the court." Accordingly, NRS 189.030, Which requires
the municipal court to transmit various papers to the district court upon appeal, does not
require action until such fees have been paid. Here, it appears that Appellant never paid
the requisite fees to secure the transcription of the proceedings. For this reason, the
appellate record is incomplete. )
Interestingly, the OBCs Machado then slips up and adopts the dismissed terminology
himself: In summary, Coughlin's criminal conviction for theft which formed the basis for the SCR
240
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
111 Petition in Supreme Court Case No. 60838 has not been dismissed. Coughlin is attempting to
mislead this Court by claiming otherwise whilst elsewhere claiming ineffectual the 4/8/14 Order
of Dismissal by Judge Holmes in the criminal contempt case (11 TR 26800 from which Machado
attaches the 3/12/12 Order as an exhibit to his 6/3/14 Response) forming the heart of the SBNs SCR
105 Complaint (or, at least, certainly, the heart of the Panels Recommendation, which finds at
most one actual RPC violation (RPC 3.3(a)(1) at R1362:18-23, and, perhaps, a quasi RPC 8.4(c)
violation at R1367:11-12 stemming from the exact same alleged conduct). The entire case was
dismissed on March 29, 2013, as reflected in the Order of Dismissal dated April 7, 2014. See
Exhibit 7.
Machado continues: As noted above, Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 26800 21,
which concerned traffic violations, was dismissed. The matter was also considered by the hearing
panel. However, the panel's findings reflected a concern over Coughlin's behavior11 at the trial for
the matter, not the underlying charges themselves. See Exhibit 10 at 3-5. These concerns included
Coughlin being found in contempt of court and being incarcerated for five (5) days. See id. at 3-4 TT 78; see also Exhibit 11, Order, filed March 12, 2012. The hearing panel also noted that Coughlin filed
nonsensical pleadings in the matter and Coughlin's conduct was described as "inappropriate,
bizarre, dishonest, irrational and disruptive . . . ." See Exhibit 10 at 4-5 TT 10-11.
The dismissal of the charges in Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 26800 21 did not
vacate the Municipal Court's finding of contempt nor did it excuse Coughlin's behavior during the
proceeding. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceeding is not impacted by the dismissal in Reno
Municipal Court Case No. 11 26800 21.
The OBCs prosecutor appears to want nothing to do with explaining how the dismissal12 of
14
15
the case/conviction at issue in its fellow prosecutor Becketts case is any different than the dismissal
16
of the case/convictions at issue in the two 4/8/14 Orders of Dismissal entered by Judge Holmes
17
attached to Coughlins 4/22/13 Notice (which resulted in this Courts 5/16/14 Order requiring the
18
6/3/14 Response the OBC recently filed. It certainly seems like these prosecutors have one set of
19
rules for themselves (such as RCA Sooudi et al being permitted to constantly violate RPC 3.1 what
20
21
with their constantly seeking to have appeals of criminal convictions dismissed based upon their
22
meritless arguments that NRAP 9 and Hill, Barkley, and Mitchell v. State somehow excuse the failure
23
of the City of Renos judges on the Reno Municipal Court bench to obey NRS 189.030(1) with
24
respect to the requirement that the justice shall file the transcripts within 10 days of the filing of a
25
notice of appeal.
26
27
28
SCR 123(3) allows for comparing this matter to In Re Beckett case 57763:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=25910 . Mr. Beckett's case/conviction
10
241
was dismissed on 1/21/11. On 2/14/11 Beckett filed Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR
111(10). Mr. Beckett's law license was reinstated six weeks later by an Order Granting Petition for
Reinstatement on April 4th, 2011.
In Re Beckett case 57763 reveals that the Nevada Supreme Court (SCR 123(3) allows for
5
6
citing to such) views the dismissal of a conviction as a basis for dissolving a temporary suspension
under SCR 111(10), as the 4/4/11 Order in such case held:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"SCR 111(10) gives us discretion to reinstate an attorney whose underlying conviction has
been reversed. The petition is accompanied by a certified copy of a February 2, 2011, order
from the Pahrump Township Justice Court dismissing Case No. 10CR01587 with prejudice. In
light of the fact that the charge underlying our order of temporary suspension has been
dismissed with prejudice, and our previous determination that Beckett's California
misdemeanor conviction did not warrant imposition of a temporary suspension, we conclude
that there is no longer a basis for Beckett being temporarily suspended pending the outcome
of his disciplinary proceedings. We therefore grant the petition. Attorney Robert S. Beckett,
Bar No. 3383, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law pending the outcome of his
disciplinary proceedings."
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(The RMC Judges rather consistently ignore notices of appeal toowhich goes against, at least, that
1979 Atty Gen. Adv. Op: www.ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/.../1979_AGO.pdf 13
Further, it simply is not true, much less an ethical display, for the SBN to adopt the position
RCA Sooudi tried to sell to Coughlin (ie, that the case in which Holmes issued a criminal contempt
conviction against Coughlin was dismissed on 3/29/13). A close look at that one sentence Order of
Dismissal of 4/8/14 reveals absolutely no mention of such case having been dismissed on
March 29, 2013. Additionally, a simple look at the docket from such case reveals nothing about
a dismissal on 3/29/13, but, rather, merely notates that the active bond that was the $100.00
Coughlins mother testified to14 the RMC having taken but then having failed to release Coughlin a
day early, as having been exonerated.
Further, not that it has any real relevance here, but the SBN ought be made to have WLSs
Elcano and the Reno City Attorneys Offices Sooudi sign affidavits rather than attach emails that the
SBN purport to be from them. Further, an email from Elcano claiming Coughlin to not then be an
WLS employee is not the same thing as a claim that WLS had not rehired Coughlin at the time
Coughlin made such claim (which was made under oath, in a signed, sworn Declaration, as opposed
to the innuendo/hearsay parade the SBN engages in here).
Respectfully submitted DATED this 6/6/14
28
11
242
1
2
/s/ Zachary Barker Coughlin

Nevada Bar No 9473
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Attorney for Petitioner
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CERTIFICATE/DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN PURSUANT TO

SCR 111(10)
STATE OF NEVADA)
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHOE)
Comes Now, Declarant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, being first duly sworn, deposes
and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct:
13
14
15
contained herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I hereby declare that all assertions I have
16
made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Everything I have linked to herein
17
directs to a true and complete copy of the document it purports to be.
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
243
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 5, 2014 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was submitted for electronic filing to be electronically served upon the State Bar of Nevada's Patrick
O. King and or David Clark:
3
4
5
6
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and you get those whom are contracted to provide access to legal tools to those whom are
incarcerated willfully violating the 1993 NVD Consent Decree (CV-N-91-65-ECR) requiring as
muchand you get the Sheriff/WCDA/RCA/RJC/RMC ignoring the fact that the Legislature
requires the passing of 24 hours per NRS 40.253 from the tenants receipt of a summary eviction
removal order prior to the Sheriff conducting a lockout, and you get judges like the RMCs Howard
willfully violating ADKT 411 in denying indigent defendants counsel, ruling on such applications
whilst being the presiding judge, refusing to obey the requirement of NRS 189.030(1) that the
justice file the transcript with the district court within 10 days of a notice of appeal being filedand
you get judges like the RMCs Howard and W. Gardner violating NRS 178.415s mandatory stay
during the pendency of orders for competency evaluations like that by Judge Holmes of 3/12/12
(which the SBN laughably interprets to somehow support its contention that the trespass conviction
would somehow still be in existence had there not been a 4/8/14 Order vacating such. It is entirely
unclear how Judge W. Gardner could know such was a clerical error? Certainly, the municipal and
justice court judges step in for one another from time to time on each others cases (see RJC Judge
Cliftons having RCR2012-065630 transferred to him from Judge Lynch on 2/27/12, or RMC 12 CR
00696 being transferred from Judge Dilworth to Judge Holmes by Judge W. Gardner on 2/27/12).
Why not have the judge whom entered such Order enter something saying as much? Perhaps, Judge
Holmes was annoyed that Judge W. Gardner passed her a vacated 4/13/09 Order (vacated by 6/19/09
Final Decree of Divorce) sanction against Coughlin by his sister without telling Judge Holmes that
such had been vacated. Judge Holmes probably would have appreciated that knowledge before
having it sent to the SBN with her 3/14/12 letter (see FHE8).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228404516/6-19-09-0204-62337-Ocrd-01955-01168-FOFCOLDODFinal-Order-or-Decree-of-Divorce-in-Joshi-01168-Overrides-FHE3-4-13-09-Ord
Consistent with the 4/13/09 Order After Trial directing him to prepare a proposed Final Decree
consistent with such order in FHE3, opposing counsel in that Joshi divorce matter (the one whom
failed to attempt the 21 day filing ready safe harbor motion required by NRCP 11 (by way of NRS
7.085) prior to moving for sanctions in his closing argument at trial (Springgate) even submitted a
Proposed Final Decree of Divorce that included the attorney fee sanction:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228404700/5-21-09-0204-01168-Springgate-s-Req-for-Submission-andProposed-Order-That-Was-Entered-Vitiating-the-Order-of-4-10-09
However, again, the Final Decree of Divorce vacated such sanction, and, instead, awarded the very
13
244
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
alimony Coughlin was allegedly vexatious in pursuing in the first place.

More likely, Judge Holmes was moved by Coughlins taking responsibility in his filings (a
few weeks prior to Judge Holmes entering the two 4/8/14 Orders vacating the criminal trespass
conviction the Panel was apparently referencing at page 20 of its Recommendation) and all
orders stemming from the traffic citation case that begat a criminal contempt conviction (and,
despite Asst. Bar Counsel Machados contentions (however uninformed and recklessly made), the
Panel refused to admit any evidence with respect to Coughlins conduct at such 2/27/12 trial (which
begat the two orders the SBNs references in its Response), as the Panel applied SCR 111(5) to in
essence, a conviction while insisting that Coughlin would not be permitted to relitigate such
issues)) in both the traffic case from which the two orders the SBNs 6/3/14 Response references and
in the criminal trespass case (which was never put into evidence at the formal disciplinary hearing,
thus Asst. Bar Counsel Machados apparently caveat).
The price for the SBNs scattershot approach at such formal disciplinary hearing and the Panels
reluctance to afford Coughlin much due process at all (funny, Panel Chair Echeverria gets over four
hours of closing argument for Whittemore, yet Coughlin was given less than 2.5 hours total to put on
his entire case) is that the SBN simply did not get much of what it needed to prove proven. FHE 12
and 13 were not even admitted. The SBNs 6/3/14 Response was forced to
SCR Rule 102. Types of discipline. Misconduct is grounds for: 4. Temporary suspension by the
supreme court. (4)(a) On the petition of a disciplinary board, signed by its chair or vice chair,
supported by an affidavit alleging facts personally known to the affiant, which shows that an
attorney appears to be posing a substantial threat of serious harm to the public, the supreme court
may order, with notice as the court may prescribe, the attorneys immediate temporary suspension or
may impose other conditions upon the attorneys practice.
Of course, the SBN was too embarrassed by apparent grievant (and NNDB Member) Richard G. Hill,
Esq.s five page unsigned, unsworn emailed grievance to the SBN to even put such into evidence as
the hearing (sabotaging the whole RPC 8.1 splatter paint accusation the SBN attempted to coble
together) http://www.scribd.com/doc/228396280/1-14-12-62337-is-This-NNDB-MemberRichard-G-Hill-Esq-s-Grievance-Unsigned-Unsworn-the-SBN-Was-Too-Embarassed-by-to-Put-inEvidence ? Who knows?
As such, Coughlin had no responsibility to argue against the continuation of such at the formal
disciplinary hearing, nor with any respect to 62337. Nonetheless, the Panels Recommendation
(which is not titled a Recommendation and, as such, fails to vest this Court with jurisdiction under
SCR 105(3) even more than the fact that the SBNs Clerk of Court Laura Peters has admitted that she
refused to and failed to file in Coughlins tolling motions, which were timely submitted to the
SBN).
Regardless of the fact that SCR 102 requires the disciplinary board to file a petition and obtain
an order for such from the supreme court, the Panel was undeterred by such due process
annoyances, and in its Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law (which, again, is not titled a
Recommendation) at page 22 recommends (2) That his temporary suspension be continued
pending final resolution of this matter.
Rather, the SBN has, so far, been able to piggy back its more holes than an afghan SCR 105
Complaint at issue in 62337 onto that temporary suspension, by Asst. Bar Counsel King unilaterally
ruling that the SCR 111(8) hearing mandated by such rule and this Courts 6/7/12 Order referring
this matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for the institution of a formal hearing before a
hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined shall be the extent of the discipline to be
14
245
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
imposed was to be consolidated and or combined with the formal disciplinary proceedings
to follow from the 8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint King filed, but never served Coughlin with. King
went so far as to order SBN Clerk of Court to vacate the already scheduled, noticed, and on
calendar 9/25/12 formal hearing to be held in response to this Courts 6/7/12 SCR 111(8) mandate in
60838.
The combining of such formal hearing (and, necessarily, the adjudication to follow therefrom)
required by SCR 111(8) in connection with the temporary suspension of Coughlins law license and
that at issue in the SCR 105 Complaint has now clearly resulted in an unconstitutional deprivation of
Coughlins protected Fourteenth Amendment property right (license to practice law) with no predeprivation hearing.
Simply put, this alleged conviction of petty larceny of a candy bar and cough drops has been given
more than enough run by now, resulting in over two years worth of temporary suspension
2
10/08/2013
Notice/Incoming
Filed Notice of Unimaginable Impropriety of WCDA.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13-30110
Generally, an attorney is entitled to reasonable notice of a disciplinary proceeding against him
or her, and an opportunity to defend. The general rule is that before an attorney may be
disciplined, as by suspension, whether under a statute or in the exercise of a court's inherent powers,
he or she is entitled to notice and opportunity to defend. Ordinarily, the right to defend is exercised
in a trial or hearing. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 20 L. Ed. 2D 117 (1968); In re Jones,
506 F.2D 527 (8th Cir. 1974). Ind.Matter of Murray, 266 Ind. 221, 362 N.E.2D 128 (1977). Va.
Maddy v. First Dist. Committee of Virginia State Bar, 205 Va. 652, 139 S.E.2D 56 (1964). Kan.
Knutson Mortg. Corp. V. Coleman, 24 Kan. App. 2D 650, 951 P.2D 548 (1997).
Criminal activityTemporary suspension not appropriate
Finding that the particular criminal activities for which attorneys had been found guilty were not
necessarily serious crimes, the courts in the following cases held that temporary suspension from the
practice of law pending the completion of disciplinary proceedings was not warranted.
The court in Re Hutchinson (1984, Dist Col App) 474 A2d 842, held that the conviction of a
misdemeanor for violating a statute and regulation prohibiting the communication of non-public
information relating to a tender offer where it was reasonably foreseeable that the communication
would result in a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act or crime, was not per se a serious crime as
that term is used in bar rules governing temporary suspension of attorneys, and thus immediate
suspension pending disposition of disciplinary proceedings was not mandated. The court observed
that under the rule, the term "serious crime" included any felony and any lesser crime a necessary
element of which, as determined by the statutory or common-law definition of such crime, involved
improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of justice, false swearing,
misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery, extortion,
misappropriation, theft, or an attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of another to
commit, a serious crime.
The court stated that the offense for which the attorney in the instant case had been convicted
had five elements. These elements were, said the court, that the accused be in possession of
information relating to a tender offer; that he or she know, or have reason to know, that the
information was nonpublic; that he or she know, or have reason to know, that the information had
15
246
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
been acquired, directly or indirectly, from the offeror or issuer or any agent of either; that he or she
communicate the information to another; and that it be reasonably foreseeable that the
communication would likely result in a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act or practice in
violation of the regulation. Noting that no intent of any kind was required in order to be convicted
inasmuch as a negligent communication was sufficient, the court concluded that since the
components of the definition of a serious crime relevant to this case all involved intentional acts,
such as fraud and deceit, and intent was not a necessary element of the crime for which the
attorney was convicted, his offense could not be deemed a serious crime.[8]
An attorney was not convicted of a "serious crime" such that he could be temporarily
suspended from the practice of law pending final disposition of disciplinary charges where he
pleaded nolo contendere to conspiracy to commit the crime of being an accessory to a forged
conveyance, the court held in Sloan v State Bar, (Nev. 1986) 102 Nev. 436, 726 P2d 330. Noting that
the phrase "serious crime" was defined as any felony, or any crime less than a felony, a necessary
element of which involved improper conduct as an attorney, interfering with the administration of
justice, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, or an attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or
solicitation of another to commit, a serious crime, the court, responding to the contention that the
attorney's conviction was based on fraudulent conduct and therefore was a serious crime,
concluded that the evidence clearly indicated that the attorney did not have knowledge of the
fact that the act that he was involved in (preparing documents for the transfer of equipment
that was later found to have been stolen) was fraudulent until at least 2 months after his
involvement.
Failure to provide presuspension notice and opportunity to be heardRights of
attorney violatedgenerally
The court in the following case held that a statute, which provided that whenever an
investigating committee recommended the filing of a complaint against an attorney, the attorney
stood suspended from the time the complaint was filed, was invalid insofar as the suspension was
not based upon any judgment or finding of the court, and was without trial or notice to the
accused.
In McMurchie v Superior Court (1923) 26 Ariz 52, 221 P 549, the court held that a statute,
which provided that whenever an investigating committee recommended the filing of a complaint
against an attorney, the attorney stood suspended from the time the complaint was filed, was invalid
insofar as the suspension was not based upon any judgment or finding of the court, and was without
trial or notice to the accused. Noting that an attorney in this situation was suspended by legislative
decree, the court stated that this was contrary to one of the cardinal principles of the administration
of justice, that no man could be condemned or divested of his rights until he had the opportunity of
being heard. The license of an attorney to practice his profession is acquired by order and judgment
of a court, after examination into his moral and intellectual qualifications, the court declared, adding
that an attorney could only be divested of that right by a like judgment of court, entered after due
notice and inquiry and opportunity to be heard, and based upon some conduct on his part which made
him unworthy to engage further in the practice of law.
Failure to provide presuspension notice and opportunity to be heardAs applied
Despite construing a statute which provided that at any time after charges were filed against an
attorney a court had the power, pending trial of the charges, to suspend the attorney, to include the
right to notice and a presuspension hearing, the court in the following case nevertheless held that it
was invalid as applied to an attorney who was suspended without such notice and hearing. See, also,
16
247
Laughlin v Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190, 95 F2d 101.

Failure to guarantee prompt final disposition of chargesRights of attorney violated
Gershenfeld v Justices of Supreme Court (1986, ED Pa) 641 F Supp 1419, Finding what
could only be characterized as unreasonable delays, the court said that it was inconceivable that all of
the complaints assembled would have to be heard at once; that there was absolutely no reason why it
should take 2 months to schedule a hearing; that the hearing committee members were not available
to allow an expedited hearing which could be accomplished in consecutive days, while
understandable, did not relieve the defendants from their due process obligations; and that the state
Supreme Court, because of its busy schedule, could not convene on disciplinary matters more
frequently than every 3 months was both unfortunate and unacceptable.
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Coughlins Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Motion for Reconsideration; Motion for Recusal; Motion For Publication Of Transcript at Public
Expense, Petition for In Forma Pauperis Status at pages 109-114 clearly indicates he is appealing
both the 11/30/11 Judgment of Conviction and Court Order and the 11/30/11 Order for Summary
Punishment of Contempt. http://www.scribd.com/doc/225490010/12-13-11-Final-0204-60838-RMC11-CR-22176-Notice-of-Appeal-Motion-to-Vacate-Motion-for-Reconsid-and-Motion-for-RecusalStamped-With-Exhbit-and-Pic-o See, also, page 571: The notice of appeal does and should apply
to the Summary Contempt Order as well, http://www.scribd.com/doc/225316199/12-23-11-to-9-813-0204-62337-all-filings-except-RMCROA-from-22176-in-2064-60838-ocr
5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225574773/3-26-12-NRAP-40-Functional-Equivalent-CR11-20642790430 At pages 916 to 993 of combined record.
6
That Judge Elliott 8/27/12 Order reads:
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Presently
before the Court, is a Motion for New Trial, or Pled in the Alternative, Motion to Alter or
Amend filed by Appellant ZACH COUGHLIN ("Appellant'') on March 26, 2012.
Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, Respondent CITY OF RENO ("Respondent'') filed a
Motion to Strike Appellant's Motion for New Trial.
Following, on July 25, 2012, Appellant filed a Motion to Set Aside or Vacate
Conviction and or Order Affirming it. Thereafter, on July 26, 2012, Appellant filed a
Supplemental Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Conviction and or Order Affirming it. On that
same date, Appellant filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the
Court's consideration.
On March 15, 2012, this Court entered an Order denying the Appeal and affirming
the decision of the Municipal Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case
and the Appellant's Motion for New Trial is moot.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's Motion for a New
Trial is DENIED. DATED this 27th day of August, 2012. /S/ Steven P. Elliott District Judge"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
However, where NRAP clearly was applied here by the appellate judge, Coughlins' 3/26/12
filing operates as the functional NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing, which the district court has refused
to adjudicate, claiming it no longer had jurisdiction upon entering its 3/15/12 Order Affirming the
Ruling of the RMC and remanding the matter.
17
248
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
Recently, in In Re Hunter, 02-1975 (La.8/19/02), 823 So.2d 325, this court removed a judge
for reasons stemming from administrative incompetence evidenced by poorly organized case files,
missing portions of records, poorly drafted or non-existent minute entries, unsigned motions for
appeal, cases that had fallen off the docket, and failure to produce transcripts for appellate review
which resulted in the reversal of serious criminal convictions.
Misconduct, including judge's repeated failures to produce transcripts timely, accurately, or
frequently not at all, resulting in eleven appellate reversals of serious felony criminal convictions and
sentences for violation of the defendants' constitutional right to judicial review, and her continuous
lack of cooperation with the court of appeal in securing transcripts for appellate review, amounted to
willful and persistent failure to perform her duty to administer her court in professional and
competent manner, and conduct gravely prejudicial to administration of justice that brought the
judicial office into disrepute. LSA-Const. Art. 5, 25(C); Code of Jud.Conduct, Canon 3, subd. B(1),
8 LSA-R.S. In re Hunter, 2002-1975 (La. 8/19/02), 823 So. 2d 325
Judge Howard willfully refuses to comply with NRS 189.030(1)'s requirement that he file the
transcript with the district court upon a criminal defendant appealing his conviction.
NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording and copy of docket
to district court.
1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk
of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers relating to the case and a certified
copy of the docket.
8
Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097 (Utah 2012): "Having analyzed supreme court
cases dealing with the relationship between remittitur and jurisdiction, we conclude that
remand to the justice court does not necessarily divest the district court of jurisdiction. We
further determine that the district court must retain jurisdiction for a reasonable time
sufficient to resolve appropriate postjudgment1 motions. Because the district court in this
case declined on an improper basis to exercise jurisdiction, we find it appropriate to grant
Falkner's petition for extraordinary relief and remand the case to the district court with
additional instructions for resolving Falkner's motion to reinstate.
I. We Look to the Rules of Appellate Procedure for Guidance in Analyzing the District
Court's Jurisdiction Over Appeals from Justice Court.
6 "[T]he appeals process from a justice court decision is unique" in that "[a] defendant
who has pleaded guilty or been convicted in justice court is entitled to a trial de novo in a
district court, provided that he or she files a notice of appeal within thirty days of the sentence
or guilty plea." Bernat v. Allphin, 2005 UT 1, 8, 106 P.3d 707. The hybrid nature of this
proceeding makes it difficult at times to determine what procedures might apply in situations
where no procedure is explicitly provided for in the context of appeals from justice court.
Falkner asserts that we should employ only the rules of civil and criminal procedure to
resolve the jurisdictional issue, while Judge Lindberg suggests that we rely on the Utah Rules
of Appellate Procedure. While the form of a trial de novo differs from that of a traditional
appeal, it is still considered an appellate proceeding,2 see id. 25, 30-32, and we therefore
find it appropriate to employ the rules of appellate procedure "as a model in the context of
justice court appeals," see Gordon, 2009 UT App 25, 22 n. 7. (NOTE, Gordon, provides:
While not applicable to appeals from justice court convictions, rule 23A's criteria justifying
reinstatement could serve as a model in the context of justice court appeals. Gordon did not
18
249
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
address any of these possibilities in her motion to the district court or in the present
petition.)
II. An Appellate Court Does Not Necessarily Lose Juris-diction When a Case Is
Remanded to a Lower Court.
7 In support of her assertion that the district court lost jurisdiction upon remand, Judge
Lindberg points us to our decision in State v. Clark, 913 P.2d 360 (Utah Ct.App.1996), in
which we rejected a defendant's attempt to appeal his case after the appeal had once been dismissed for failure to prosecute, explaining that once the case was remitted, "this court lost
jurisdiction over the matter and the dismissal became an adjudication on the merits." Id. at
362-63. Judge Lindberg asserts that Clark stands for the proposition that a remand to a lower
court necessarily divests the appellate court of jurisdiction and prevents it from further
considering any issues relat-ing to the case.
8 However, additional case law from our supreme court suggests that there are at least
two circumstances where an appellate court may retain jurisdiction after a case has been
remitted to the district court. First, if a remittitur is premature, it cannot effectively return
jurisdiction to the lower court. See Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Foothills Water
Co., 942 P.2d 305, 306-07 (Utah 1996) (per curiam) (determining that a remittitur issued
before a pending petition for certiorari was resolved did not serve to divest the Utah Court of
Appeals of jurisdic-tion). Second, even after a remittitur returns jurisdiction to the lower
court, the appellate court may retain limited jurisdiction over certain matters, particularly
where consti-tutional rights are implicated. See State v. Lara, 2005 UT 70, 21, 124 P.3d 243
(holding that the Utah Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the voluntariness of a
defendant's withdrawal of his appeal despite having re-mitted the case to the trial court).
A. Premature Remittitur
9 First, a remittitur cannot serve to return jurisdiction to a lower court for
implementation of the appellate court's mandate while the case is still pending on appeal. See
Hi-Country, 942 P.2d at 306. Our rules of appellate proce-dure outline a schedule for
remittitur that implements this principle. Specifically, the rules instruct the court of ap-peals
to remit a case "immediately after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for writ of
certiorari" and to stay the remittitur if such a petition is filed. See Utah R.App. P. 36(a)(2).
The rules similarly instruct the su-preme court to issue remittitur "15 days after the entry of
the judgment" or, "[i]f a petition for rehearing is timely filed, ? five days after the entry of the
order disposing of the petition." Id. R. 36(a)(1). See generally id. R. 35(a) ("A petition for
rehearing may be filed with the clerk within 14 days after the entry of the decision of the
court, unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order."). If a case is remitted before the time
for such petitions has passed or before the petitions can be considered, jurisdic-tion will
nevertheless remain with the appellate court and not return to the lower court. See HiCountry, 942 P.2d at 306-07 (holding that the trial court did not have juris-diction to
implement the mandate of the court of appeals while a petition for certiorari was pending in
the supreme court, despite the fact that the court of appeals had remit-ted the case to the trial
court).
B. Limited Retained Jurisdiction
10 Furthermore, there are circumstances where an appel-late court may retain limited
jurisdiction, despite the low-er court having regained jurisdiction as a result of a re-mand....11
However, because "remittitur is a procedure created pursuant to the rule making authority
19
250
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
vested in [the su-preme court]," see id. 13; see also Utah R.App. P. 36, its jurisdictional
effect is judicially, rather than constitution-ally, imposed, see Lara, 2005 UT 70, 12-13
(internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "the significance of remittitur as a limitation
on ? jurisdiction" should not be overinflated. Id. 9. "[T]he appellate court retains [at least]
the jurisdiction necessary to compel compliance with the terms of the remittitur." Id. 16.
Additionally, the jurisdictional implications of remittitur "cannot be in-terpreted in a manner
that would stymie a legitimate quest to assert important constitutional guarantees," id. 19,
which "override ? whatever jurisdictional significance might reside within ? jurisprudence
relating to remit-titurs," id. 21-22 (holding that because the constitu-tional right to an appeal
overrides any jurisdictional effect of the rules of appellate procedure, the court of appeals had
the authority to exercise jurisdiction over an appel-lant's claim that he had not knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to an appeal by withdrawing it, even af-ter the case had been
remitted).
12 Thus, had Falkner identified a constitutional right or other appropriate claim, the
district court could have exer-cised jurisdiction over the motion to reinstate, even if it had
properly returned jurisdiction to the justice court. Cf. id. 21. No such claim was raised.
However, because the district court remanded the case immediately, without allowing any
time for filing of postjudgment motions, re-mittitur was premature and could not have
immediately divested the district court of jurisdiction. Thus, the ulti-mate question of whether
the district court had jurisdic-tion over Falkner's motion to reinstate turns on whether the
motion was filed prior to the time that jurisdiction could properly have been surrendered by
the district court.
III. The District Court Must Retain Jurisdiction over Appeals from Justice Court for a
Reasonable Time Sufficient to Permit Consideration of Postjudgment Matters.
13 Unlike the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure
do not provide clear guidelines regarding the district court's retention of juris-diction
following a remand for abandonment. Although section 78A-7-118(8) of the Utah Code
provides that "[t]he district court shall retain jurisdiction over the case on trial de novo," see
Utah Code Ann. 78A-7-118(8) (Supp.2012), the provision in the Utah Rules of Criminal
Procedure which permits remand to the justice court in the case of abandonment, see Utah
R.Crim. P. 38(h), sug-gests that jurisdiction must eventually return to the justice court after an
appeal has been abandoned. Nevertheless, a remand under such circumstances must allow at
least some time for parties to file appropriate postjudgment mo-tions before the district court
loses jurisdiction.
14 Judge Lindberg argues that we should look to the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure
as a guide in deter-mining the appropriate deadline for returning jurisdiction to the justice
court after an appeal is remanded for aban-donment. Under rule 36 of the Utah Rules of
Appellate Procedure, the court of appeals is expected to issue a re-mittitur "immediately after
the expiration of the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari," Utah R.App. P. 36(a)(2),
and a "petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court
within 30 days after the entry of the final decision by the Court of Ap-peals," id. R. 48(a).
Thus, jurisdiction may be appropriate-ly returned to the district court following appeal thirtyone days after the court of appeals makes its final deci-sion. Judge Lindberg asserts that,
likewise, the district court's "jurisdiction is lost no later than 31 days after the dismissal
decision is made."
20
251
15 We agree that the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure may "serve as a model in
the context of justice court appeals." Cf. Gordon v. Maughan, 2009 UT App 25, 22 n. 7,
204 P.3d 189 (suggesting that rule 23A of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure might serve
as a guide for determining whether reinstatement of an appeal from jus-tice court might be
appropriate). However, the time for remittitur outlined in rule 36 is not an arbitrary number of
days but is based on the time allowed for filing petitions for certiorari and rehearing. Indeed,
the supreme court is directed to remit a case a mere fifteen days after a final decision,
consistent with the fourteen-day period allotted for filing a petition for rehearing. See Utah
R.App. P. 36(a)(1); see also id. R. 35(a). Thus, the guidance provid-ed by rule 36 is not a
strict deadline for returning jurisdic-tion to a lower court but, rather, a method for
determining the appropriate deadline in light of the circumstances. That method requires that
the court retain jurisdiction for a period sufficient to allow appropriate postjudgment mo-tions
to be filed and considered.
... IV. The District Court Exceeded Its Discretion When It Denied the Motion to Reinstate
Without Conducting an Analysis Under Rule 23A of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.
19 We also reject the district court's alternative ground for denying the motion to
reinstate, namely, that Falkner offered no excuse for his failure to appear. Because we
determine that Falkner did offer an explanation for his failure to appear, we determine that the
district court ex-ceeded its discretion by denying the motion to reinstate without considering
whether Falkner's failure was excus-able under rule 23A of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.
20 In Gordon v. Maughan, 2009 UT App 25, 204 P.3d 189, this court upheld a district
court's denial of a motion to reinstate an appeal from justice court remanded for
abandonment, in part based on the fact that the defendant "provided no reasons justifying her
failure to appear." Id. 22. In so doing, we explained that the criteria outlined by rule 23A of
the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure for determining whether reinstatement of an appeal is
appropriate "could serve as a model in the context of justice court appeals." See id. 22 n. 7.
Rule 23A provides that "[a]n appeal dismissed for failure to take a step other than the timely
filing of a notice of appeal may be reinstated by the court upon motion of the appellant for (a)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect or (b) fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct of an adverse party." Utah R.App. P. 23A." Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097
(2012).
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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228407213/Judge-Steven-Elliott-Bio-0204-0376-Caaw-cv11-0195560317-cr12-1262-cr11-2064-cr12-0376-ie
10
Filed Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for

1406/02/2014 Motion Permission to File Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release Under
Y
1767
Seal.
14-17671
Also, Judge Elliott dismissed Coughlins suit on the grounds that Coughlin failed to effect
service of process within the 120 days required by NRCP 4, despite the Motion to Dismiss filed by
WLS et al tolling the running of such time period. Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 614 F.
Supp. 87, 92 (S.D. Ohio 1985).
See Geiger v. Allen, 850 F.2d 330, 333 (7th Cir. 1988) ("Of course, the 120-day period was
21
252
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
tolled between the time that the action was dismissed and the date that the court reinstated the action,
since no action was pending during that interval."). Thing is, the 120 days for service was tolled by
any number of filings, including WLSs Motion to Quash from 9/2011, as such, Elliotts 12/8/11 and
various 1/13/12 orders are void for lack of jurisdiction: 62B Am. Jur. 2D Process 111 The 120-day
period may be tolled upon the filing of either a motion to quash service or a motion to dismiss for
insufficiency of process or service, and such period will not continue to run until such time as the
court has taken action on the motion.Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 614 F. Supp. 87
(S.D. Ohio 1985) The defense that process has not been timely served may be waived if the defense
is not raised in the party's first responsive pleading or in an amendment to a first responsive pleading
allowed as a matter of course. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2D 1509, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3D 1505 (5th Cir.
1988).
8
11
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(NOTE: actually, no, the Panel did not consider such conduct, but, rather, applied an offensive
collateral bar to Coughlin challenging the apparent or quasi RPC 3.3(a)(1) and RPC 8.4(c) violations
drawn from such since vacated 2/28/12 summary contempt order (allegedly a criminal contempt
conviction sufficient to invoke SCR 111(5) despite no SCR 111 Petition ever being filed)and
despite Coughlins notices of appeal of such going stricken and or ignored) and such since vacated
3/12/12 Order from the traffic citation trial entered by Judge Holmes in 11 TR 26800.
Indeed, upon Coughlin attempting to put the transcript of such 2/27/12 trial before Judge
Holmes (and the allegedly troubling filings submitted via facsimile) into evidence at the 11/14/12
formal disciplinary hearing, the Panel denied the admission of such, citing an offensive collateral bar
(despite the fact the SBN never made such an argument itselfsee Transcript of 11/14/12 formal
disciplinary hearing at:
Pages 221:15 to 222:9) MR. ECHEVERRIA: I'm focusing on what you're proffering now.
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. MR. ECHEVERRIA: This is a transcript of the trial for your traffic
citation? MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. MR. ECHEVERRIA: The one that Judge Holmes issued an
order finding you in contempt? MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Did you appeal it?
MR. COUGHLIN: I tried to. She wouldn't let me. MR. ECHEVERRIA: And it's a final order? MR.
COUGHLIN: I did the research on that, but she is saying -- I don't know what she is saying. But she
is not letting me appeal it. MR. ECHEVERRIA: We know what she said in her order. So I'm not
going to entertain an inquiry into the conduct of the trial on your traffic citation itself. That issue
has been litigated....
Pages 62:14 to 63:1) R. ECHEVERRIA: -- this panel has been asked to look at. The issue as to
whether or not you were properly in that residence building, the issue as to whether you were
trespassing has all been litigated. That's not the function of this panel. This panel is to determine, by
supreme court order, what, if any, punishment you should be subject to. I'd like you to focus on that
issue. Please proceed. MR. COUGHLIN: Whether the punishment under Claiborne is binding
authority upon you entails more than a cursory, receiving a certified conviction in the mail from a
clerk of court, and not undertaking any diligent inquiry in that regard.
Page 225:2 to 225:9: MR. COUGHLIN: this idea that a conviction is completely dispositive, he
cited no authority for that. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, the supreme court issued an order
in your case that says with respect to, in essence, a conviction, that the sole issue to be determined
here is the nature and extent of the punishment
Pages 225:20 to 226:16): MR. ECHEVERRIA: The supreme court, as I read its order, tells
this panel that the only issue to be determined with respect to a conviction is the nature and extent of
22
253
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
the punishment, if any. So if you have testimony on that issue (emphasis added) with respect to any
conviction, or order holding you in contempt, please present it. MR. COUGHLIN: Not under
Claiborne. Claiborne says a conviction is not the end of the inquiry. That in fact, the panel and the
Bar have a duty to look beyond the conviction. MR. ECHEVERRIA: We have a specific order in
your case with respect to what the issues to be determined in this proceeding are with respect to a
conviction. So do you wish to offer evidence as to the nature and extent of punishment, if any, that
should be rendered by this panel? MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. And I -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: Please
proceed. MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. So I'll play that audio with your permission. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: I'm sustaining the objection
Page 235:1 to 235:8) MR. ECHEVERRIA: -- proper to play. So I'm sustaining the objection
to playing whatever it was you're going to play, and proceed. MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. I'd like to
play an official copy of the transcript from that Reno Muni Court traffic citation case. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: You've already proffered that. I've sustained the objection.
Pages 63:25 to 64:20) MR. COUGHLIN: The important thing is the law in Nevada says
within 24 hours of the sheriff receiving that eviction order they've got to do the lockout. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: That's all been litigated, hasn't it? Didn't you raise these issues below? MR.
COUGHLIN: In which context? MR. ECHEVERRIA: In the trespass conviction. MR.
COUGHLIN: Yes. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Okay. Let's focus on the issues here, which, as I
understand it, are to focus on what, if any, punishment you should be subject to with respect to -- MR.
COUGHLIN: What's all this living in the basement stuff have to do with that? Jesus. This is Richard
Hill in a nutshell. Prejudicial nonsense. Hearsay. Character assassination. And then you try to rebut it,
and this is not the issue, it's not relevant. Nothing he says is relevant. MR. ECHEVERRIA: I didn't
say that. It is relevant. Your conviction is relevant. You're trying to relitigate --..."
Pages 180:13 to 181:9) MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. King, you cited in one of your pleadings a
request that all issues pending before you be heard at one hearing. There was a letter you sent to the
state Bar that you quote in one of your pleadings. THE WITNESS: I requested that? MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Yes, sir. THE WITNESS: You haven't read my pleadings. My whole point was
bifurcating, how ridiculous it is to glom all these together. I'm so glad you just said that on the record.
BY MR. KING: Q Could you please take a look at this document that's been marked as Exhibit No.
9, And tell me if you recognize that? A You actually just said that. My whole point was -- Q Mr.
Coughlin, there is a question pending -- A -- separate hearing. The sole purpose of the 60838
suspension, on a candy bar. That was my whole point. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. Coughlin, those
issues have been resolved.
Page 71:10 to 71:18) MR. ECHEVERRIA: I believe the issue that this panel has to determine
is what the degree, if any, of punishment should be for the conduct that you have alleged to have been
involved with, in terms of candor to the court, candor to counsel, candor to witnesses, competency to
practice law. MR. COUGHLIN: Including -- MR. ECHEVERRIA: I believe those are the issues that
this panel should focus on
Pages 73:18 to 75:5) MR. ECHEVERRIA: I believe you're here today to measure all of your
conduct as a practicing lawyer. So I'd like to move on. If you have further questions of Mr. Hill,
please ask them. I've now afforded you in excess of 20 minutes. I'll give you another five. MR.
COUGHLIN: So we're not here today based on what's been noticed? MR. ECHEVERRIA: We're
not here today to relitigate orders that have been filed that you have appealed, and that you have lost.
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm not asking -- I'm asking what is it limited to? Because it sounds like from
what you just said it's not limited. MR. ECHEVERRIA: I don't intend to impose any limits on you in
23
254
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
terms of what you attempt to proffer as evidence. I will rule on what you proffer as evidence. MR.
COUGHLIN: I'm saying what he's limited to, your Honor. MR. ECHEVERRIA: The issue here, sir,
as I understand the supreme court's order with respect to your conviction of theft, and the issues here
with respect to the other grievances that have been filed against you are to the extent as to what, if
any, should be the punishment that you should sustain as a result of your conduct. MR. COUGHLIN:
Yet this is entered into evidence. MR. ECHEVERRIA: This is what? MR. COUGHLIN: This order
has been entered into evidence. MR. ECHEVERRIA: Exhibit 2 has. MR. COUGHLIN: But it's not
pled in any complaint. Judge Flanagan's not a grievant. I wasn't noticed that that was the purpose of
this hearing to some extent today. MR. ECHEVERRIA: You were noticed that the issue of your
conviction of trespass was an issue, that your handling of that case was an issue, and it's relevant as to
that
8
9
10
11
12
13
(Pages 230:13 to 231:5) Q Did my dad say the State Bar of Nevada's Coe Swobe kept
hounding him, calling him up, trying to lean on me so Washoe Legal Services and Paul Elcano could
get out -- A I'm sorry, I could not hear that. Q Did my dad ever tell you that the State Bar of
Nevada's Coe Swobe called him up trying to get him to make me settle easier with Washoe Legal
Services whose director is friends with the chairman here, close childhood friends, they both went to
Stanford together, 1966? MR. KING: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: Your father told me -MR. ECHEVERRIA: Sustained. THE WITNESS: -- yes, they wanted you to settle. MR.
ECHEVERRIA: Excuse me, Ms. Barker. There was an objection made to the question. I'm
sustaining the objection. It's also argumentative.
14
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (C.A.4.S.C.,2010) Under the statute providing the district courts of
the United States with original jurisdiction of all offenses against the laws of the United States, the
district court had jurisdiction to entertain the government's motion to vacate the defendant's
conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, which motion was
made under the rule of criminal procedure authorizing the government to dismiss an indictment,
information, or complaint, even though the motion was made after the defendant was convicted.
U.S. v. Smith, 467 F.3d 785 C.A.D.C.,2006 Federal district court had jurisdiction, under its
general grant of jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States, to entertain the
government's motion to vacate federal prisoner's conviction for use of a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime, even though motion was brought after conviction was affirmed on direct appeal
and following denial of post-conviction relief. See, also, State v. Avelar, 979 P.2d 648 Idaho,1999.
In some states, the court may grant nolle prosequi on its own initiative and without consent of the
prosecutor. People v. Morrow, 214 Mich. App. 158, 542 N.W.2d 324 (1995). Judge Nash Holmes
recently did this as to the criminal contempt "conviction" ("lying"/misrepresenting RPC
3.3(a)(1)/8.4(c) violations) that the State Bar largely basis its attempt to irrevocably disbar Coughlin
upon.
Generally, a nolle prosequi entered with the court's consent after conviction is without
prejudice to a new indictment. Regardless, Coughlin is not an never will sue anyone in connection
with this arrest/matter, he hereby swears under penalty of perjury.
Thus, after an accused has been convicted, the prosecution may, with the court's consent, enter
a nolle prosequi without prejudice to a new indictment or information. Ala.Anthony v. City of
Birmingham, 240 Ala. 167, 198 So. 449 (1940). N.H.State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212, 72 A.2d 778
(1950). W.Va.State v. Burke, 130 W. Va. 64, 42 S.E.2d 544 (1947).
24
255
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
Dismissal of state criminal charge in furtherance of, or in interest of, justice, 71 A.L.R.5th 1:
19 Participation in treatment program. Coughlin is and has been since March 2013
receiving treatment froma psychologist and psychiatrist at Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health and
completed and 8 week course while incarceration from November 2013 to April 18, 2014 in Washoe
jail. Similar is In Re Beckett (where an attorney (Pahrump DA) convicted of NRS 199.280 was
deemed to have committed a serious crime) (former Pahrump DA failed to turn over receipts to the
Treasuser....such conviction was ultimately dismissed, resulting in Beckett's temporary suspension
under SCR 111(10) being two months long compared to the two year long suspension Coughlin is
currently still subject to incident to a conviction that was not affirmed on appeal), but not before a
temporary suspension was put in place):
22[a] Mental illness or capacityDismissal warranted: In the following cases, the
courts ruled that mental illness or lack of mental capacity warranted dismissing charges in the interest
of justice. In People v. Balukas, 95 A.D.2d 813, 463 N.Y.S.2d 534 (2d Dep't 1983)
34[a] Prior administrative or noncriminal adjudication of conduct
chargedDismissal granted:
The State Bar of Nevada included this iPhone petty larceny case in its SCR 105 complaint
against Coughlin now on appeal in 62337. There was not a conviction in this matter at the time of
such formal disciplinary hearing. Such circumstances would subjecdt Coughlin to double jeopardy
of sorts (as this case was factored into the Panel's Recommendation already) where Bar Counsel to
now file an SCR 111(6) Petition should this conviction remain (resulting in another temporary
suspension of Coughlin's law license, which has already been suspended two years for a conviction
that was not affirmed due to the RMC failing to comply with NRS 189.030(1) in refusing to file the
transcript with the district court.
It has been held that a prior administrative acquittal justified dismissing the present, identical
criminal charge in the interest of justice. In People v. Trucchio, 159 Misc. 2d 523, 605 N.Y.S.2d 649
(Sup. Ct. 1993).
E. Merits of the State's Case 41[a] Strength of prima facie caseDismissal warranted.
Here the State offered (and Coughlin accepted) a plea deal that allowed for a stipulated conviction for
disturbing the peace instead of petty larceny. For whatever reason, such plea deal was rejected by
Judge Sferrazza. Such a generous plea offer illustrates that this was not really a petty larceny case in
the traditional sense, with the prima facie case here being rather week, and only Coughlin behaving
like an idiot throughout likely being the driving force behind convicting him for not only petty
larceny, but also receiving stolen property, which is in violation of Shepp and Staab v. State, 526 P.2d
338 (1974)in Nevada as "a thief cannot receive the fruit of his own larceny from himself".
Inconsisent verdicts.
In the following case, the court held that where the prosecution announced it did not have
enough evidence to justify a trial, the trial court could properly dismiss the case in the interest of
justice. In People v. Bonds, 70 Cal. App. 4th 732, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10 (1st Dist. 1999).
42[a] Absence of culpable mental stateDismissal granted
Criminal charges have been dismissed in the interest of justice because evidence of the
existence of the requisite mental state was highly doubtful. In People v. Torres, 166 Misc. 2d 798, 634
N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995).
25
256
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
43[a] Affirmative defenses to chargeDismissal granted Coughlin really has quite a

claim of right defense to the petty larceny charge where even hostile witnesses admit that Coughlin
only claimed the phone from the Finder upon Finder offering it up, it going unclaimed, whereupon
Finder threatened to throw the phone in the river if it still went unclaimed. Once Finder offered
phone up and it went unclaimed, it became Finder's, and Finder freely gave such to Coughlin, thus,
Coughlin could not have stolen anything from Goble, nor could Finder be said to have delivered
stolen property to Coughlin.
N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995),
25[a] De minimis harmDismissal warranted
In the following cases, the courts approved the dismissal of charges in the interest of justice
on the ground that the offense caused little or no harm. The court in People v. Sales, 169 A.D.2d 411,
563 N.Y.S.2d 825 (1st Dep't 1991), while disagreeing with the trial court's characterization of the
defendant's conduct as a mere "prank," nonetheless held that the trial judge did not abuse her
discretion in dismissing an indictment for a violent felony theft offense, in the interest of justice
under N.Y. Crim. Proc. 210.40, explaining that although the defendant had made an intimidating
gesture while, with the assistance of three friends, taking food from an undercover officer disguised
as a delivery person, a dismissal was warranted in light of the fact that the defendant had never before
been arrested, the property stolen was a relatively small amount of food, and no weapon was
displayed during the incident. Further, the court remarked that no one had been injured, and in light
of the defendant's good prospects for future schooling and employment, the defendant could be held
responsible for his actions in ways other than a conviction for a violent felony.
heft In the following cases, the courts applied the de minimis infraction defense to charges of
theft against the defendant. The court in State v. Smith, 195 N.J. Super. 468, 480 A.2d 236 (Law Div.
1984), held that shoplifting three pieces of bubble gum was a de minimis infraction in light of the
circumstances surrounding the offense. The defendant was charged with shoplifting under N.J. Stat.
Ann. 2C:2011 by concealing three pieces of bubble gum in his pocket at a grocery store. At the
time of the offense, he was a fulltime college student pursuing a degree in electrical
engineering. He argued that his actions were too trivial to warrant the condemnation of
conviction. While the court acknowledged that sympathetic considerations were not part of a
determination under the de minimis statute, it found that an objective consideration of the
surrounding circumstances was authorized. The court noted that the defendant had no prior record,
that a conviction would seriously damage his ability to find a job in the engineering field, that
he had worked his way through college, and that he had already suffered substantial detriment
in his personal life from the notoriety of his arrest. The court rejected the state's argument that
dismissal would grant a license to other students to shoplift with impunity. It found, instead, that the
consequences which had already attended the arrest of the defendant were more punitive than those
which would follow conviction and that the prospect of the public humiliation suffered by the
defendant would serve as a forceful deterrent to the youths in his academic community. The court
also stated that it was difficult to envision a prosecution more acceptable for the invocation of the
discretion granted the assignment judge than one for the theft of three pieces of bubble gum.
Therefore, the court held that dismissal of the charge against the defendant was warranted.
Similarly, here, this bizarre scenario (confirmed by hostile witnesses) of the Finder
threatening to throw a phone that was ridiculously left on the ground in downtown Reno unattended,
26
257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
only to also involve an attorney with schooling on the law of lost, mislaid, abandoned property and
contributory negligence/Fourth Amendment law.
The court in State v. Nevens, 197 N.J. Super. 531, 485 A.2d 345 (Law Div. 1984), applied
New Jersey's de minimis statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:211, to overturn the defendant's conviction for
stealing fruit from a restaurant buffet.The defendant was convicted of stealing two bananas, an
orange, an apple, and a pear from a hotel restaurant. ... judge could dismiss a prosecution if the
defendant's conduct was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the
person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense;
did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the
offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or presented
such other extenuations that it could not reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the legislature in
forbidding the offense.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlins filings in the two matters in which the two Orders of Dismissal attached to his
4/22/14 filing in 62337, filed just a few weeks before such were entered, touched on all of these basis,
in addition to some others. For whatever reason (most likely because she has character), Judge
Holmes entered those Orders. It is not for the SBN or the Reno City Attorney to now engage in ex
parte communications with Judge W. Gardner to obtain the 5/26/14 Order Rescinding such, which is
void anyways. The RCA may go pursue a Writ of Mandamus against Judge Holmes, perhapsbut
what is done is done. Certainly, those two Orders of Dismissal played a role in a great deal of things
that followed, including what transpired in the suit between Coughlin and Washoe Legal Services and
the very Elcano whose ex parte email to Judges Hardy and Stiglich the SBN brazenly attaches to its
6/3/14 Response.
It would be highly inappropriate for one, Elcano to tell Coughlins father (a Duke trained
physician, All-SECAcademic team fullback with halfback speed who started for Tulane out of
Dayton, Ohio (1965-1968) both on the telephone and then again during a visit to Dr. Coughlins
office that Elcano and Washoe Legal Services was, at the very least, going to give Coughlin some
work/assignments to start with, then gradually restore Coughlin to his salaried position as a domestic
violence attorney at WLS, and how lawyers are very forgiving people and do all it could (a la In Re
Briggs) to help Coughlin restore his law license and have the various criminal convictions that remain
vacated and or addressed in some other way, provided Couglhin dropped all his lawsuits and appeals
(really, Coughlin just up and withdrew six criminal appeals for no apparent reason? Appeals where
Coughlin was incarcerated despite plainly being denied counsel? Coughlin was incarcerated from
11/6/13 to 4/18/14 and in every one of the matters underlying such he was denied counsel in plain
violation of ADKT 411 (he was on food stamps, making less than $10,000 per year, law license
temporarily suspended, and had been ruled indigent by the judges involved, so) only for
Elcano/WLS to back out of such the minute it/he got what he wanted. Whatever. Two, it would be
similarly inappropriate for the 4/8/14 Orders of Dismissal entered to all the sudden be rescinded
once such had the desired effect of getting Coughlin to dismiss Coughlins appeal in
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=33044 in which Coughlin appealed
Hill/Merliss being permitted to substitute in for Coughlin via Judge Stiglichs 1/7/14 Order
(apparently Hill/Merliss, whom committed fraud (apparently WLS had to give them thousands of
dollars though, and Hill/Merliss ought be stuck with any shortfall realized with respect to the $42,000
prevailing party attorney fee award the SBN tried to characterize as a sanction at the disciplinary
27
258
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
hearing (see FHE2) as Hill/Merliss certainly would keep any windfall realized, and further, Coughlin
may have won such lawsuit and been reinstated to his job as a legal aid attorney, which is not a thing
or chose in action) in lying in the matters at issue in 61383 that the commercial lease entered into
with Coughlin had expired when, plainly, by its terms (not less than 12 months is not the same as
12 monthsand the lease does not provide the landlord a no cause termination right anyways),
only to compound such by then both lying to the police in alleging they warned Coughlin to leave the
property (beyond having a summary removal order posted (not that the 24 hours required to pass per
NRS 40.253 was obeyed by theyand an eviction order is not a criminal trespass warning,
regardless)see 61383 and 61901, and Hills lying testimony at issue in 62337 with respect to
whether or not anyone, including the Reno police, issued Coughlin a criminal trespass warning).
Further problematic is the fact that WLS was under contract to provide Coughlin with access to legal
tools while he was then incarcerated at the time of and leading up to such hearing, and plainly failed
to in any way whatsoever.
Really, Judge Holmes may have been doing Judge W. Gardner et al a favor dismissing such
criminal trespass conviction considering the rampant violations of NRS 178.415 committed by W.
Gardner (co-signed readily by RCA Hazlett-Stevens in an appalling display) in holding the 6/18/12
trial and other associated hearings in violation of the stay pending the order for competency
evaluation that Gardner was provided notice of in writing.
13
OPINION NO. 79-4 Criminal Appeals From Municipal CourtNRS 189.010 and 189.020
However, regardless of the nontimeliness of filing an appeal, NRS 189.030 Provides that, The
justice must, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit to the clerk of the district court
all papers relating to the case and a certified copy of his docket. This action is not tied to the
timeliness of filing an appeal. It is a mandatory action which is to take place after the appeal is filed
regardless of when it is filed. The remedy for disposing of a nontimely appeal is found in NRS
189.060. Subparagraph 1 of that statute provides that an appeal may be dismissed for failure to take it
in time. But subparagraph 2 of NRS 189.060 Provides: If the appeal is dismissed, a copy of the order
of dismissal must be remitted to the justice, who may proceed to enforce the judgment. (Italics
added.) The clear implication is that only the district court may dismiss the appeal for want of
timeliness since it is the district court which could only remit the order of dismissal to the magistrate.
Thus it would be the opinion of this office that it would be the duty of the magistrate to forward the
appeal to the district court, even though the appeal was filed in a nontimely manner, and that the city
attorney would then be free to move for the dismissal of the appeal before the district court for lack of
timeliness. The district court could then reach its decision pursuant to NRS 189.060.
14
Pages 227:25 to 228:18) MARY BARKER having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Mom, did you have to buy an audio of the trial
with that Judge Nash Holmes? A Did I have to buy an audio? Q Yeah. Did you buy a copy of the
proceeding? A Yes. Q Did you give it to me? A Oh, God. I think so. I did several things. I paid
$100 for something -- no, that was something else. Q Right. You paid a hundred dollars for bail, and
she wouldn't let me out, but she kept the money anyway? A Yes. And the man that I gave the money
to told me that you would be released within several hours, and you weren't. Q They did the old
switcheroo, right?"
Pages 229:18 to 230:12) BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Mom, you paid $100 bail, and the muni
court kept the money but didn't let me out? A Yes. Q What did that Tom guy, the counter clerk, say
about that? A When I went back on Monday, he said, no, he should have been released. And I said,
well, he wasn't, and I would like to get my money back. And he made a phone call. And he said, I'm
28
259
1
2
3
4
sorry, but that's not possible. Q Did he say that she had done something wrong? A No. No, he didn't
say anything to me like that. He just said it was not what he expected. When I went down there and
paid the hundred dollars, he said you would be out within three hours. And that didn't happen. And I
believe that was on a Thursday. The courts were closed Friday, so I went back on Monday to find out
why you weren't released, and to see if I could get my hundred dollars back."
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
260
7/14/2014
eFlex
Home
Home
eFile
Cases
My Profile
Help
Log Out
user: Zachary Barker Coughlin
Notifications
Notifications
Notifications for Zachary Barker Coughlin
Delete
Mark As Read
Mark As Unread
Document(s) filed by...

Received Returned Mail. Documents returned per
order filed 6/16/14 addressed to Zachary
Coughlin...
Supreme Court Case

Title
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
Docket Number
64855
File Date
Jun 20 2014
Documents:
Received Returned Mail. Documents returned per order filed 6/16/14 addressed to Zachary Coughlin. Per USPS,
"return to sender, not here". Remailed to correct address on file.
Filed Order Denying Motion to File Confidential
Settlement Agreement and Release Under Seal.
We ...
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
64855
Jun 16 2014
Documents:
Filed Order Denying Motion to File Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release Under Seal. We direct the clerk
of this court to return, unfiled, the confidential settlement agreement and release that was received on May 19, 2014.
fn1[In light of this order, appellant's request for an extension of time to file an opposition to respondents' May 16,
motion is denied as moot.]
Motion w as submitted for filing by Zachary Barker IN RE: REINSTATEMENT
Coughlin
OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
65587
Jun 06 2014
IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Jun 06 2014
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Jun 04 2014
Documents:
Filed Request to File This Second Supplemental.
Response to Motion w as submitted for filing by
Zachary Barker Coughlin
Documents:
Filed Opposition to SBN's 6 3 14 Response.
Received Returned Mail. Order filed 5/16/14
addressed to Zachary Coughlin. Order mailed to
incor...
Documents:
Received Returned Mail. Order filed 5/16/14 addressed to Zachary Coughlin. Order mailed to incorrect address.
Remailed to corrected address on file.
Response to Order w as submitted for filing by
Glenn Machado
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Jun 04 2014
64855
Jun 02 2014
Documents:
Filed Response to Supreme Court's Order of May 16, 2014.
Response to Motion w as submitted for filing by
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
Documents:
Filed Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Permission to File Confidential Settlement
Agreement and Release Under Seal.
Petition w as submitted for filing by Zachary
Barker Coughlin
Documents:
https://efile.nvsupremecourt.us/notify
IN RE: REINSTATEMENT
OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
65587
May 22 2014
261
1/2
7/14/2014
eFlex
Filed Supplemental to SCR 111(10) Petition for Reinstatement.

Filed Order to File Response. State Bar: Response
due: 10 days. Fn1[The clerk shall send a copy ...
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
May 16 2014
Documents:
Filed Order to File Response. State Bar: Response due: 10 days. Fn1[The clerk shall send a copy of the notice filed
on April 22, 2014, to the State Bar's counsel.]
Motion w as submitted for filing by Joseph Garin
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
64855
May 16 2014
Documents:
Filed Motion for Permission to File Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release Under Seal.
Petition w as submitted for filing by Zachary
Barker Coughlin
OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
65587
May 07 2014
COUGHLIN (ZACHARY)
VS. CLIFTON
63342
Apr 28 2014
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
64855
Apr 25 2014
Documents:
Filed Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10).
Issued Notice in Lieu/Rehearing w as Issued by
Court
Documents:
Issued Notice in Lieu/Rehearing
Filed Order Dismissing Appeal. Proper person
appellant has filed a notice of w ithdraw al of
appea...
Documents:
Filed Order Dismissing Appeal. Proper person appellant has filed a notice of withdrawal of appeal, which we construe
as a motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and "we hereby dismiss this appeal" with the
parties to bear their own costs and fees. Case Closed/No Remittitur Issued.
Filed Notice of Dismissal of Cases from Which
Alleged Criminal Trespass 'Conviction' and
'Crimin...
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Apr 22 2014
Documents:
Filed Notice of Dismissal of Cases from Which Alleged Criminal Trespass 'Conviction' and 'Criminal Contempt'
Conviction Stem.
Delete
Terms of Use | EFiling Rules | FAQ's | Contact Us | About | Online User Manual
2001-7 Tybera Development Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
https://efile.nvsupremecourt.us/notify
262
2/2
EXHIBIT 16
EXHIBIT 16
263
1
2
3
Aug 13 2012 03:32 p.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
4
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
IN RE MATTER OF:
Case No.:
BAR NO: 9473
11
12
13
14
15
16
__________________________________/
Petition for Dissolution of Temporary Suspension Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
102(4); and/or alternatively, SCR 111(7) Petition to Show Good Cause For the Court To
Set Aside Its Order Temporarily Suspending Attorney From the Practice of Law
Petitioner, Zach Coughlin, files on his own behalf the above titled document.
17
18
FACTS
1. The State Bar of Nevada filed a SCR 111 Petition in In Re Coughlin, Case No 60838
19
20
on May 10th, 2012.
21
2. Coughlin submitted for filing with the Supreme Court of Nevada an Opposition to that
22
Petition on or about May 24th, 2012, however, the Clerk did not file it. Coughlin received a
23
24
25
26
27
Notice of Receipt of Electronic Filing upon his submission of his attempted filing.
3. Coughlin has filed a Motion for Reconsideration or to set aside the Temporary
Suspension given the fact that his attempt to file an Opposition to Bar Counsel's Petition was
refused filing.
28
Petition for Dissolution of Temporary Suspension Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 102(4); and/or alternatively,
SCR 111(7) Petition to Show Good Cause For the Court To Set Aside Its Order Temporarily Suspending Attorney
From the Practice of Law
1
264
1
2
3
4
5
4. Reports of Coughlin's suspension were carried in an Associate Press article

5. That Associate Press article ran without Coughlin having an opportunity to have the
Opposition to Bar Counsel's Petition considered by this Court.S
6. The Nevada Supreme Court entered an Order temporarily suspended Coughlin's
license to practice law on June 7th, 2012.
6
7
8
9
10
7. Coughlin, subsequently on June 11th, 2012, filed a Filed Motion for Leave to File
Opposition or to Show Cause why Temporary Suspension is not in Order.
8. Then, on June 18th, 2012 Coughlin filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended or
Supplemental Opposition or Motion to Set Aside, Alter, Amend Suspension, in addition to filing
11
12
13
a Motion for Leave to File Opposition to SCR 117 Petition. Nos. 60838 and 60975, also filed on
June 18th, 2012.
14
9. Coughlin has repeatedly requested for the formal hearing called for in the Court's
15
June 7th, 2012 Order to be expedited and scheduled as soon as possible, however, the earliest
16
available date provided to Coughlin by the State Bar of Nevada's Laura Peters, so far, is
17
18
September 25th, 2012.
19
10. Coughlin's then domestic partner of four and a half years took his contributions to
20
their rent for May 2011 and failed to pay it to their landlord in addition to failing to pay her
21
contribution to the rent for June 2011 before suddenly vacating their shared residence two days
22
after graduating with a degree in journalism from UNR at twenty eight years old. In the four
23
24
and a half years she was domestic partners with Coughlin she completed three and a half years
25
worth of degree requirements towards her journalism degree, much of which was financed by
26
Coughlin, whom supported her in a variety of ways throughout that time.
27
28
2
265
11. Coughlin's then domestic partner of four and a half years took his contributions to
their rent for May 2011 and failed to pay it to their landlord in addition to failing to pay her
contribution to the rent for June 2011 before suddenly vacating their shared residence two days
after graduating with a degree in journalism from UNR at twenty eight years old. In the four
and a half years she was domestic partners with Coughlin she completed three and a half years
6
7
worth of degree requirements towards her journalism degree, much of which was financed by
Coughlin, whom supported her in a variety of ways throughout that time. Coughlin was alerted
to his former domestic partners absconding with his rental contributions and failing to pay her's
10
for her final month at their shared residence in August 2011, whereupon a a summary eviction
11
12
from his former home law office ensued within days of the landlord alerting Coughlin to this
13
past due renting owing. Coughlin was subsequently arrested for petty larceny of a candy bar
14
and cough drops from Wal-Mart on September 9th, 2011. Coughlin's former domestic partner
15
never paid Coughlin back for absconding with his share of the May 2011 rent (rather than
16
following the practice of forwarding in on to the landlord, as was the case each month for the
17
18
previous four years), nor did she ultimately pay their landlord her share of the June 2011 rent.
19
This is admitted by Coughlin's former domestic partner in emails from August 11th, 2011
20
between Coughlin's former domestic partner and the landlord for his former home law office.
21
22
12. Coughlin was thereupon placed in exigent financial straits, resulting in his being
unable to afford a prescription medication he has taken for years.
This resulted in Coughlin
23
24
having greater difficulty in getting along with individuals like those employed by Wal-Mart and
25
the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police Department, though Coughlin maintains his innocence
26
with respect to the petty larceny charge for which he was convicted. Coughlin has subsequently
27
28
3
266
1
2
returned to regularly taking that medication, and has reported this arrest ande conviction to his
psychiatrist, and has returned to normal functioning and behavioral characteristics.
13. Beginning in mid-August 2011, Coughlin was confronted with the spectre of a
summary eviction from his former home law office. The landlord chose not to notice or plead
failure to pay rent, admitting that he did so to avoid litigating any of the habitability or
6
7
retaliation complaints that Coughlin had documented. Coughlin was then unduly burdened with
defending against an improper (lack of jurisdiction for a summary eviction proceedign against a
commercial tenant where the failure to pay rent is neither plead nor noticed, under NRS 40.253)
10
summary eviction proceeding from Coughlin's former home law office that saw impermissible
11
12
forced rent escrow deposits (of some $2,275 to the Reno Justice Court), in violation of JCRCP
13
83 in that the RJC has not enacted, had approved by the Nevada Supreme Court , and published
14
a rule of its own to mirror JCRLV 44 in Las Vegas Justice Court.
15
conviction underpinning Coughlin's current temporary suspension occurred shortly after that
16
The arrest leading to the
opposing counsel undertook a summary eviction of Coughlin from his former home law office
17
18
in a manner that departed from NRCP 11, but rather, in that counsel's sworn testimony, was
19
pursued as an assignment (in a vernacular that sounded more aking to something a hit man
20
might say than, say, an attorney) with absolutely no regard to whether NRCP 11 or some other
21
rule of conduct (to say nothing of the negligence attendant to leading his client into $60,000 of
22
attorney's fees to procure a summary eviction from a house worth $90,000, in a manner that
23
24
likely leaves the Order of Eviction extremely vulnerable to being set aside under NRCP 60(b)(4)
25
to the extent that the RJC exceeded its jurisdiction under NRS 40.253(6) by ordering such a
26
rent escrow deposit, and also where a Notice of Appeal was filed, and therefore divesting the
27
RJC of jurisdiction to enter the ultimate Summary Eviction Order of October 25th, 2011, given
28
4
267
that the Notice of Appeal was filed on October 19th, 2011, following an initial summary eviction
proceeding on October 13th, 2011 herein the impermissible forced rent escrow deposit was
ordered, requiring Coughlin deposit some $2,275 with the Reno Justice Court in Ordeer to
contest the summary eviction. If such a summary eviction process began on August 16th, 2011
(days after the landlord alerted Coughlin to the fact that Coughlin's former domestic partner had
6
7
failed to send in Coughlin's share of the rent for May 2011, in addition to failing to send in her
own for June 2011) and the petty larceny arrest of a candy bar and some cough drops allegedly
consumed while the currently suspended attorney was shopping for an paid for some $83.82
10
worth of groceries on September 9th, 2011, it may be hard for some to not imagine a causal
11
12
connection. However, Coughlin maintains his innocence with respect to the petty larceny
13
charge for which he was convicted, and attests that the City of Reno did not meet its burden of
14
proof sufficient to uphold that conviction or to justify failing to look beyond the title given the
15
charge, to the circumstances attendant to that arrest, trial, and conviction.
16
14.
Coughlin is a Registered Patent Attorney with the United States Patent and
17
18
Trademark Office (USPTO) and the USPTO reciprocal discipline rules with the USPTO allow
19
for a showing that, basically, if the proceeding from which the conviction stems was so wholly
20
devoid of due process, then the USPTO does not have to follow suit with reciprocal
21
discipline....).
22
Coughlin has reported this conviction and temporary suspension of his law
license to the USPTO.
23
24
15. Reno City Attorney prosecutors put on testimony they knew or should have known
25
to be false by both the Wal-Mart associate and the RSIC Police, given the testimony about
26
Coughlin failing to or refusing to provide his driver's license to the RSIC police officers. That
27
allegation supposedly provides the rationale or probable cause for effecting a custodial arrest for
28
5
268
a misdemeanor occurring outside the officer's presence after 7 pm at night (contrary to Nevada
law)...despite the fact that the surveillance video from Wal-Mart's interrogation room, dispatch
reports, and jail intake inventory records, and the officer's own arrest reports (which the video
clearly shows him copying information from Coughlin's driver's license onto) all clearly
establish that the office was provided Coughlin's Nevada driver's license, despite his sworn
6
7
testimony to the contrary, and therfore, a Fourth Amendment violating impermissible search
occurred, and the fruit of the poison tree should not be the main basis for innuendo leading to
Coughlin's petty theft conviction of cough drops, particulary where the testimony of both Wal-
10
Mart's Frontino and RSIC Officer Crawford was expressly disproved with hard evidence
11
12
(comparing the receipt of $83.82 worth of groceries purchased with the UPC from the receipt
13
Wal-Mart prepared containing the UPCs of the allegedly stolen cough melts clearly shows that
14
the UPC of the cough melts does, in fact, appear on that receipt for $83.82, whereas both of
15
those witnesses testified that it did not and that Coughlin did not have any such cough melts
16
rung up or paid for (as shown in Exhibit 1 to Coughlin's June 18th, 2012 filing in In re Coughlin
17
18
case no: 60838).
19
16. Coughlin has filed numerous motions to set aside the criminal conviction in 11 CR
20
22176 and the appeal of that conviction in CR11-2064 (and pursuant to Hiibel a Petition for
21
Writ of Mandamus may be in order), alleging basis including the trial court's failure to order the
22
preparation of the transcript in that criminal case prior to payment for the transcript, and not
23
24
within the 10 day deadline to do so set forth in statute. Additional basis argued by Coughlin
25
included the alarming extent to which the testimony of Wal-Mart's Asset Protection Associate
26
and the two Officers from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony (RSIC) is completely and explicitly
27
contradicted not only by their own inconsistent statements on materials facts, but with hard
28
6
269
physical evidence (Wal-Mar'ts Frontino testified that he was sure the UPC for the cough melts
did not appear on the receipt for the $83.82 worth of items purchased, yet that very receipt does,
in fact, contain an entry for those exact Duract Cough Melts and bears that exact UPC as that
found on the Duract Cough Melts allegedly consumed while shopping for and paying for those
$83.82 worth of groceries.
RSIC Officer Kameron Crawford's offered similar testimony
6
7
regarding the lack of a Duract Cough Melt UPC on the $83.82 receipt, which, of course, has
been completely contradicted. Further, Officer Crawford's testimony regarding the justification
or basis for his conducting a search incident to arrest for a misdemeanor which allegedly
10
occurred outside his presence reveals a troubling willingness to testify under oath to completely
11
12
fabricated assertions.
13
17. Officer Crawford testified that he only conducted a search incident to arrest upon
14
Coughlin because Coughlin failed to provide the contact or identifying information necessary to
15
issue a citation. Crawford's testimony was explicit in his assertion that Coughlin did not provide
16
a driver's license to Crawford and that Coughlin did not have a driver's license on his person
17
18
upon being search. However, the video's from Wal-Mart's interrogation room clearly show
19
otherwise, as do the still photos of Coughlin clearly providing his Nevada Driver's license to
20
Officer Crawford, and Crawford taking possession of it, clipping it to his shirt for an extended
21
period of time, perusing it, radioing in Coughlin's driver's license information into his dispatch
22
for the purpose of running a check for priors or warrants, and copying information (such as
23
24
Coughlin's Nevada driver's license number) directly from the driver's license Coughlin provided
25
Crawford). Further, the Washoe County Sheriff's Office (WCSO) Detention Property Record
26
Form clearly contains a notation that Coughlin's Nevada driver's license was present and
27
inventoried as being included in the secured property on Coughlin's person on September 9 th,
28
7
270
1
2
2011, immediately after Coughlin was transported to the jail incident to the RSIC's custodial
arrest of Coughlin.
18. In the trial court matter in Reno Municpal Court, Wal-Mart associate, Thomas
Frontino, testified that the accused ate the chocolate bar (and that he personally eye-witnessed
Coughlin take it off the shelf in the candy isle) while the accused was shopping for and paid for
6
7
$83.82 of other sundries. However, the UPC of the chocolate bar from the receipt in question
shows it was an ice cream bar, meaning it wouldn't have been in the candy isle, but rather the
refrigerated/frozen food isle. Thus, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applicable to that
10
criminal case appears not to have been met where, amazingly, the multimillion dollar
11
12
establishment, Wal-Mart, with literally hundreds of cameras placed strategically throughout the
13
store, claimed in the trial court that no video footage exists or ever existed of any of the events
14
testified to at trial beyond the 2 videos propounded of the interactions between the accused and
15
Wal-Mart loss prevention staff and Reno Sparks Indian Colony police in a 5 by 8 by 12
16
interrogation room utilized by Wal-Mart. Oddly, the video from the interrogation room show
17
18
the RSIC Officers being handed a CD or DVD by the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate upon
19
their exiting the interrogation room. So, the only evidence being the alleged eye witness
20
testimony of the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate, his credibility undermined by the fact that
21
he testified, under oath, that he personally saw the accused select the chocolate bar from the
22
candy isle, then consume it while walking throughout the store shopping. Again, the UPC from
23
24
the wrapper of the chocolate bar item allegedly stolen clearly reveals that the UPC belongs to a
25
refrigerated item, an ice cream bar, therefore undermining the Wal-Mart associates claim to
26
have witnessed the accused select it from the shelf in the candy isle, which is not refrigerated.
27
See Exhibit 1.
28
8
271
19. Further, the only other piece of allegedly incriminating evidence was the fruit of an
impermissible search. RSIC Officer Kameron Crawford testified that he only made an arrest,
and therefore conducted a search incident to arrest in light of the accused's alleged refusal to
provide his driver's license. However, the two videos of the detention and search in the Wal-
Mart interrogation room clearly reveal the accused providing that same RSIC officer his driver's
6
7
license and the Officer radioing in the driver's license number to run a routine check, and the
arrest report clearly contains the driver's license number of the accused and other information
culled from the RSIC officer's review of the driver's license. Further, the partial contents of a
10
cough melt package was found in the accused pockets. However, the receipt for the $83.82
11
12
13
14
15
worth of groceries and sundries the accused purchased immediately prior to the arrest bares an
entry with the exact same UPC of the cough melts found in the accused's pocket.
20. Then, the Wal-Mart witness admitted, under oath while testifying, that he could not
hear whether or not the accused told the cashier ringing up the some $83.82 worth of items
16
17
purchased whether the accused had or had consumed a certain a quantity of the Duract Cough
18
Melts while shopping. The Wal-Mart loss prevention associate further testified that it was a
19
common and accepted practice at Wal-Mart for shoppers to inform cashiers of the number or
20
21
22
23
quantity of a certain item they were purchasing rather than have the cashier ring up each of the
duplicative items one by one. Further, the Wal-Mart and Indian Colony Officer testified that on
the receipt for the items the accused did pay for, the UPC of the type of cough medication melts
24
they say the accused stole did not appear, however, a review of that receipt clearly shows that
25
that UPC for cough melts is an entry on that receipt. Also, amazingly, the Wal-Mart loss
26
prevention associate testified that he could glean, from 30 yards away, each and every item the
27
28
cashier rung up for me and that those items did not include such a box of the cough medication
9
272
melts. However, the accused showed in court and in exhibits that the receipt for the items the
accused purchased did have one item with the same UPC as the exact type of cough medication
melts. So the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate admitted neither he nor anyone at Wal-Mart
could say that they could hear whether the accused told the cashier a quantity to ring up for the
cough medication melt box with the same UPC as the ones Wal-Mart alleges were stolen or
6
7
consumed while shopping.... Further, the Indian Colony Officer testified that he only arrested
the accused and conducted a search incident to arrest because the accused didn't provide the
accused's driver's license to him. However, the video of the Wal-Mart interrogation room
10
interview clearly shows the accused giving the officer the accused's driver's license and him
11
12
13
14
15
radioing it in to his dispatch and him taking down the driver's license number and other
information off of it.
21. Lastly, the undersigned reported the conviction in the trial court, while an appeal
was pending in District Court to Bar Counsel. The undersigned reported the conviction to Bar
16
17
Counsel on his own and, as far as the undersigned knew at the time, prior to Bar Counsel being
18
aware of the conviction. Further, depending upon how the length of time between the rendition
19
or notice of entry of the conviction and when the undersigned reported the conviction to Bar
20
21
22
23
Counsel is measure, the undersigned arguably timely complied with the within 30 days dictate
of SCR 111 (only introduced in 2007, and perhaps somewhat difficult to find given that the
Rules of Professional Conduct might seem a more apt place to look for such a reporting
24
requirement...), and if not, then the undersigned was only a few days beyond the within 30
25
days requirement, all while filing an appeal and litigating a contentious summary eviction from
26
the undersigned former home law office.
27
28
LAW
10
273
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Nevada Supreme Court Rule (SCR) Rule102(4)(d):Types of discipline.

Misconduct is grounds for:
...(d)The attorney may request dissolution or amendment of the temporary
order of suspension by petition filed with the supreme court, a copy of which
shall be served on bar counsel. The petition may be set for immediate hearing
before a hearing panel, to hear the petition and submit its report and
recommendation to the court within 7 days of the conclusion of the hearing.
Upon receipt of the report and recommendation, the court may modify its
order, if appropriate, and continue such provisions of it as may be appropriate
until the final disposition of all pending disciplinary charges against the
attorney.
SCR 111(7): Suspension on certification:
Upon the filing with the supreme court of a petition with a certified copy of
proof of the conviction, demonstrating that an attorney has been convicted
of a serious crime, the court shall enter an order suspending the attorney,
regardless of the pendency of an appeal, pending final disposition of a
disciplinary proceeding, which shall be commenced by the appropriate
disciplinary board upon referral by the supreme court. For good cause, the
court may set aside its order suspending the attorney from the practice of law...
14
15
This case present a legitimate opportunity for the Court or the USPTO to apply a de
16
minimis, nolle prosequi, application to SCR 111's serious offense language. As it stands,
17
SCR 111 defines a serious offenses thusly:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SCR Rule111.Attorneys convicted of crimes...

6.Definition of serious crime.The term serious crime means (1) a
felony and (2) any crime less than a felony a necessary element of which is,
as determined by the statutory or common-law definition of the crime,
improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of
justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file an
income tax return, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an
attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a serious
crime.
25
26
27
28
...Additionally, Bar Counsel filed a motion, referring to SCR 111,

requesting that this court temporarily "suspend" respondent from the
practice of law in this state and refer the matter to the Southern
Nevada Disciplinary Board of the State Bar for the sole purpose of
assessing the extent of the discipline to be im respondent's counsel
11
274
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
opposed the motion for temporary suspension posed by reason of

respondent's conviction...We nevertheless considered it prudent to
undertake a preliminary investigation that would facilitate a fair and
reasonable resolution of the matter in the event that the jurisdictional
impediment was removed. We accordingly specified in our order that:
Judge Claiborne's conviction justifies this court in deferring a final
decision as to our own jurisdiction and in pursuing further inquiry.
Moreover, this court believes that, although the State Bar of Nevada
lacks jurisdiction over Judge Claiborne, [Bar Counsel] should be
permitted to aid our inquiry by presenting any pertinent evidence he
may possess concerning Judge Claiborne's contentions that
proceedings against him in federal court have not been conducted
fairly, in accord with due process, and in a manner entitling them to
credit in disciplinary action by this court. (Emphasis added.)
Thereafter, on August 4, 1986, former Bar Counsel responded to our
order and [ 756 P.2d 467 ] acknowledged that the State Bar
possessed "no evidence concerning [respondent's] contentions." In
our view, his response indicated, among other things, that he had
filed his petition seeking respondent's temporary suspension
without any substantial preliminary legal or factual research.
Consequently, based on our review of the preliminary
documents and materials filed by respondent's counsel, this court
determined that respondent's contentions could not be summarily
dismissed...In re Hallinan,43 Cal.2d 243, 272 P.2d 768 (1954) (court
refused to proceed summarily against an attorney solely on the basis
of judgment of conviction for "wilfully and knowingly filing false and
fraudulent federal income tax returns" without first inquiring into
whether facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the
offense involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting
disbarment or suspension)...In our approach to SCR 111, as with any
other rule of court, we are enjoined to give the rule a liberal
construction "to promote and facilitate the administration of justice by
the court." SCR 5. Moreover, it is beyond cavil that the inherent rulemaking powers of this court also include the power to suspend or relax
any court rule in order to promote individual justice...Based upon the
foregoing principles, we determined that efficiency and justice would
be served by suspending the operation of SCR 111, insofar as it
required the court to order the suspension of respondent upon receipt
of the certificate of his conviction, and to refer the matter to a
disciplinary board of the state bar. State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne,,
756 P.2d 464 (1988) .
26
27
28
12
275
The petty larceny criminal conviction underpinning the current temporary suspension of
Coughlin's law license affords a number of basis for this court to grant this Petition for
dissolution of the Order temporarily suspending Coughlin's license to practice law, including: a
de minimis approach, the fact that the proceeding below was so suspect from a due process
point of view, so as to auger towards vitiating and impact it may have on a SCR 111 or 37
6
7
C.F.R. 11.24 or 11.25 analysis for determining whether Coughlin's license should currently be
suspended, and a wealth of precedent suggesting that Coughlin has already served more than a
long enough suspension given the results in similar reported decisions.
10
Amongst the due process infirmities that convictions had attached to it is a lack of
11
12
evidence to support the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, clear legal error, a failure of the
13
RMC to grant a continuance of the November 30th, 2011 petty larceny Trial in 11 CR 22176,
14
and the fact that the conviction was procured through the fraud of the RSIC Police Officer's and
15
Wal-Mart associate's untruthful testimony, all made possible by the offerings of the Reno City
16
Attorney (whom failed to correct to impact of its witnesses offering testimony which the Reno
17
18
City Attorney knew to be false) :
19
In re Cochrane, 549 P.2d. 328, 329 (Nev. 1976) (stating that discipline is not meant to
20
punish but to protect the public from persons unfit to serve as attorneys and to maintain public
21
confi dence in the bar as a whole); Sloan v. State Bar of Nevada, 726 P.2d 330 Nev.,1986
22
Attorney was not convicted of serious crime within meaning of rule regarding attorney
23
24
suspension where attorney did not engage in any criminal conduct whatsoever, did not engage
25
in a conspiracy, and actually entered plea of nolo contendere to nonexistent offense.
26
Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111, subd. 2.
27
28
13
276
Thomas H. Cochrane, convicted of willful failure to file an income tax return for the
calendar year 1971 (26 U.S.C. S 7203), has petitioned this court to review the recommendation
of the Board of Governors of the Nevada State Bar favoring the imposition of a six month
suspension from the practice of law, based on the premise that the petitioner's conviction
involved moral turpitude. Initially, we consider the question of whether moral turpitude exists
6
7
solely by virtue of the petitioner's conviction. "Conviction of some crimes establishes moral
turpitude on its face. These include crimes that necessarily involve an intent to defraud or
intentional dishonesty for the purpose of personal gain." In re Fahey, 505 P.2d 1369, 1373 (Cal.
10
1973)." Id.
11
12
It must be remembered, however, that moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal
13
act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of a statute. Whether any
14
particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends
15
on all the surrounding circumstances. See 58 C.J.S. Moral Turpitude, p. 1200. A method
16
commonly used by courts to make a finding of moral turpitude is by use of a fixed definition
17
18
determined by the elements of the crime committed with mitigating weight being given to the
19
factual circumstances of the case. Using this method a court sets certain criteria for what
20
constitutes moral turpitude, then attempts to match one or more of the criteria with one or more
21
of the elements of the crime as statutorily defined. Thus, the Oregon Supreme Court in In re
22
Chase determined that the criteria for a crime of moral turpitude includes intent, knowledge,
23
24
deceit, fraud and corrupt motive. Chase, 702 P.2d 1082. The court found that intent and
25
knowledge were both elements of moral turpitude and of the statutory offense. Id. At 1089.
26
The majority, however, found that the presence of these two elements alone was insufficient as
27
a matter of law to support a finding of moral turpitude. Id.
28
14
277
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
CASES OF ATTORNEY'S CONVICTED OF PETTY THEFT REVIEW:

In Matter of Gallagher, M-472, NYLJ 1202558663857, at *1 (2012), attorney
faced a felony complaint charging him with two violations of Fourth Degree Grand
Larceny for shoplifting property from Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan. The
property was valued at $2,500. Despite this initial arrest charge of Grand Larceny,
the respondent pleaded to Petit Larceny.Respondent admitted to eight acts of adult
shoplifting. Id. These included art gallery thefts which were either not prosecuted or
for which he pled guilty to disorderly conduct... Further, after the hearing, the
Hearing Panel unanimously recommended that respondent be publicly censured.
Respondent's psychiatrist testified that respondent suffers from chronic, long-term,
low level depression resulting from various stressful events in his life described this
depression as dysthymia... Based on his May 2010 disorderly conduct conviction
(for the April 2009 art gallery theft) and his January 2011 arrest, respondent received
an Admonition from the Committee in August 2011 for engaging in illegal
conduct...The Committee now moves, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(d) and
605.15(e)(2), for anorder confirming the Hearing Panel's report and
recommendation, and imposing a public censure... Respondent's case is not unlike
those matters in other Departments in which attorneys were censured for shoplifting
related offenses and for which the sanction of a public censure was imposed
(seeMatter of Irving, 53 AD3d 14, (2008); Matter of Bottehsazan,75 AD3d 264,
(2010); Matter of Karnazes,76 AD3d 1138, (2010); In re Mongioi, 213 A.D.2d 109,
(1995); Matter of Grant, 85 A.D.2d 102, (1982). Based on all of the factors here, as
well as the precedents in this State, public censure is the appropriate sanction". Id.
In re Mongioi, 213 A.D.2d 109, (1995): Attorney who commits act of
professional misconduct by shoplifting will be censured, where, at time of incident,
attorney judgment was sufficiently impaired to cause her aberrational conduct and
where attorney has sought and obtained appropriate psychological help. McKinney
Judiciary Law 90; N.Y.Ct.Rules, 691.2. Matter of Mongioi, 213 A.D.2d 107, 631
N.Y.S.2d 77 (2d Dep't 1995): The conduct underlying the respondent's conviction
occurred on August 20, 1993. At approximately 6:30 P.M., the respondent was
observed in a Lord & Taylor department store removing the sensor tags from certain
items of clothing. The respondent placed these and other items in a shopping bag
and attempted to leave the store without paying for them. The total value of the
items was approximately $474. In determining an appropriate measure of discipline
to impose, we have considered the mitigation advanced by the respondent and her
previously unblemished record. At the time of the shoplifting incident, the
respondent's judgment was sufficiently impaired to cause her aberrational conduct.
The respondent maintains that she was incapable of appreciating the consequences
of her actions. She has since sought and obtained appropriate psychological help for
her problem.
Matter of Irving, 53 AD3d 14, (2008): Respondent was charged in three different
cases with felony theft incident to his taking property from three different high end
ski shops on three three separate occasions occurring in late 2003, and all three cases
15
278
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
were plead out to petty theft misdemeanors...In the course of his answer, the
respondent asserted, as mitigating defenses, that he has never been the subject of a
grievance or a malpractice claim. Id. at 17. Further, respondent claimed that he first
sought psychiatric treatment for depression and anxiety in or about 2002 brought on
by his wife's long-term serious illness and the problems in school experienced by his
young son; that he began more intensive psychiatric therapy following the incidents
which occurred in November and December 2003 and was placed on medication;
that such therapy continued for two years and that he remains on medication and
continues to consult with his psychiatrist... he promptly reported his convictions to
the Court... respondent is publicly censured.
Matter of Karnazes,76 AD3d 1138, (2010): State Bar Court of California found
that the facts and circumstances surrounding respondent's trespass conviction in
California constituted misconduct warranting discipline and imposed a public
reproval. Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the trespass charge in satisfaction
of two shoplifting charges...We further conclude that an appropriate discipline in this
state is a censure of respondent, which we deem to be equivalent to California's
public reproval.
Matter of Grant, 85 A.D.2d 102, (1982): he stole approximately $249 worth of
assorted groceries from a food market for which he was arrested and charged with
petit larceny...Shortly after the crime he undertook psychiatric treatment which he
has continued until the present time. Other than what the facts say for themselves,
the only explanation for respondent's conduct comes from his therapist who states
that respondent acted on impulse without contemplation because of long-standing
emotional difficulties which he diagnosed as "impulsive personality disorder". The
therapist reported that respondent remains highly motivated in and out of therapy
and rendered a medical opinion that respondent "would not exhibit such impulsive
behavior again"... we find that a censure would be appropriate...Order of censure
entered. Id.
Matter of Bottehsazan,75 AD3d 264, (2010): ...the respondent pleaded guilty to
petit larceny... in satisfaction of a felony complaint charging her with grand larceny
in the fourth degree...She admitted that she did not file a record of her conviction,
but denied any intent on her part to avoid notification, as she reasonably relied on
her attorney at the time, who told her he would take care of matters. The respondent
testified on her own behalf, presenting only mitigation evidence...In mitigation, the
respondent requests that the fact that she was under severe pressure at the time due
to a bitter divorce should be taken into consideration. She further notes that her
failure to file was unintentional and that she reasonably relied on her attorney to take
care of such matters. The respondent was deeply remorseful and has no prior
disciplinary history. Under the totality of circumstances, the respondent is publicly
censured.
In re Rothrock, 25 Cal.2d 588, 154 P.2d 392, Cal., December 29, 1944 (NO. S.F.
16934) ...two other notices of motion he attacks the order of disbarment upon some
16
279
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
or all of the same grounds. The State Bar Act provides that the clerk of the court in
which an attorney is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude
shall transmit a record of such conviction to this court. A plea of guilty is deemed to
be a conviction. If the judgment is final, proceedings to disbar the attorney shall be
undertaken by the Supreme Court and the record of conviction shall be conclusive
evidence. Business and Professions Code ... ...conviction submitted in accordance
with these provisions, but he contends that the crime of petty theft does not
necessarily involve moral turpitude. He insists that only upon a consideration of the
evidence concerning the act for which he was convicted may that ...in In re Rothrock
(1944) 25 Cal.2d 588, 154 P.2d 392, appears to support petitioner's argument. After
finality of Attorney Rothrock's conviction for petty theft, the State Bar
recommended that this court summarily disbar him. We noted that crimes of
robbery, embezzlement and other forms of theft necessarily involve moral turpitude
and therefore could be decided on the record of conviction alone. Earlier, however,
we had ordered the State Bar to take evidence and make findings on the issue of
Rothrock's moral turpitude because of the petitioner's assertions that he did not
commit petty theft, and that the plea of guilty upon which the order of disbarment
now under attack is based was made as the result of an agreement with the district
attorney to accept responsibility for an offense not committed. (Id. at p. 590, 154
P.2d 392.)
Attorney Rothrock had argued in this court that summary disbarment would be
improper because his conviction for petty theft did not necessarily involve moral
turpitude, an issue that could be resolved only by considering the circumstances of
his offense. (In re Rothrock, supra, 25 Cal.2d at p. 589, 154 P.2d 392.) This court
agreed that the commission of petty theft by drawing a check on an account with
insufficient funds, as occurred in Rothrock, did not necessarily involve moral
turpitude because the act could be done innocently... (Id. at p. 592, 154 P.2d 392.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In re Royer, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 11 (D.C., Jan. 26, 2012), involved the
failure to pay for a $19 cab ride. After a remand to explore possible alcoholism, the
court approved a suspension of 30 days, which the attorney has already fully served.
PER CURIAM: Before this division of the court is the Report and
Recommendation of an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (Committee) recommending
approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar Rule XI,
12.1. The Committee initially rejected the petition, questioning whether respondent
suffered from an alcohol abuse problem. Upon submission of a joint motion to reopen the record and for reconsideration filed by Bar Counsel and respondent, which
contained an affidavit from respondents former employer attesting that he never
observed any behavior of the respondent suggesting a drinking problem, the
Committee convened for a limited hearing. The Committee determined that
respondents conviction for second-degree theft, based upon his failure to pay a $19
cab fare, was not a crime involving moral turpitude because it was less a deliberate
act for personal gain than a misguided or aberrational one connected to his
consumption of alcohol that evening. Conviction of class B misdemeanor of theft
and admission to charge of shoplifting warranted 24month suspension from
practice of law, stayed on condition that attorney commit no further acts of theft,
17
280
1
2
3
4
5
where attorney had no prior disciplinary record, restitution was made in both
instances, he was wellregarded as competent and talented lawyer, he had recently
lost his employment, he was receiving treatment for personal and emotional stress,
including intensive treatment since time of incidents, he made full and free
disclosure in disciplinary investigation and was cooperative toward proceedings, he
admitted conduct in both petitions, and he was contrite and remorseful. Rules for
Lawyer Discipline, Rule 1.2, subd. A(2); Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
Standard 9.3. Application for Disciplinary Action Against Fisher, 1997 ND 234, 571
N.W.2d 370 (N.D. 1997).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In re Allen, 27 A.3d 1178 (D.C. 2011): Respondent, Claude A. Allen, was

arrested in Montgomery County, Maryland and charged with misdemeanor theft of
property. After his guilty plea in Maryland Circuit Court, Bar Counsel initiated
disciplinary proceedings in this jurisdiction. The Board on Professional
Responsibility determined that respondent's conviction did not involve moral
turpitude, and it recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for one year and ordered to show proof of restitution as a condition of
reinstatement...Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals on July 10, 1992, by motion.1 (fn 1: Allen is also a member of the
Pennsylvania and Virginia bars. As a result of his conviction, Allen's licenses to
practice law in Virginia and Pennsylvania were each suspended for ninety days. He
is now a member in good standing in both jurisdictions.). On October 29, 2005,
respondent stole a Bose stereo, valued at $525, from a Target store in Gaithersburg,
Maryland; on December 24, 2005, respondent stole a Kodak printer, valued at $237,
from a Target store in Montgomery County, Maryland; and on January 1, 2006,
respondent stole an RCA stereo, valued at $88, from a Target store in Rockville,
Maryland. The thefts were accomplished through a scheme of purchase and
fraudulent return: respondent would purchase the item with a credit card and exit the
store with the item; he would thereafter return to the same store or to a nearby store
with the receipt but without the item, select an identical item from the shelf, and
return that item using the original receipt. In the end, respondent had both the item
he originally purchased and the money he received when he returned it.
Respondent was arrested on January 2, 2006, for theft of property from the Target
Corporation at a Target store in Gaithersburg, Maryland. On August 4, 2006, he
pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, to
misdemeanor theft of property under $500, in violation of Md.Code Ann., Crim.
Law 7104(a) and (b)....On August 21, 2006, Bar Counsel submitted respondent's
guilty plea to the clerk of this court, as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, 10(a).3 Upon
Bar Counsel's motion, we referred the matter to the Board on Professional
Responsibility, which in turn referred the case to a hearing committee to determine
whether respondent's conviction involve[d] moral turpitude on the facts in light of
any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and to determine the appropriate
discipline.4 On December 28, 2007, Bar Counsel filed a Specification of Charges,
alleging in Count I that respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the District of
Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, and alleging in Count II that respondent
had been convicted of a serious crime as defined by D.C. Bar R. IX, 10(b).
18
281
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
At the Hearing Committee's initial meeting on March 28, 2008, both parties
introduced exhibits and a joint stipulation of facts...At the April 28 hearing, the
committee heard testimony from respondent; respondent's psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas
Goldman...stated that he was married, had four children, and that his family moved
at least five times in the eight months before October 2005, when the string of thefts
began. Respondent explained that he would shop after work or before work to
provide a buffer between his work and home lives and to relieve stress. Dr.
Goldman, an expert in forensic psychiatry, testified that respondent qualifie[d] for a
diagnosis of kleptomania but a more accurate diagnosis would be an adjustment
disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. He explained that
respondent's conduct was born out of the extraordinary stress of his job: I think
that, because he was in a state of high stress, that his ability to appreciate that this
[conduct] was out of character for him and his ability to control his actions I think
was substantially impaired..Bar Counsel proposed that respondent be suspended for
90 days if the Committee determined his conviction did not involve moral
turpitude.,,,On November 19, 2008, the Committee issued its Report and
Recommendation. The Committee found that respondent had engaged in a
fraudulent return scheme to deprive Target of its property on at least three
occasions....In support of mitigation, the Committee found that respondent had an
unsettled private life caused by his family's five moves over eight months in 2005;
that he had a grueling work scheduleworking from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m....that
respondent faced significant pressure from his employment; that he had
cooperated fully in the disciplinary matters in the District, Maryland and
Pennsylvania and had completed the suspensions in these jurisdictions; and that he
had been an active role model in the community, had no history of prior arrests or
bar discipline... It considered the mitigating factors in respondent's case, and
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days,
after noting that respondent had been suspended for 90 days by the Bars of Virginia
and Pennsylvania...
In its Report and Recommendation, issued on March 9, 2010, the Board adopted
the facts and credibility determinations of the Hearing Committee, with minor
modifications.7 The Board noted that respondent's conduct unquestionably
violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). However, the Board also determined that Bar
Counsel had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent's
thefts were for personal gain, and therefore Bar Counsel had failed to show that
respondent's actions involved moral turpitude...[T]he scope of our review of the
Board's Report and Recommendation is limited. In re Berryman, 764 A.2d 760, 766
(D.C.2000). In reviewing a recommendation of the Board, the Court shall accept
the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial
evidence of record D.C. Bar R. XI, 9(h)(1); see In re CleaverBascombe, 986
A.2d 1191, 1194 (D.C.2010). However, the Board's final determinations, whether
they are characterized as findings of ultimate fact or conclusions of law, are owed no
deference; our review is de novo. In re De Maio, 893 A.2d 583, 585 (D.C.2006).
Whether criminal conduct involves moral turpitude is such an ultimate fact that
we review de novo. In re Sneed, 673 A.2d 591, 593 (D.C.1996)....An attorney
19
282
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
convicted of a misdemeanor offense is likewise entitled to an evidentiary hearing

because no conviction of a misdemeanor may be deemed a conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude per se, even though that misdemeanor may be properly
characterized as a serious crime. In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626, 629 (D.C.1992)
(en banc); see also id. at 63233 (explaining that insofar as moral turpitude
incorporates a revulsion of society toward conduct deeply offending the general
moral sense of right and wrong and society through its elected representatives has
deemed misdemeanors to be less serious than felonies, it is inconsistent to apply
moral turpitude per se to misdemeanor crimes)...In In re Spiridon, 755 A.2d 463
(D.C.2000), we addressed which particular circumstances of transgression were
appropriate for the Board to consider in determining whether moral turpitude existed
in an attorney's misdemeanor conviction. Id. at 466 (explaining that an examination
solely of the events relating to the misdemeanor would effectively eliminate the
individualized examination that McBride mandates). In such cases, we said, the
appropriate scope is a broader examination of circumstances surrounding
commission of the misdemeanor which fairly bear on the question of moral turpitude
in its actual commission, such as motive or mental condition. Id. At 467.
In other words: Once one accepts that conduct deemed criminal by a society may
or may not involve moral turpitude, the determination becomes intensely specific to
the particular facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the inquiry must be cognizant of
its purpose: to determine whether the conviction of the offense in question rises to
such a level that the legislature would have intended as a consequence the automatic
disbarment of the attorney in question. Id. at 468. We synthesized these lines of
inquiry in In re Sims, 844 A.2d 353, vacated, 861 A.2d 1 (D.C.2004), to distill the
legal principles that guide the analysis of whether a misdemeanor conviction
involves moral turpitude on the facts. Id. at 365. As we stated: To rise to the level
of moral turpitude, an attorney's conduct must be an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity, or be the type that manifests a revulsion of society toward conduct
deeply offending the general moral sense of right and wrong. In addition, the
actions of the attorney must be motivated by personal gain or manifest intentional
dishonesty for the purpose of personal gain, rather than be simply misguided
actions. And, psychiatric or other medical testimony may show that an attorney's
mental state precludes a finding of intentional dishonesty for personal gain. Id. at
36566 (citations omitted). We consider respondent's conduct within this
framework, mindful that the burden of proving the disciplinary charges rests with
Bar Counsel, and [that] factual findings must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330, 335 (D.C.2001).
This more stringent standard expresses a preference for [the attorney's]
interests by allocating more of the risk of error to [Bar Counsel,] who bears the
burden of proof. In re Dortch, 860 A.2d 346, 358 (D.C.2004) (internal quotation
omitted). Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, Bar Counsel must offer
evidence that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction
as to the facts sought to be established. Id. (quoting In re T.J., 666 A.2d 1, 16 n.17
(D.C.1995)) (emphasis added). In this case, Bar Counsel must show by clear and
convincing evidence that respondent's conduct, viewed in context, involved moral
turpitude on the facts. Sims, 844 A.2d at 365...
20
283
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
McBride and its progeny make clear that a misdemeanor conviction, without
more, is insufficient to establish moral turpitude merely because the attorney's crime
would involve moral turpitude per se if it were a felony. See id. In such a case, there
must be something more in the facts to demonstrate that an attorney's conviction
rises to such a level that the legislature would have intended as a consequence the
automatic disbarment of the attorney in question. Spiridon, 755 A.2d at 468; see,
e.g., Sneed, 673 A.2d at 59495 (ordering the disbarment of an attorney who partook
in a scheme to defraud the government out of more than $15,000, of which he
received $3,812.70)... We must look beyond the act itself, to the motivation behind
the actthat is, whether the act was motivated by a desire for personal gainto
determine whether respondent's crime involved moral turpitude for purposes of
disbarment under 112503(a). See, e.g., Spiridon, 755 A.2d at 469 ([T]here is a
significant suggestion in the record that respondent's actions were not so much
motivated by a desire for personal gain as by psychological disturbances); In re
Kent, 467 A.2d 982, 984 (D.C.1983) ([T]he unusual facts and circumstances of this
case clearly indicate that respondent's actions were prompted by a neurotic desire to
be caught rather than a desire for personal profit.). It is on this point that Bar
Counsel cannot meet his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both the
Hearing Committee and the Board found that respondent was not motivated by a
desire for personal gain.
Although the Hearing Committee did not credit the testimony of Dr. Goldman
with respect to his precise (and changing) diagnosis of respondent's condition, the
Committee did impliedly credit his testimony that respondent's actions resulted from
something other than a desire for personal gain...moving his residence over and over
again while trying to keep his word to his family, undoubtedly caused stress that
may have manifested itself in one of the conditions identified by Dr. Goldman. This
Hearing Committee cannot confidently conclude that [r]espondent acted out of
personal gain as opposed to self-defeating behavior consistent with a psychological
problem or by a neurotic desire to be caught (emphases added). The Board adopted
this finding, adding that [r]espondent's judgment and impulse control were
impaired by virtue of the profound stress he experienced for an extended period.
Thus, the Board concluded that respondent's conduct was the aberrational result of
the exceptional stressors in his personal and professional life, rather than a desire for
personal gain... The findings of the Committee and the Board have support in the
record, including respondent's own testimony and the testimony of Dr. Goldman,
and we see no reason to upset them. See CleaverBascombe, 986 A.2d at 1194.
Moreover, the Board correctly concluded that the exceptional stressors present in
this case negate a finding that respondent acted for his personal gain. In Sims, we
explained that psychiatric or other medical testimony may show that an attorney's
mental state precludes a finding of intentional dishonesty for personal gain. Sims,
844 A.2d at 366. Similar evidence is relevant here. Contrary to Bar Counsel's
assertion that there is no credible psychiatric or medical testimonial evidence, the
Committee credited Dr. Goldman's testimony that there was some psychological
conditionthough the Committee did not identify a specific disorderthat might
have motivated respondent's criminal conduct, other than a desire for personal gain.
We think that this consideration is properly part of our broader examination of
21
284
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
circumstances surrounding commission of the misdemeanor which fairly bear on the

question of moral turpitude in its actual commission. Spiridon, 755 A.2d at 467; see
also Kent, 467 A.2d 98384 (holding, in a case where the attorney suffered from
severe transient emotional distress at the time of her criminal conduct, that the
unusual facts of the case precluded a finding of moral turpitude).
To the extent that respondent's exceptional stress affected his judgment at the time
he committed the theft, it unquestionably bears on whether his conduct involved
moral turpitude. We may not discount the effect that this stress had on respondent's
conduct, especially in light of expert testimony that it substantially impaired his
impulse control and caused him to act in uncharacteristic ways. On this record, we
agree with the Board's determination that unrebutted evidence that respondent's
actions were the reflection of extreme stress was an exceptional circumstance that
precluded a finding that respondent engaged in intentional dishonesty for personal
gain. In the end, this case turns on the allocation of the burden of proof. As in every
disciplinary proceeding, Bar Counsel bears the burden of persuasion in this matter.
Here, Bar Counsel has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that respondent
engaged in an intentional act of dishonesty for personal gain... In surveying similar
cases, the Board's recommended one-year suspension appears to be consistent with
sanctions for comparable conduct. In Spiridon, we suspended the attorney for one
year, with a fitness requirement, for stealing $18 in bus fare from the bus he was
driving. 755 A.2d at 464, 469. In In re Soininen, 783 A.2d 619 (D.C.2001), we
suspended the attorney for thirty days for attempting to steal flowers and potting
soil, valued at less than $200, while en route to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.
(Soininen's suspension was stayed, and she was placed on probation, on the
condition that she maintain her sobriety, that she authorize the Lawyer Counseling
Program to report any lapse in her sobriety to Bar Counsel, and that she abide by all
rules of professional conduct). Soininen, 783 A.2d at 622. Id. at 620, 622. In Kent,
we suspended the attorney for thirty days for attempting to steal merchandise from a
department store while under extreme emotional distress. 467 A.2d at 983, 985. In
this matter, the Board sought to strike a balance with these cases. The Board was
aware that the one-year suspension ordered in Spiridon was for less culpable
misconduct as it involved a smaller amount and was directly tied to a longstanding
psychiatric disability. The Board also noted its concern that respondent's
misconduct infringe[d] on the core values of Rule 8.4(c) and involved a repeated
and calculated scheme of deception and dishonesty.
After taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating factors and the
purpose of protecting the public, the Board recommended a one-year suspension
with a restitution requirement. Bar Counsel does not point to any comparable case
that would support a longer suspension. Indeed, in the absence of a determination of
moral turpitude warranting disbarment, Bar Counsel recommends a 90day
suspension...substantial mitigating evidence exists, including respondent's clean
disciplinary record, his expressed remorse for his conduct, his successful
readmission to the Bars of Pennsylvania and Virginia, his cooperation throughout
the disciplinary proceedings, and his completion of the conditions of his Maryland
sentence (which included payment of a fine and community service). We think that
the sanction recommended by the Board is apt given that the repeated criminal
22
285
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
conduct at issue here is more severe than the thefts in Soininen and Kent, for which
the attorneys were suspended for thirty days. As in Spiridon, there is a significant
suggestion in the record that respondent's actions were not so much motivated by a
desire for personal gain as by psychological disturbances. Spiridon, 755 A.2d at
469. As such, the one-year suspension ordered in Spiridon seems to be a suitable
baseline. To the extent that respondent's conduct was more culpable than in
Spiridon, and his psychological disturbance less well-defined and documented, we
think that the other mitigating factors at play here are appropriately considered in
determining respondent's sanction. Accordingly, respondent, Claude A. Allen, is
hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of
one year... Appeals will be conditioned on proof of his payment of restitution to the
Target Corporation, with interest. So ordered. In re Allen, 27 A.3d 1178, (D.C.
2011).
Suspension of attorney for 30 days, but with Kersey mitigation for
professional misconduct substantially affected by the attorney's addiction to lawfully
obtained prescription drugs, so that the suspension would be stayed during two years
of conditional probation, was appropriate for attorney whose misconduct had
resulted in misdemeanor convictions for theft and possession of a controlled
substance not obtained pursuant to a valid prescription. In re Soininen,783 A.2d 619
(D.C. 2001). On April 15, 1999, Ms. Soininen was arrested on a charge of driving
while intoxicated. Soininen I, 783 A.2d at 620. Thereafter, on the evening of April
28, 1999, she was arrested for stealing flowers and potting soil, with a cumulative
value of less than $200, from a nursery at which she had stopped after attending an
Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. When Ms. Soininen was arrested, she was in
possession of a Schedule III controlled substance, the painkiller Vicodin, without a
valid prescription.5 Id. (fn 5 in Soininen II: The drugs in Ms. Soininens possession
had been stolen by her from a coworkers desk.)...On May 24, 1999, Ms. Soininen
entered a plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated. On the following day, she
entered a separate guilty plea to theft and to the unlawful possession of a controlled
substance. The court imposed a fine for these offenses, and Ms. Soininen was also
sentenced to serve a ninety-day period of incarceration. However, the execution of
the sentence of imprisonment was suspended, and Ms. Soininen was placed on
probation. Id....On June 19, 1999, Ms. Soininen reported her convictions to the
Board. On September 9, 1999, this court suspended Ms. Soininen on an interim basis
pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 10 (c), and directed the Board to determine whether
the offenses committed by Ms. Soininen involved moral turpitude. The case was
referred to Hearing Committee No. 1, and following an evidentiary hearing, the
Committee concluded that the underlying conduct did not involve moral turpitude.
Id at 621...The Hearing Committee found that Ms. Soininen had violated Rule 8.4
(b) (commission of criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness) and Rule 8.4 (c) (dishonesty).
The Committee concluded, however, that Ms. Soininen qualified for mitigation
pursuant to In re Kersey, 520 A.2d at 325-28, on the basis of her addiction to alcohol
and prescription drugs. Soininen I, 783 A.2d at 621.7 The Hearing Committee
23
286
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
recommended that Ms. Soininen be suspended from practice for thirty days, but that
the suspension be stayed and that she be placed on probation for two years, the
probation to be conditioned upon Ms. Soininens maintaining her sobriety, with
appropriate monitoring and reporting. The Board on Professional Responsibility
adopted the Hearing Committees Report and Recommendation. Neither Bar
Counsel nor Ms. Soininen excepted to the Boards proposed disposition. On October
25, 2001, in conformity with the unopposed recommendation of the Board, this court
suspended Ms. Soininen from practice for thirty days, stayed the execution of the
suspension, and placed Ms. Soininen on probation for two years, subject to the
conditions of probation recommended by the Board. Id. At 622.
In re Gumaer, 9 So.3d 852, 2009-0697 (La. 5/29/09): Background: Reciprocal
disciplinary proceedings were brought against attorney who was subject to discipline
in Colorado, following her convictions there for second degree burglary and criminal
mischief.Respondent's case is not unlike those matters in other Departments in
which attorneys were censured for shoplifting related offenses and for which the
sanction of a public censure was imposed Holding: The Supreme Court held that
reciprocal discipline, a one year and one day suspension, fully deferred, subject to 30
months of probation, was warranted. Suspension ordered.: On March 4, 2009, the
Supreme Court of Colorado issued an order suspending respondent'slicense to
practice law for one year and one day, all stayed upon respondent's successful
completion of a thirty-month period of probation subject to numerous
conditions.FN1 In its order, the Colorado*853 court accepted the parties' **2
stipulation, agreement, and affidavit containing respondent's conditional admission
of misconduct. The filing indicates that, on November 2, 2007, respondent drank
excessively. Without her estranged boyfriend's know- (Cite as: 9 So.3d 852, 20090697 (La. 5/29/09)) ledge or permission, she went to and entered his home through
an unlocked back door. While she was retrieving her possessions from the home, she
intentionally broke ketchup and barbeque sauce bottles, wine glasses, pottery, and a
pair of her boyfriend's sunglasses. She also broke the passenger side window of her
boyfriend's truck with a wine bottle. On June 23, 2008, respondent pled guilty to
second degree burglary and criminal mischief in Jefferson County,
Colorado...DECREE Considering the motion for reciprocal discipline filed by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that Rebecca
I. Gumaer, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29890, be and she hereby is suspended from
the practice of law in Louisiana for one year and one day. It is further ordered that
this suspension shall be fully deferred, and respondent shall be placed on probation
for thirty months, subject to the conditions set forth by the Supreme Court of
Colorado in its order imposing discipline in The People of the State of Colorado v.
Rebecca Irene Gumaer, No. 09PDJ013 on the docket of the Supreme Court of
Colorado. In re Gumaer, 9 So.3d 852, 2009-0697 (La. 5/29/09).
In re Mahr, 276 Or. 939, 556 P.2d 1359 (1976). ( In re Mahr, 276 Or 939, 556 P2d
1359 (1976) (90-day suspension for theft of plug socket from store)).
28
24
287
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
In In re Mahr, 276 Or. 939, 556 P.2d 1359 (1976), the accused, a new lawyer, was
convicted of shoplifting, which is theft in the second degree, and reported the
conviction to the Bar. The court concluded that the lawyer's conduct involved
moral turpitude but was committed impulsively and was not premeditated. The
court rejected a recommendation for a six-month suspension in favor of a 90-day
suspension, stating:
Six members of that board recommended suspension for six months; one
member voted for suspension for one month; two members voted to "dismiss or refer
to the grievance committee for an explanation and clarification of its
recommendation," and one member voted to dismiss the proceeding.
Both Mr. Mahr and the Oregon State Bar were then notified by this court that they
might file a petition and brief asking the court to "adopt, modify, or reject the
recommendation of the Board of Governors * * *." A petition, with supporting brief,
was then filed on behalf of Mr. Mahr asking that the recommendation of the Board
of Governors be rejected and that the proceeding should either be dismissed or a
public reprimand imposed. In response, a petition, with supporting brief, was then
filed by the Oregon State Bar requesting that the court adopt the recommendation of
the majority of members of the Board of Governors. Both parties then waived oral
argument.
It appears from the record that on January 15, 1976 the petitioner was convicted
of the crime of theft in the second degree involving one "plug socket" belonging to
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc. He was fined $75 and costs of $8. Shortly afterwards he
notified the Oregon State Bar of that conviction, despite the fact that he had been
informed that the district attorney "did not plan to do anything further."
The circuit judge and the district judge of the courts in the community in which
the accused has practiced law joined in a letter stating that:
"It has been our experience, based upon our observations, that Mr. Mahr has
always conducted himself in a professional and competent manner in all matters in
our courts. He is well liked by his fellow professionals and has gained a strong
reputation for always faithfully discharging his professional obligations.
"It is not our intent to suggest to anyone what disposition should be made of this
case. We appreciate the responsibility for that decision rests elsewhere. However, we
are compelled by our observations to speak on Mr. Mahr's behalf for the fine job he
has done in our community."
It appears that the accused has had no complaints of professional misconduct. We
agree with the Board of Governors that the crime of which the accused was
convicted was a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude for the purposes of ORS
9.480 and 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Oregon State Bar. We believe,
however, that the recommendation by six members of the Board of Governors that
the accused be suspended from practice for a period of six months is excessive under
the circumstances.
On the other hand, we cannot accept the recommendation of the grievance
committee that the proceeding be dismissed. To do so would give the appearance of
condoning serious misconduct involving moral turpitude by a member of the Oregon
State Bar. We are inclined to believe that conduct of the accused was impulsive,
rather than premeditated. This by no means excuses the conduct of the accused,
25
288
1
2
3
4
5
however, although it is a circumstance to be considered in determining an

appropriate penalty.
Under all of the circumstances, including the fact that the accused voluntarily
reported his conviction to the Oregon State Bar and his apparently good reputation
in the community, we believe that an appropriate penalty for petitioner's misconduct
is that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days, and for such
further time until he makes a showing to this court that his conduct has been such
during his period of suspension that he is entitled to be reinstated in the practice of
law.In re Mahr, 276 Or. 939, 941, 556 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1976) .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In Matter of Maffia, D34357, NYLJ 1202547493906, at *1 (App. Div. 2nd,

Decided March, 27, 2012), the Grievance Committee moved to confirm a Special
Referee's report of professional misconduct for an attorney was was convicted in
Suffolk County of Petit Larceny pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.25. In the
case before the Grievance Committee, although respondent (defendant) did not
admit to it, prosecution accused the defendant of stealing $5,743 and as part of the
plea deal required him to make restitution.
In an attempt to mitigate his conduct and prevent a suspension or revocation of
his license to practice law in the State of New York, the respondent called his former
law partner as a witness. This law partner testified that he could not recall receiving
the funds in question that were to be disbursed to a third-party victim. Further, both
the responded and the law partner testified that it was law office neglect and failure,
as opposed to intent to steal, that was the causation of the theft. In an attempt to
further mitigate his conduct, the respondent explained how during the period in
question he suffered two hear attacks.
Despite his attempts to mitigate the plea and the fact that he did make the thirdparty victim whole, the respondent was unable to prevent the suspension of his
license for six months. At bottom, the respondent pleaded guilty and admitted to a
crime. The respondent withheld money from a victim that he was entrusted to keep
and "had a heightened obligation to ensure that the money reached the intended
recipient." In Matter of Maffia, D34357, NYLJ 1202547493906, at *1 (App. Div.
2nd, Decided March, 27, 2012).
One possibility in In Re Coughlin may involved stipulated dispositions such as those
seen in two recent matters in the District of Columbia bar disciplinary system. Today the D.C.
Court of Appeals approved four such proposed dispositions. Two of the cases involved petty
theft matters.
In In re Nakell, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 10 (D.C., Jan. 26, 2012), the attorney stole two
books from a North Carolina bookstore in the 1990s. The disciplinary case in North Carolina
resulted in a finding that he had not engaged in dishonesty for personal gain (perhaps the books
were part of a quest for self-growth?). He concealed the books in a newspaper and relinquished
28
26
289
them when confronted. The court approved a stayed six-month suspension and probation for
three years. In re Nakell, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 10 (D.C., Jan. 26, ). Before this division of
the court is the report and recommendation of an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommending
approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, 12.1. These
disciplinary matters initially arose via separate reciprocal and original disciplinary actions
following respondent's 1991 and 1999 convictions in North Carolina for misdemeanor larceny.
While these matters were pending, the court amended its rules to provide for negotiated
discipline under certain conditions. According to the petition jointly filed by respondent, Barry
Nakell, and Bar Counsel, on March 8, 2011, respondent stipulated to shoplifting and two acts of
10
misdemeanor larceny from 1991 to 1999. After review of the specific facts, this matter satisfies
11
the conditions for negotiated discipline...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
INTENT REQUIREMENT FOR A SERIOUS OFFENSE

Reno Municipal Code Sec. 8.10.040. - Petit larceny.
It is unlawful for any person to take or carry away the property of another with
the intent to deprive the owner of his property therein, in any value less than
$250.00, and for his conviction therefor, he shall be fined in an amount not more
than $1,000.00 and/or be incarcerated not more than six months. In addition to
any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
Clearly, the criminal conviction in this matter is not supported by sufficient evidence to
meet he applicable beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The City of Reno put on no
evidence sufficient to establish anything in the way of the requisite intent on Coughlin's part
22
sufficient to satisfy the intent element of RMC 8.10.040.
23
admitted that he was not able to hear anything between Coughlin and the cashier, and that he
24
Indeed, Wal-Mart's Frontino
in no way could be sure that Coughlin did not specify a quantity of the cough melts being
25
26
27
purchased. This, combined with the fact that Frontino testified falsely (as proven by the
purchase receipt for $83.82) that Coughlin did not purchase any item bearing the UPC of these
28
27
290
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
Duract Cough Melts, combines to vitiate any finding that sufficient proof was put into
evidence to support this conviction:
(4:13:44 pm)
Coughlin: and you say there was no attempt made to pay for the chocolate bar or
the cough drops?
Frontino: correct?
Coughlin: And how were you able to ascertain that?
Frontino: You did not attempt to pay for them, you concealed the items...the
packaging that had the UPC's in garbage cans, you also concealed the packaging
to the wrapper underneath cart sanitizer wipes in the corner of your cart.
Coughlin: did you hear any discussions between the cashier and the accused?
Frontino: No, I did not.
Coughlin: Did anybody that you know of at Walmart
Roberts: Your Honor, calls for speculation
Judge Howard: that you know of
Frontino: That I know of? No.
Coughlin: Did you make any efforts to ascertain whether the accused and the
cashier had any discussions with respect to the items
Frontino: No...
...Judge Howard: What is the relevance to your inquiry
Coughlin: well in order to establish all the elements of the charge, one is
intent.
Judge Howard: Intent?
Coughlin: Yes, and if there is not an intent...
Judge Howard: How do those other situations relate to whether you intended to
conceal, consume the items in question here?
Coughlin: I am asking Mr. Frontino what he does to ascertain whether or not
there was, in fact, the requisite intent or whether or not someone who is accused
of these crimes might have sampled something and found it to be unsaleable?
(4:20:42 p.m.)
Judge Howard: It has no relevance to these proceedings, it has no relevance.
Coughlin: Okay, and I'll just preserve my objection to that for the record, I do
believe it goes to...
Judge Howard: You keep talking over my rulings, and I have warned you about
that haven't I. I have indicated that you have an opportunity and you've expressed
your understanding of your right to appeal. The next time that you talk over one
of my decisions or rulings, I am going to hold you in contempt again, you have
fair warning.
Coughlin: I am sorry, Your Honor, I was always under the understanding that if
I did not specifically state my objection for the record, I would be precluded from
later on arguing that on appeal, I don't mean to disrespect you, Sir.
Judge Howard: Ask another question. I have made myself clear, you understand
it. Ask another question... (4:21:33 pm).
28
291
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...(4:26:31 pm)
Judge Howard: What is the relevance? What is the relevance to this line of
inquiry. We are speaking about, as I understand it, loss prevention officer and
his observations and a greeter and what the greeter can do. Do you see those as
exactly the same thing?
Coughlin: I see them as an overall policy on Walmart's part to condition whether
or not they are going to take retaliatory action based upon whether a customer is
consenting to impermissible searches and seizures.
Judge Howard: Alright. I don't see them as the same or even similar. Its not
relevant.
Coughlin: Yes, Sir, I'll move on.
Judge Howard: It's not relevant, ask another question...
Further making unlikely a finding of the requisite intent necessary to
support a crime involving moral turpitude or a serious offense a la SCR 111(6) is the
11
allegation that Coughlin consumed two or so boxes of Duract Cough Melts while
12
shopping for groceries. With respect to these Duract Cough Melt cough drops... each
13
package would contain 360mg of DXM, which, if ingested rapidly would give one's
14
15
brain the dissociative effects attendant to drinking an entire large bottle of cough syrup,
16
however, given the fact that such Duract Cough Melts are a candy like lozenge that
17
literally dissolves in second, the method of delivery of such a high dosage of DXM
18
could potentially result in severe incapacitation and or mental impairment, of a
19
dissociative nature, quite rapidly, so much so, that this sort of item was pulled from the
20
21
shelves several years ago when Zicam originally manufacture and distributed them. If
22
one had recently seen to end of a five year domestic partnership (essentially a divorce),
23
which included somewhat of a theft of rent money by the partner exiting the union and
24
25
26
27
28
the former home, and if one was subsequently unable to afford his, let's say, antidepressants because of such an exigent financial turn of events...DXM may present as a
possible adjunct therapy for one whom lacks health insurance or the means to see a
physician or otherwise titrate down off an anti-depressant sufficiently slow to ease an ill
29
292
effects of doing so....and in a manner preferable to self medicating with any other items
that those active in Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers may abstain from....DXM is used
in clincial trials to treat patients with conditions ranging from fibromyalgia to PTSD.
(Dextromethorphan has also found other uses in medicine, ranging from pain relief to
psychological applications....DXM is also used recreationally. When exceeding label-specified
6
7
maximum dosages, dextromethorphan acts as a dissociative hallucinogen. (likely sufficient to
negate any finding of the requisite intent necessary for a serious offense determination a la
SCR 111(6))...http://www.uspharmacist.com/content/d/feature/i/1500/c/28282/ Jamero, D. The
10
emerging role of NMDA Antagonists in Pain Management. US Pharmacist. 2011. Jobson
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Publishing. Posted to Medscape.com on 6/22/2011.

Failure to Grant a Continuance Due to Excuplatory Materials Being Withheld
Pursuant to an Impermissible Rent Distraint Incident to Unlawful Summary
Eviction From Former Home Law Office Where Non-Payment of Rent Was
Neither Pled Nor Noticed:
(2:14 pm)
Hon. Judge Howard: all right part both parties ready to proceed at this time
Robert: Yes, Your Honor
Coughlin: no Your Honor I'm not ready to proceed
Hon. Judge Howard: why not
Coughlin: Well, there is a variety of reasons, Your Honor
Hon. Judge Howard: you have to speak up if you want me..
Coughlin: yes sir Your Honor, there's a variety of reasons, sir, I would say chief
of which is that it unlawful rent distraint is currently being applied to my files
that are necessary to defend this case I was evicted in justice court case
REV2011-001708 recently, besides having an impermissible rent escrow deposit
applied to me in that case.
Hon. Judge Howard: what does that have to do with this case?
Coughlin: recently I have been affected all my files
Hon. Judge Howard: right
Coughlin: all my files incident to the defense of this case are currently being
withheld under in an impermissible rent distraint in violation of NRS 40.253 and
118 a.460
Hon. Judge Howard:what else you have other than this what else you have, as a
basis for not being prepared?
28
30
293
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
Coughlin: I made numerous attempts to contact the Reno City Attorney's office
and Ms. Roberts in attempts to discuss this matter
Hon. Judge Howard: Ms. Roberts
Coughlin: and I have not been able to reach her
Hon. Judge Howard: or that sound basis for a continuance maybe she doesn't
speak to she is not required to
Coughlin: further there's a good deal of discovery that needs to be undertaken in
this regard Wal-Mart has been obstructive, as well as (unintelligible)
Hon. Judge Howard: what items of discovery
Coughlin: well I'd like to take some depositions as well have them respond to
some subpoena duces tecums I had served on them
Hon. Judge Howard: what else?
Coughlin: the same could be said for the Reno Sparks Indian Colony and this is a
complex case in terms you have the Indian colony renting property to Wal-Mart
while employing the same police patrolling the property on which they have a
financial stake in whether make an arrest there's Fourth Amendment issues
involved in this case as well is 42 section 1983 abuse of process's and police
misconduct in terms of attempting to obtain consent to an impermissible search
through coercive means this is not a simple case...civil recovery abuses are being
alleged on the part of Wal-Mart attempted state actors.. also, and I probably can't
put into words, Your Honor, how truly disruptive this eviction has been... I was
evicted from my home office. I am an attorney in the state of Nevada my client
files are currently, I don't even know if I should call them my files or my client's
files are being withheld under an impermissible rent distraint. Also, I was
sexually assaulted by a bailiff in court the other day
Hon. Judge Howard: in this court
Coughlin: in Justice Court
Coughlin: all of these matters contribute to an unduly burdensome environment
in which my ability to defend this case has been unduly prejudiced in the extreme
Hon. Judge Howard:I am going to deny the request to continue I guess whether
this is a complex case is in the eye of the beholder, I don't typically find that
these matters are as complex as you've indicated they are on that as well that
much of the argument that you made here relating to sexual assault of a bailiff
and another court your inability to possess control your client files have no
relevance in my mind to proceeding with the charges and petty larceny alleged to
have occurred at Wal-Mart on September 9
Coughlin: not just my client files or materials needed to defend this case are
being withheld
Hon. Judge Howard: I interrupt you sir, don't interrupt me.
Coughlin: Yes, sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: Additional note that the last hearing November 14 the city
was present with three witnesses the matter was continued, and we initially
indicated that we would note Mr. Coughlin's failure to appear we ordered a bench
warrant and $1000 cash bail only to discover, unfortunately for Mr. Coughlin,
that he was in custody so the matter was reset. I think there's been sufficient time
28
31
294
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
to prepare for trial in this matter so we will proceed with trial all witnesses please
stand and raise your right hand so you can be sworn please
Coughlin: if I can just make my objections for the record, Sir?
Hon. Judge Howard: standing objections
Coughlin: Ms. Roberts has agreed to a continuance submitting a written
agreement to the continues this matter
Howard:Ms. Roberts
Roberts: he initially had asked for a motion to continue sometime ago I went was
for the 14th and I did not object at that time am I think you sent me an e-mail
after the 14th and I said I would not object but Your Honor so at that time I did
not object he has filed additional motions with additional allegations that I think
should be stricken and not considered by this court and I'd like to withdraw my
lack of opposition to continuance...
Hon. Judge Howard: All right Mr. Coughlin do I need to go over the procedure
here today?
Coughlin: Yes, sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: the city has a burden of proof and as such will allow Ms.
Roberts to proceed with its case in chief initially she can do so by calling one
more witnesses to the witness stand you have an opportunity to cross examine
each of those witnesses once she has completed she can also offer any physical or
documentary evidence that she feels is relevant obviously subject to any
objections that you might have to relevancy. Once the city has concluded its case
you will have an opportunity to present a defense. I highlight the word
opportunity because I think you understand there is no requirement that you
present any evidence whatsoever and should you choose not to testify this court
there's no inference as to your guilt or innocence based on your decision not to
testify on the other hand you have an absolute right to offer testimony in the form
of witnesses including yourself realizing that each of those witnesses will be
subject to cross-examination by the city attorney in fact if you have any
additional evidence physical or documentary that you would like me to review in
most circumstances I will do so subject once again to any objections that the city
attorney and he might have to that evidence once the two of you have submitted
your respective cases I will allow both of you to make closing arguments once
concluded this court will render a decision as your guilt for your innocence do
understand?
Coughlin: I do have a question, Your Honor. You mentioned that I would be
able to present evidence if that evidence is being withheld from me at this point
and it's pending the resolution of a motion for return of personal property in
Justice Court I would be precluded from action accessing that evidence?
Hon. Judge Howard: I've ruled on that already, have I not?
Coughlin: It sounded like you said it didn't matter.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't find that it's relevant to go forward with the trial
today.
Coughlin: so if I have video evidence of retaliatory intent by Wal-Mart?
Hon. Judge Howard:you should've brought it with you today.
32
295
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
Coughlin: but if it's being withheld impermissibly under the law?

Hon. Judge Howard: we are going forward today I have addressed the issue you
can bring it up on appeal if you feel that the decision of the Court is improper,
understood?
Coughlin: Yes, Sir,Your Honor....
NRS 171.1255 Arrest by officer or agent of Bureau of Indian Affairs or
police officer employed by Indian tribe.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an officer or agent of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs or a person employed as a police officer by an Indian
tribe may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officer or agents
presence.
(b) When a person arrested has committed a felony or gross misdemeanor,
although not in the officer or agents presence.
(c) When a felony or gross misdemeanor has in fact been committed, and the
officer or agent has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have
committed it.
(d) On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony
or gross misdemeanor by the person arrested.
(e) When a warrant has in fact been issued in this State for the arrest of a
named or described person for a public offense, and the officer or agent has
reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested is the person so named or
described.
(f) When the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a battery upon that persons spouse and the peace officer
finds evidence of bodily harm to the spouse.
2. Such an officer or agent may make an arrest pursuant to subsection 1 only:
(a) Within the boundaries of an Indian reservation or Indian colony for an
offense committed on that reservation or colony; or
(b) Outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation or Indian colony if the
officer or agent is in fresh pursuit of a person who is reasonably believed by the
officer or agent to have committed a felony within the boundaries of the
reservation or colony or has committed, or attempted to commit, any criminal
offense within those boundaries in the presence of the officer or agent.
For the purposes of this subsection, fresh pursuit has the meaning ascribed to
it in NRS 171.156.
NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made:...
2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7
p.m. and 7 a.m., except:
(b) When the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer;
(c) When the person is found and the arrest is made in a public place or a
place that is open to the public and:
(1) There is a warrant of arrest against the person; and
33
296
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(2) The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause for
the arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged
violation or offense;
(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the
person makes an arrest immediately after the offense is committed;
An unofficial transcript typed out by Coughlin (he could not afford to pay
for one up front and the RMC failed to Order once produced despite Nevada law
so requiring, regardless of whether the defendant puts up a down payment for the
transcript) demonstrates that Wal-Mart's Frontino did not make and arrest,
pursuant to NRS 171.136(d) ((d) When the offense is committed in the
presence of a private person and the person makes an arrest immediately
after the offense is committed...).
22
2:47:33 pm (time of day indicated on ForTheRecord audio transcript of

November 20th, 2011 Trial in RMC 11 CR 22176)
Reno City Attorney Prosecutor Pam Roberts (Roberts): After you identified
yourself as Wal-Mart asset protection what did you say to him?
Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino (Frontino): I identified myself as asset protection
and that I needed to talk to him about some items that he had taken from our
facility.
Roberts: And did he say anything to you at that time?
Frontino: He pretended...He did not say anything, however, he did come with us
back into the store
2:48:33 pm
Roberts: Did you place Mr. Coughlin in custody, did you place handcuffs on him
at that time?
Frontino: No, we did not touch him in any way, He was simply following our
directions at that point.
2:49:31 pm
Roberts: When you were walking Mr. Coughlin back to the AP Office was he in
handcuffs?
Frontino: No, he was not.
Roberts: and were you escorting him in any way, did you have your arm around
him in any way?
Frontino: No, we did not.
23
The arrest in this matter fails on every element of NRS 171.126(2)(b)-(d). Further,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
while it is quite questionable to infer evidence of guilt based upon the fruit of an impermissilble
search of Coughlin's pockets (which allegedly revealed one half of the contents of one package
of Duract Cough Melts (6 melts in a foil sheet), especially where Coughlin had just paid for
(and the receipt for $83.82 confirms this) a package of the exact product allegedly consumed,
34
297
the Duract Cough Melts (UPC 073221630093). This is particularly true where there was not
evidence in the record or testimony offered that the contents of Coughlin's shopping bag from
the $83.82 worth of items paid for, did or did not include an opened and or half full package of
those very Duract Cough Melts).
To the extent that RMC Judge Howard refused to let
Coughlin testify on his own behalf at trial, such an utter paucity of evidence to support the
6
7
allegations, combined with the myriad instances where the testimony of Wal-Mart's Frontino
and that of RSIC Police Officers Crawford and Braunworth, is particularly troubling, especially
to the extent that the City of Reno and the Reno Municipal Court arguably have a vested
10
interest in limiting the costs associated with providing defense counsel to indigent parties
11
12
(Coughlin was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel under Argersinger, where, as
13
here, even the possibility of jail time exists- and Coughlin served 3 days in jail in connection
14
with this trial court matter City Attorney Pam Roberts: Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25
15
(1972)) and collecting the fines associated with convictions.
16
This first offense allegation of
shoplifting, for some $14.00 of merchandise, resulted in a $400 fine and 3 days in jail, all with
17
18
no Sixth Amendment defense counsel costs attendant to the prosecution. Where municipal
19
court did not offer indigent defendant court-appointed counsel in prosecutions
20
for misdemeanor charge of petty larceny and assault and battery, the municipal convictions
21
were void. Mitchell v. Wainwright, 308 F. Supp. 436 (M.D. Fla. 1969).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It would be false to say the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate Thomas Frontino made
an arrest himself, and especially dubious to assert that Frontino met the requirement of. There
was no allegation of that at the trial. The RSIC Officers Crawford and Braunsworth made the
arrest, as such, NRS 171.126 is inapplicable. Even if it were applicable, Wal-Mart's Frontino's
testimony was so rife with unsupported, contradictory, and disengenous statements as to
35
298
vitiate any support for any allegation that Frontino was entitled to arrest Coughlin, under NRS
171.126(1) for a public offense committed or attempted in the person's presence.(he
personally witnessed Coughlin take a refrigerated ice cream bar off the shelf in the candy
isle and consume it was shopping for other items? Frontino could see (he admitted he could
not hear what was said between Coughlin and the Wal-Mart cashier, whom Wal-Mart feigned
6
7
an inability to locate or determine the identify of) every item rung up by the cashier and off
the top of his head know that none of those items bore a UPC with the same number as the
Duract Cough Melts Frontino alleged Coughlin consumed while shopping?...Further,
10
Frontino's testimony about how he personally witnessed Coughlin consume the cough drops
11
12
while shopping is inconsistent with his testimony that Wal-Mart policy did not permit
13
Frontino to follow Coughlin into the restroom at Wal-Mart and that, therefore, Frontino lack a
14
basis for making further attempts to investigate any suspicion he had with respect to the
15
Duract Cough Melts, therefore leaving Wal-Mart and Frontino to hinge their hopes of
16
leveraging the RSIC Police to conduct an unlawful search of Coughlin. To the extent that
17
18
Frontino admitted neither he or anyone Wal-Mart may have sought to testify at trial could
19
hear what was said between Coughlin and the cashier, Frontino's vantage point does not meet
20
the in the person's presence standard required by NRS 171.126(1), though Frontino still
21
signed the Criminal Complaint swearing that he had such a basis for making his allegations.
22
23
NRS 171.126(1) : Arrest by private person. A private person may arrest

another:
24
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the persons presence.
25
RSIC Officer Crawford's written report demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation
26
27
28
for the probable cause requirement, while at the same time, displaying a cunning, and crafty
approach to spinning the nexus between probable cause, detaining a suspects, citizen's arrest,
36
299
fourth amendment exceptions, and NRS 171.123.
In his written report (included in the
attached Exhibit 2, a collection of the discovery propounded by the City of Reno, finally, well
over one month after the arrest and after Coughlin had made numerous attempts to get a copy
of such materials, from, and in person and by writing, the RSIC Police force (meeting with
Sargent Avansino and being refused such documentation), the Reno Municipal Court, the City
6
7
of Reno City Attorney's Office-on approximately September 15th, 2011 Coughlin spoke with
Deputy City Attorney Christopher Hazlett-Stevens and inquired as to the availability of such
witness statements, police reports, or any other materials from Wal-Mart, the RSIC, or anyone
10
else and was told by Hazlett-Stevens that the City Attorney's Office had not and would not
11
12
receive such materials until after the arraignment in this matter, which was set for some 30
13
days after the arrest (September 9th, 2011 to October 10th, 2012)...Coughlin pleaded with
14
Hazlett-Stevens to just double check and ask everyone else in the office if any such
15
discovery or documentation had been provided to the City Attorney's Office and Hazlett-
16
Stevens indicated he would, and thereafter confirmed to Coughlin that no such items had been
17
18
received, and further, that Coughlin had no right to them prior to the arraignment, in any
19
event, either from the City Attorney's Office, the RMC, or the RSIC Police Department.
20
However, the fax headers and dates on the discovery later provided by the City Attorney's
21
Office certainly seems to indicate that such materials were faxed to the City Attorney's Office
22
by the RSIC Police Department on September 13th, 2011, however, the page numbers and
23
24
25
26
page counts would seem to indicate some materials were not propounded).
In his Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause from September 9th, 2011,
RSIC Officer Crawford writes:On 9/9/11 at about 21:21 hours I responded to 2425 E. 2nd St.,
27
28
Reno, NV 89502 for a Petit Larceny. Upon my arrival I met with Asset Protection Associate
37
300
Thomas Frontino, whom made a citizens arrest for Petit Larceny. Frontino was in possession
of the stolen items. Frontino's testimony at trial, however, clearly indicated he had only
asked Coughlin to meet with him, not that Frontino had immediately made a citizen's
arrest right after the commission of the alleged crime. Clearly, no citizen's arrest was
effectuated by Frontino sufficient to satisfy NRS 171.176(1), no matter what Officer
6
7
Crawford's written report purports to suggest. Further, if Frontino had made such a citizen's
arrest and was in possession of the stolen items, then why did it take five minutes of
interrogation by the RSIC Officers and a pat down before the technical point of arrest by
10
Crawford, and why did Crawford need to explain his decision to arrest, and conduct a search
11
12
incident to arrest, and basis for probable cause finding to do so, upon some alleged failure by
13
Coughlin to provide his driver's license? The discovery propounded a month later still did not
14
have any Magistrate or Judicial Officer's signature approving the probable cause finding,
15
despite the 48 hour requirement that such be issued.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
However, in his Incident Report, made a day later, RSIC Officer Crawford writes:
On 9/9120 11 at approximately 2 121 hours, Officer Braunworth and I were
dispatched to 2425 East Second Street Reno, NY 89502 for a report of a petit
larceny. Upon our arrival we met with WaI-Mart Asset Protection Associate
Thomas Frontino who stated, he observed a white male adult, identified as
Zachary Coughlin, walking through the store opening various items and
discarding them in the garbage can. Frontino stated, he also observed
Coughlin eat a candy bar while walking through the store. Coughlin
passed all points of sale inside of Wal-Mart and exited. Coughlin was then
detained by Frontino for petit larceny. Please refer to Frontino's Statement
for further infonnation. Officer Braunworth asked Coughlin if he had any
weapons on his person and Coughlin stated, he did not. I asked Coughlin if I
could have permission to search his person for weapons. Coughlin gave me
consent, but stated do not go into my pockets. l searched the outer clothing
of Coughlin and found no weapons on him. I then proceeded to ask Coughlin
questions pertaining to issuing him a citation for petit larceny.
Coughlin however, refused to answer my questions relating to a citation and
became uncooperative. Coughlin was then placed under arrest for petit
38
301
1
2
3
4
larceny. I began my search incident to arrest on Coughlin and found cough

drops still wrapped in his pockets. Frontino was able to confirm they were
the same cough drops that came from the opened cough drop boxes from
inside the store that were unpaid for. At approximately 2200 hours, I
transported Coughlin to the Washoe County Detention Facility and booked
him for Reno Municipal Code 8.10.040 petit larceny. At approximately 2122
hours, I cleared the incident with no further incident
5
6
7
8
Officer Crawford testified at trial that Coughlin refused to provide his driver's license,
however, this Incident Report merely mentions Coughlin allegedly refusing to answer my
questions pertaining to issuing a citation? Why the remix come trial time? Further, Wal-
9
10
11
12
Mart's Frontin, as is his wont, could hardly make it a sentence or two while testifying at Trial
before completely contradicting himself:
(2:52:25 pm ):
13
City Attorney Pam Roberts: What specific information did you ask of Mr. Coughlin?
14
Thomas Frontino: Identification, his name birth date, social security number.
15
City Attorney Pam Roberts: And did he provide any of that information to you?
16
Thomas Frontino: No, he did not.
17
City Attorney Pam Roberts: Based upon his unwillingness to provide that information
did you take any further action?
18
19
Thomas Frontino: Yes, we called the police, the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Tribal
Police Department. They usually arrive within ten minutes, I believe my statement
reflects it was less than that...
20
21
However, it was not long before Frontino contradicted that testimony...
22
Zach Coughlin: Mr. Frontino didn't you have a social security number on a piece of
paper with my name on it prior to the police arriving? (3:02:07)
23
Thomas Frontino: I do not recall.
25
Coughlin: So in you LP room did you have any piece of paper with what you thought
was my name, social security number, or other personally identifiable information
already filled out.
26
Thomas Frontino: At the time you had only given us your name, that was it.
27
Zach Coughlin: Objection, non responsive.
24
28
39
302
Hon. Judge Howard: You asked the question, you got a response, your objection
overruled, denied.
Zach Coughlin: so are you lying when you say I provided you my name?
Thomas Frontino: No.
Zach Coughlin: So, just to be clear, you are stating here under penalty of perjury under
oath, that prior to the police arriving I gave you my name?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Thomas Frontino: I am saying that we did not have the evidence required... we did not
have the information required, so whether you gave me your name or not was...was not
the point, you were uncooperative and that is why we notified police.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, just a second ago you testified that I gave you my name prior to
the police arriving, now it seems you are backing off of that a little bit, Mr.
Frontino...and you are smiling smugly.
Thomas Frontino: I don't remember whether you gave me your name or not at first, I
know you did not give me the information required for us to complete our
investigation, that is why police were notified.
14
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so you just lied earlier when you said yes, for sure I gave you
my name prior to the police arriving and that you didn't already have my name on a
piece of paper and what you thought was my social security number written on a piece
of paper right there on your desk, in the loss prevention office? Were you lying right
there, Mr. Frontino?
15
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, complex question.
16
Hon. Judge Howard: Its a complex question, lets ask a question, not a series of
questions in narrative form.
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Zach Coughlin: is it true that you just testified earlier that you did not have my name
written on a piece of paper in your office immediately upon bringing me back to it.
Thomas Frontino: I believe I did have your name but I do not remember conclusively
whether or not...I know that I did not have enough information to complete my
investigation.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so earlier when you testified that you didn't have my name on a
piece of paper, but then that the only way you got my name prior to the police arriving,
was by me offering it, you were lying? Under penalty of perjury? I don't know why
you are smiling, Sir? There's nothing funny about perjury.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't see that as a smile, let's let the record be clear.
Thomas Frontino: I'm not quite understanding your question perhaps. I am saying that
I did not have enough information to proceed with my report without notifying police...
Zach Coughlin: Were you lying when you said earlier that you didn't have what
you thought was my name
27
28
40
303
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
Thomas Frontino: No, I was not lying, I believe that I was making a statement
that I still believe was true...I believe you gave me your name and only your
name at the time.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so just a minute ago when you said now, I'm not sure
whether you gave you me your name or not? Which is it? The tape of this
testimony right here will show that at first you said you didn't have my name?
Hon. Judge Howard: there is a question before him, I believe, let's see if he can
address it.
Thomas Frontino: What was the question?
Zach Coughlin: Did you already testify today that you did not know my name
when you brought me back to the LP room.
Thomas Frontino: When I brought you back to the room, no I did not have your
name?
Zach Coughlin: Did you have a name that you believe might be mine?
Thomas Frontino: Yes because you gave us a...a name, but without proper
identification it is Wal-Mart policy to call the police.
Zach Coughlin: So, now you are saying I gave you a name?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Your Honor, asked and answered.
Zach Coughlin: Its been answered in several contradictory ways...
Hon. Judge Howard: Sustained, ask another question...
Zach Coughlin: At first its you didn't give a name, then its you gave us a
name then its I'm not sure if you gave a name then its you smiling some
more...
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, Your Honor, he's testifying...
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, I have told you that I am not going to allow
you to present argument at this time, let's get along with another line of
questions..
Zach Coughlin: Okay, but I'm confused...
Hon. Judge Howard: Another line of questions, the record is clear...
Zach Coughlin: Do you recall having a piece of paper with a name that you
believe might be mine, on your desk, immediately upon bringing me into what
you call the asset protection room?
Thomas Frontino: When we brought you back into the room our normal
procedure is to get out our information collection form and to get information
from our suspect, we asked you your name, all of your...
Zach Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, I am not asking him was he was seeking
to have collected
Hon. Judge Howard: What Mr. Coughlin is asking...its my understanding he's
asking you if you had a piece of paper on your desk with his name on it when he
was brought back to the room? Is that correct?
Zach Coughlin: With my name already on it.
Thomas Frontino: No....(nervous laughter from Frontino)..Absolutely not...I must
have misunderstood the question before, but absolutely no.
Coughlin: You didn't have a piece of paper, Sir, with my name and social
security number on it?
Thomas Frontino: Already on it when you first entered the room? No.
41
304
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
Zach Coughlin: Yeah...yeah.

Thomas Frontino: Absolutely not.
Zach Coughlin: Did you have a piece of paper with my name on it?
Zach Coughlin: Something similar to my name on it?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, how would he know what name is
similar to yours..
Hon. Judge Howard: Speculative...
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Speculative, yes
Hon. Judge Howard: Sustained.
Zach Coughlin: Similar in terms of one or two letters being different out of 20 or
so letters..
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin...Mr. Coughlin...proceed with another line of
inquiry.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, did you have a piece of paper with a name already on it
when you brought me into the office.
Hon. Judge Howard: Asked and answered...did you hear what I just said?
Zach Coughlin: I believe that was a different question, Sir. I didn't ask if it had
my name, I asked if it had a name on it.
Thomas Frontino: There is other people's names on the desk, so chances were,
yes, there was another piece of paper with somebody's name on it, somewhere on
the desk.
Zach Coughlin: And you have video of this?
Thomas Frontino: There is video of the office at that time.
Zach Coughlin: Would have have those pieces of paper?
Thomas Frontino: There's a lot of paper...I didn't know which one you wanted
me to bring.
Zach Coughlin: So, you are saying, under oath, that there wasn't a piece of paper
with my name or a name that is substantially similar to it, in the office already, at
the time you brought me in there.
Thomas Frontino: When I brought you in our office there was no piece of paper
with your name on it or a name that was substantially similar.
Zach Coughlin: I will remind you that you are under oath, Sir. (3:10:37 pm)
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, badgering
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, I'm, uh...I do have respect for you, Sir. And I am
not trying to waste the Court's time with this next question, but I am trying to
figure out what Mr. Frontino's final testimony is with regard to whether I offered
him my name prior to the police getting it. Mr. Frontino, is it your testimony that
I offered you my name prior to the police arriving?
Thomas Frontino: I do not remember if you specifically gave us your name at the
time.
Zach Coughlin: Did you testify earlier today that I did give you my name prior to
the police arriving?
28
42
305
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Thomas Frontino: I believe you might have, but I...but I do not recall
conclusively enough to say yes, for sure you did or no, you did not give us
you name before the police arrived...
...Frontino: no, for the same reason that I gave earlier, we don't generally
compile video evidence on such a minor incident, and incident we wouldn't
have even called the police had you cooperated with...its that minor
Coughlin: are you saying you conditioned your calling the police based upon
a lack of cooperation
Frontino: yes I am
Frontino: such as?
Frontino: not cooperating
Coughlin: but could you be more specificallyf I had detained you for
shoplifting you maintained yoru innocence, which is acceptable, however
without information to pursue our case against you we have to also call police
so that they can assist us...
10
11
Around 4:10:55 pm Wal-Mart's Frontino tries to say the wouldn't have called the police
12
if the suspect had cooperated, but then he defines cooperating in a way that enables Wal-Mart
13
to proceed with their case against one (ie, Wal-Mart and the Indian Colony Police demand a
14
confession, or else the suspect is going to jail, no exceptions, regardless of whether probable
15
16
cause to arrest exists, etc.) and mentions that they would call the police to accomplish
17
that...more contradictory stuff. So, Wal-Mart's Frontino is clearly conveniently inconsistent.
18
Would Frontino have let the suspect go if he had provided the information Wal-Mart desired
19
and cooperated or did Wal-mart require a consfession such that it could pursue its case
20
against the accused?
21
22
23
Further, Wal-Mart's witness, Frontino, clearly contradicted himself in numerous

materials ways throughout his testimony sufficien to find that the criminal conviction here is
24
25
clearly erroneous and not supported in any rationale way by the evidence in the record:
26
(3:16:57 pm)
27
Thomas Frontino: on the day in question Stanley Cunningham was the only other
person working for asset protection.
28
43
306
1
2
3
4
5
6
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so is it your testimony that immediately upon my entering

the store you began to follow me?
Thomas Frontino: No, I did not say that. I followed you immediately upon seeing
you, and followed you for approximately half and hour to an hour and I
personally witnessed you select open and consume a candy bar and select, open,
and conceal two packages of cough drops.
Zach Coughlin: Did you tell the police that night that you personally saw the
accused consume the candy bar, but you did you fail to mention anything about
personally seeing anything with regard to the cough drops?
11
Thomas Frontino: I did not fail to make that note to them, I stopped you
specifically for the candy bar, because after consuming the candy bar and
concealing the cough drops you went into the bathroom with the cough drops,
which, per Wal-Mart policy I had to then say well I can't stop him for the cough
drops because you could have flushed the cough drops, you could have done
whatever you wanted with the cough drops, however, I stopped you for the candy
bar and that is why I stopped you... we recovered more walmart merchandise
later. It did not affect the charge in any way.
12
Zach Coughlin: and you say this was a candy bar.
13
Thomas Frontino: it was a chocolate...substance, I can give you the exact item, the
receipt should be on camera view from when you entered the AP office.
7
8
9
10
14
Zach Coughlin: and you say you saw me select it?
15
Thomas Frontino: I did see you select it.
16
Zach Coughlin: from where?
17
Thomas Frontino: From the candy isle...from...the ice cream endcap and ...the
candy isle.
18
19
Zach Coughlin: is it a candy isle or an ice cream isle?
20
Thomas Frontino: its the same...place...cuz there's the...ice cream..endcap...that

has...the candy isle.
21
Zach Coughlin: can you be more specific in regard to where in the store you say...
22
23
24
Thomas Frontino: when you enter the facility its about four isles, so about 40 feet
when you pass the registers you hang a left, and that's where all of our candy-type
substances are.
Zach Coughlin: The candy isle? Endcap? Was it on an endcap?
25
Thomas Frontino: You selected it from the candy isle, there's the ice cream
endcap and then the candy isle, you selected it from their.
26
Zach Coughlin: What's an endcap?
27
Thomas Frontino: It caps off the end of an isle
28
Zach Coughlin: so you are saying it wasn't selected from the candy isle?
44
307
1
2
Thomas Frontino: I'm saying it was selected from the candy isle. There's an ice
cream endcap, go left there, and then there's the candy isle.
Hon. Judge Howard: Alright, I have heard enough, continue with another line of
questioning, we have heard repeatedly that he observed you select it from the
candy isle, which is also associated with the ice cream isle. He has explained to
you what an endcap is, let's go forward.
Zach Coughlin: I believe this is very probative, Your Honor.
6
7
8
9
10
Hon. Judge Howard: Why? What's the relevance.

Zach Coughlin: I can tell you, Sir, but in order to
Hon. Judge Howard: I want you to explain it right now, what's the relevance?
Zach Coughlin: in Order to have my ability to impeach his testimony, Your
Honor, there is some leeway that would be helpful in order to have him put some
answers on the record
Hon. Judge Howard: What is the relevance of this line of inquiry.
11
Zach Coughlin: I can tell you that...
12
Hon. Judge Howard: If you can't state it I am going to make you move on.
13
Zach Coughlin: I can state it, Sir, but to state it before I am able to get him put
some things on the record impairs my ability to impeach him.
14
15
Hon. Judge Howard: Finding no relevance to this line of inquiry I am not going to
allow it.
16
Zach Coughlin: I will tell you the relevance..
17
Hon. Judge Howard: I am not going to allow it, move on!
18
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, I didn't say I wouldn't reveal the relevance..
19
Hon. Judge Howard: Move On! I have given you every opportunity to reveal the
relevance of this line of inquiry...
20
Zach Coughlin: I don't believe you have, Your Honor...
21
Hon. Judge Howard: You failed to do it...I am not going to allow it
22
Zach Coughlin: I will state the relevance right now.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hon. Judge Howard: No, its too late now, move on!...
(3:42:22 pm)
Zach Coughlin: now, what did you tell the police when they arrived.
Thomas Frontino: I told the police that I had stopped you for shoplifting the
chocolate item but that I also believed you had cough drops on your person but
that I also believed you had cough drops on your person but that you had gone
into the restroom but that I did not have positive evidence that you still had some
in your possession even though you had consumed some and disposed of the
packaging to them....
45
308
Here Frontino contradicts himself from sentence to sentence. He doesn't have positive
evidence of the cough drops being what? Possessed, consumed? But by the next sentence he is
attesting that Coughlin had consumed some disposed of the packaging to them. So, where
Wal-Mart policy apparently won't let Frontino proceed to follow a suspect into the Wal-Mart
restroom to follow up on his suspicions... Frontino attempts to leverage the police force to do
that which his employer's policy forbids, all while manufacturing his testimony to correspond
with the necessary buzzwords and attestations that he gleans are required?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4:00:00 p.m.)
Zach Coughlin: okay, so this was taken from somewhere in the middle of the
candy isle, you personally witnessed that, right, you just testified to that correct?
Thomas Frontino: that you took it from the candy isle, yes, I couldn't tell you how
far down exactly I didn't pace it out.
Zach Coughlin: Oh...but, oh...okay...you said you personally eye witnessed this
Thomas Frontino: yes, but I don't take measuring tapes afterwords....or...
Coughlin: Okay but generally you could say right on the edge of the isle or
somewhere closer to half way. Something like that, right? Because you...you
are telling us...
Hon. Judge Howard: do you know exactly where it was? (4:00:33)
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I do...it was from....it was from...the candy isle.
Zach Coughlin: okay, but its not about where its from...wer're saying under
penalty of perjury you are saying that you personally eye witnessed the
Hon. Judge Howard: is there a question?
Zach Coughlin: yeah.
Hon. Judge Howard: where is it?
Zach Coughlin: I want to verify, where did he personally eye witness it.
Thomas Frontino: I was standing at the end of the isle and you selected it.
Zach Coughlin: was I standing right next to you?
Thomas Frontino: Of course not.
Zach Coughlin: okay then, well could you please be a little more specific.
Hon. Judge Howard: Could you be more specific as to where he picked up the
item?
Thomas Frontino: All of our...I believe it was one of our nicer chocolates, it
wasn't a Snickers or anything, and it was selected in that first 4 to 8 foot section,
because each section itself is four feet, so it was selected from in there.
Zach Coughlin: from the candy isle?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, you selected several items from the candy isle, some of
which you purchased, some of which you left at the cash register.
Zach Coughlin: And you are saying you then saw me...that particular item whose
bar code whoe barcode we just entered into the record, you saw me open that and
then consume it.
46
309
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Thomas Frontino: I am saying yes, I saw you open it and consume it. You had a
stack (4:01:35 p.m.; Frontino starts to realize his is totally effed here)
of....of....candy bars and other food items, that you selected a bunch of items and
put them in your cart, and then you.... then....sumbh....
(4:01:44 pm Frontino trips all over his thoughts and words and utters some quasi
word while he tries to think his way out of the mess he just walked himself into)
...t selected that one item out of your car, and you opened it and consumed.
(4:01:49 pm)
Zach Coughlin: Okay, and if that item is a refrigerated item, would it make any
sense for it to be in the candy isle, where there is no refrigeration?
(4:01:58 pm)
Thomas Frontino: There...there is on the endcap...
(Here Frontin makes a very weak point in an attempt to escape his contradictions
and inconsistencies, attempting to bring back the endcap allusion now that he has
already fixated his testimony about his precipient recollections to the first 4 by 8
foot section of the isle (ie, not the endcap).)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Frontino:...that, that....that...that's my point...you selected a lot of items and put

them all down.
Zach Coughlin: But your testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury was that
you saw the accused take that particular item, not from the endcap, but from the
first 4 to 8 foot section of the candy isle, which is not refrigerated, right?
Thomas Frontino: Correct.
Zach Coughlin: So, if that item, if we pulled up that item and that bar code and its
shows its a refrigerated ice cream chocolate caramel confection, would that
indicate you were inaccurate in what you were telling the court?
Thomas Frontino: You could have easily picked it up from the candy isle?
(4:02:45 p.m., hear Frontino's lying voice crack when he says the word isle, not
even able to summons a halfway convincing delivery of his sad attempt to crawl
out of the quicksand)
Zach Coughlin: The ice cream bar from the candy isle? Wouldn't it be melted,
wouldn't you think? If it hd been sittin' there in the cndy isle?
Hon. Judge Howard: Is that a question? Is that your question?
Zach Coughlin: I am asking, does that make sense to you, if this item, if it is
established this..
Thomas Frontino: I am saying you selected...
Zach Coughlin: I am not finished with my question, Sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: You are finished! You're done! Go ahead and respond.
Thomas Frontino: I am saying you selected several items and placed them all into
the cart, um...yes, I may have been mistaken, because you placed them all into the
cart and then you did not proceed to directly open the package after you selected
it, you put it into the cart and selected it from various other items that were put
into the cart.
Zach Coughlin: So, if that item was an ice cream bar that would melt if it wasn't
refrigerated and it was selected where you say it was selected...that would be
47
310
somewhat unusual wouldn't it, for a refrigerated item to be selected from an isle
that doesn't have refrigeration?... (4:03:50 p.m.).
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
...Zach Coughlin: accusations by whom?

Thomas Frontino: accustion you had made toward the officers...you had made
accusation that they were making an unlawful search of your person.
Zach Coughlin: specifically, what was unlawful about it.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection calls for a legal conclusion.
Hon: Judge Howard: sustained, sustined
Zach Coughlin: I am not asking it for the purposes of obtaining a legal
conclusion, but merely for him to restate what was said.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: that's not the way he asked that question, Your
Honor.
Hon. Judge Howard: ask another question.
Zach Coughlin: Yes, Sir, Your Honor. Did anyone, including myself, that was in
that room that time, specify in any way as to what was impermissible about such
a search?
Thomas Frontino: No you did not.
Zach Coughlin: so your testimony is that accusAtions were made that the search
was impermissible
Thomas Frontino: correct
C; but nothing more specific was said?
Thomas Frontino: no.
Zach Coughlin: was there any commentary about the impermissibility of
conditioning a search based upon the failure to consent to such search?
Thomas Frontino: Yes.
Zach Coughlin: well, wouldn't that contradicts what you just said with regard to
whether any specifics were said with respect to what was impermissible about the
search.
Hon. Judge Howard: I'll allow it.
Zach Coughlin: Mr. Frontino, it seems though, again, that your testimony
contradicts the testimony you made not even three mintues prior. (3:40:33).
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: is that a question, Your Honor?
Zach Coughlin: I'm asking him to explain.
Hon. Judge Howard: Stop!. I will allow it. Do you understand it?
Thomas Frontino: I believe I do understand it. I can go through it from the
beginning to end if you like. There was point in time where you made an
accusation that you had not given consent to search, and it was at that time that
Officer Crawford said make note, and I believe its in my police statement, that
there was notation that your pockets were searched after you were placed under
arrest.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is wht I just heard you say
there was no dialogue or specifics mentioned about what was impermissible
about such a search, but then upon further questioning you indicted tht there was
some dialogue about how it was impermissible to condition the search based upon
48
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
the refusal to give consent for the search, to use refusal to give consent as a basis
for the search.
Thomas Frontino: You are completely misunderstanding what I said then.
Zach Coughlin: Well, I would say, of course I am because you have given three
different contradictory answers.
Hon. Judge Howard: being argumentative, let him resond to the question, go
ahead.
Thomas Frontino: can you repeat the question.
Zach Coughlin: can you explain how it could not be contradictory for you to
originally testify that basing the permissibliy of the serach upon failure to give
consentto the search was not discussed, and then you testified that is was
discussed, and then now you are testifying that it wasn't discussed?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection calls for a conclusion.
Hon. Judge Howard: do you understand.
Thomas Frontino: I don't think I do.
Zach Coughlin: was there a discussion related to whether it was illegal to base the
search upon a failure to consent to a search, and you said yes.
Thomas Frontino: I will respond as best I am able to. Perhaps its best to start with
they asked if they could do a weapon pat down search, you consented to that, they
did an outside pat down. After you became non compliant, and uncooperative
with the investigation and asked for an attorney, you were placed under arrest.
They arrested you put handcuffs on you, whatever they do, they then emptied
your pockets, as they do with every other person they put under arrest, at which
time we then recovered more stolen merchandise, which was the cough drops...It
was at that time that you said I didn't consent to a search, your can't, I ...I didn't
give you consent to search me.
Zach Coughlin: Do you feel, Mr. Frontino, that ever time I put forth to you the
inconsistency and contradictions in your testimony that you respond by talking
about things that are completely unrelated....
Basically, to Wal-Mart's Frontin and the RSIC Officer's non-compliant includes
20
failing to do anything they ask a suspect to do, or any assertion by the suspect that he or she
21
may have some sort of rights. Further, it was reversible error for RMC Judge Howard to find
22
Coughlin in direct contempt halfway through the Trial then expect Coughlin to continue
23
24
25
representing himself with the spectre of incarceration for such direct contempt looming:
27
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, you are telling me, I want to be clear about
this, that you are uncertain as to whether you personally possess this video tape?
Zach Coughlin: I though you said whether I possess evidence that would
impeach what he said and testified to as to where the candy bar was
28
Hon. Judge Howard: are you in possession of a video tape, yes or no?
26
49
312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Zach Coughlin: of a video tape? Sir, I am unclear on what you are...But, WalMart does have cameras all over the store, so, whether or not I am, I would think
it would be fairly easy for Wal-Mart to show where this alleged candy bar was
taken from and whether that jibes with what Mr. Frontino has just said.
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, I am going to hold you in contempt at this
point in time, I think that you have derogated the authority of the Court with
unprofessional conduct repeatedly, you've been given every opportunity to have
this matter expedited and proceed to trial and have a just finding but you
continue to interfere with that process. I make a finding that you are guilty of
direct contempt, I am going to hold off with imposition until this proceeding is
resolved. Alright, you can continue your line of inquiry.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that
statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate
10
the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of
11
12
criminal involvement. In turn, the law requires the person detained to identify himself, but
13
does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. ( Nev.
14
Rev. Stat. 171.123(3)). The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that identify himself
15
to mean to merely state his name. A majority of the United States Supreme Court held that
16
Mr. Hiibel had an obligation under Nev. Rev. Stat. 171.123(3) to answer an officers request
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
to state his name, but was under no obligation to show identification to that officer.
Yet, Coughlin did show his identification to Officer Crawford. Then, Crawford
proceeded to lie under oath in testifying that Coughlin failed to so provide his idenfiction. It
is indisputable that Coughlin provide Crawford his Nevada driver's license, as this is
supported by two videos, multiple photographs, the handwritten information Crawford copied
24
off Coughlin's driver's license to the arrest report, Coughlin's sworn declaration, and probably
25
the audio of Crawford radioing in Coughli's driver's license number to dispatch, had the local
26
law enforcement complied with Coughlin's request to so provide it.
27
28
50
313
Could it be that a suspect's allegedly failing to provide an Officer a response to his
query of whom do you work for does not quite justify the older I had to arrest him under
NRS 171.123 because I couldn't be sure of his identify approach, especially where the
Officer was given the suspect's driver's license, and ran a NCIS check on it by calling his
dispatch, wrote the driver's license number down on his contemporaneous Arrest Report and
6
7
Declaration of Probable Cause, and where the Officer is clearly seen being handed the driver's
license by Coughlin in the Wal-Mart interrogation room video? Any why is it that no other
video exists to support any of Wal-Mart and Frontino's allegation of Coughlin consuming this
10
or that or opening this or that, or throwing this or that away. If this had been a slip and fall
11
12
case you can bet Wal-Mart would have videos from more angles than a replay of a great catch
13
in the Super Bowl, with their stores having literally hundreds of those ceiling mounted camers
14
evenly dispersed throught the store and clearly visible to all. Oh, and, suprise, surprise, there
15
is no audio on either of the Interrogation Room videos provided by Wal-Mart, despite their
16
loss prevention associates carrying around recording devices throughout the entire incident,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
and the RSIC failed to provide any such recordings as well and indicated none exist.
How exactly was Frontino able to confirm they were the same cough drops that came
from the opened cough drop boxes from inside the store? Did these cough drops' have a
serial number attached to them? Maybe the inference is that these cough drops were of the
type one would find in a box with the UPC that appears on both receipts in Exhibit 1 (the
24
receipt for $14.72 containing the entries for the items allegedly consumed while shopping for
25
any paying for the entries on the receipt for $83.82), however, at trial, testimony was the
26
unsupportable and disengenous position that Frontino knew they were the exact cough
27
28
drops that were formerly in the boxes that Frontino had gathered, and not from the box of the
51
314
1
2
3
same Duract Cough Melts (again, bearing the same UPC) that appeared on Coughlin's $83.82
receipt.
Lacking any real probable cause to arrest, especially for the alleged misdemeanor not
4
5
6
committed in the Officer's presence, after 7 p.m., (see, below, NRS 171.124(1)(a))), RSIC
Officer Crawford, a trainee being overseen by Officer Braunworth, who could barely
remember his own name on the witness stand at trial, was left to the dubious at best allegation
that he had to make an arrest because Coughlin failed to provide his driver's license( this
assertion was dubious at best, and fraudulent police misconduct done under color of state law
10
11
best, considering this occurred at a retail property owned by the same entity, the Reno Sparks
12
Indian Colony, that owns and runs the RSIC police force, and which partners with and rents to
13
land on which this Wal-Mart sits, to its business partner, Wal-Mart, considering that the
14
interrogation room videos propounded by the City of Reno itself, and filmed by Wal-Mart
15
clearly show Officer Crawfor being handed Coughlin's driver's license by Coughlin and
16
17
Crawford's written report has, in Crawford's own handwriting, the exact driver's license
18
number belonging to Coughlin on the suspects information portion of the report, in addition
19
to other information taken directdly off of the driver's license Coughlin provided to
20
21
22
23
Crawford). Further, Coughlin's attempts to obtain the dispatch calls and records and any 911
calls made by Wal-Mart, where met with contradictory responses and obfuscation.
Nonetheless, upon information and belief, such records would show what the interrogation
24
room video shows, ie, Officer Crawford using his radio to call into dispatch and run a check
25
for priors on Coughlin utilizing Coughlin's drivers license number. Indeed, the NCIS reports
26
and records likely are required to show when such a report was run and by whom, and Officer
27
28
Crawford's subsequent mincing assertion on the witness stand that the Washoe County Jail
52
315
provided him Coughlin's driver's license number is not only counter to privacy laws and
Washoe County Jail policy and procedure, it is also blatantly false and a pathetic attempt to
game the system under color of state law. To the extent that City of Reno Deputy Prosecutor
Pamela Roberts, Esq., was in possession of these interrogation room videos and continue to
facilitate Officer Crawford's apparent perjury, or, at least, glaring mis-rememberance, it
6
7
should mitigate any anger or retaliation made against Coughlin for attachign as an exhibit to a
pretrial motion the various law reviews related to prosecutorial misconduct that former
prosecutor, RMC Judge Howard, seemed to find so offensive and offputting.
10
11
A minute by minute chronology reveals that the $83.82 receipt was issued at 21:14 on
12
September 9th, 2011. The $14.74 receipt that Wal-Mart created to support its valuation of the
13
items allegedly consumed while shopping but not paid for was created some ten minutes later
14
at 21:24 (military time, 24 hour clock). The RSIC Police Officers Cameron Crawford and The
15
time stamping on the two Interrogation Room videos provided by Wal-Mart indicate the
16
17
interrogation ran from 21:17 to 21:39. Coughlin provided RSIC Officer Crawford his driver's
18
license at approximately 21:23 (the 6 minute 49 second mark of the Interrogation Room
19
video). Crawfords Incident Report indicates he transported Coughlin at 22:00 to the Washoe
20
21
22
23
County Jail. The Interrogation Room videos made by Wal-Mart (the one's where Frontino is
seen high fiving a Wal-Mart cohort, and seen giving the RSIC officers a cd/dvd, despite the
fact that later on both Wal-Mart's Frontino and the RSIC Officers Crawford and Braunworth
24
testified that other than the two Interrogation Room videos, no other videos were provided to
25
the RSIC PD, nor was any other relevant action caught on video from that night. Wal-Mart's
26
Thomas Frontino's Supplemental Witness Statement Form is dated September 9th, 2011 with a
27
28
time of 22:13 and lists his Residence Address as 2425 E. Second St., Reno 89502, which is
53
316
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
the address given for the Wal-Mart as well, in violation of the Sixth Amendment Right of
Confrontation.
Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino, Loss Prevention Associate's Supplemental Witness
Statement Form of September 9th, 2011, with a time completed handwritten in as 22:13 (10:13
p.m.) reads:
On 09/0912011 at about 8:45 PM I noticed a male customer who I had
previous encounters with who we had followed for suspicious activities in
the past. As I followed him around the store he made his way back and forth
across the store. He selected various items such as candy and cough medicine
and some various other food items. He opened two packages of cough drops
and concealed the contents inside his pockets. He then threw the packaging
to the cough drops in two different garbage cans in the store. One in the
candy aisle and one in the soda aisle.
He also selected a chocolate bar which he proceeded to open and eat
throughout the store. When he was finished shopping he went to register 17
and paid for the rest of the merchandise that he had selected. He did not
however make any attempt to pay for the chocolate bar and cough drops he
had selected. He concealed the wrapper to the candy in the cart and covered
it with sanitizer wipes. He then exited the facility via the grocery doors.
Once completely outside the facility, I approached him with Stanley
Cunningham and identified myself as Wal-mart asset protection and
informed him that I needed him to reenter the facility so that we would be
able to complete our investigation. He was compliant at this time and
followed us to the office. At this time became non compliant. The police
arrived on scene and took over the investigation. When asked by the officers
if he would consent to a pat down he complied. Also after he was placed
under arrest by the officer his belongings were emptied from his pants
pockets and we were also able to recover some of the cough drops that he
had concealed on his person. He then became very non-compliant with the
officers questioning. He was arrested and removed from our facility. He was
also tresspased at this time from all Wal-Mart facilities. Video evidence will
also be compiled.
NRS 171.124(1)(a)):Arrest by peace officer or officer of Drug Enforcement
Administration.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 and NRS 33.070 and
33.320, a peace officer or an officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration
designated by the Attorney General of the United States for that purpose
28
54
317
1
2
may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or

may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officers presence.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of

criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation:
Limitations.
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters
under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has
committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to
ascertain the persons identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding
the persons presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify
himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other
inquiry of any peace officer.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any time after the
onset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained shall
be arrested if probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into the
circumstances which prompted the detention, no probable cause for arrest
appears, such person shall be released.
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal
behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing
or is about to commit a crime.
2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the
conditions of the persons parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the
persons identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the persons presence
abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be
compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the
purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not
extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was
first effected, unless the person is arrested.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)
28
55
318
1
2
NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any time after the onset of the
detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained shall be arrested if probable
cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the
detention, no probable cause for arrest appears, such person shall be released.
3
4
5
Wal-Mart's Frontino's sworn Criminal Complaint, however, fails to make any indication
of just how he knew or why he believed Coughlin violated RMC 8.10.040. To the extent that
6
7
Frontino writes, in his own hand, that the items taken or carried away (despite Frontino, if not
the various news outlets covering this case, actually testifying that he watched Coughlin
consume the chocolate bar while shopping) included a chocolate bar when the UPC of the
10
11
receipt for the allegedly stolen items, provided by Wal-Mart, actually reveals that UPC to
belong to a Magnum Double Caramel Ice Cream Bar, the Complaint fails to pled with the sort
12
13
of specificity necessary to sustain a prosecution, much less the temporary suspension of one's
14
law license. Attorney's conduct in continuing to cross-examine police officer after judge had
15
ruled that police log was not admissible was not contempt where attorney claimed that he was
16
trying to impeach witnesses' memory, not lay foundation for admission of log, so that his
17
18
conduct could not be said to be willful. United States v Giovanelli (1990, CA2 NY) 897 F2d
19
1227. Resort to summary disposition of criminal contempt proceeding under Rule 42(a),
20
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is permissible only when express requirements of rule are
21
met and when there is compelling reason for immediate remedy or when time is of essence.
22
Thus, attorney's conviction for criminal contempt in pursuing line of questioning forbidden by
23
24
court would be reversed, since record showed that there was no compelling need for immediate
25
remedy provided by Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that trial court, by its
26
own actions, did not consider time to be of essence; trial court should have observed "normal"
27
procedure" of notice and hearing, provided by Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
28
56
319
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
U.S. v. Moschiano, 695 F.2d 236, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 124 (7th Cir. 1982). See United States
v Turner (1987, CA11 Ala) 812 F2d 1552, 14.
NRS 171.102 Complaint defined; oath or declaration required. The
complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the public
offense charged. It must be made upon:
1. Oath before a magistrate or a notary public; or
2. Declaration which is made subject to the penalty for perjury.
Further, it was reversible error for Judge Howard to refuse Coughlin to pursue a line of
questioning establishing a retaliatory motive on Wal-Mart's part, while allowing Wal-Mart's
9
10
Frontino to make wild hearsay-based accusations regarding matters far afield from the mattters
11
on trial. So Wal-Mart's Frontino gets to be non-responsive, and instead make highly
12
prejudicial, hearsay-based allegations, but Coughlin is not allowed to rebut those allegations?
13
Further, Coughlin is prohibited from pursuing a line of question to establish a retaliatory intent
14
towards Coughlin on the part of Wal-Mart:
15
16
(3:13:34 pm)
17
Zach Coughlin: And who made that statement?
18
Thomas Frontino: AP associates and electronics assocites and electronics

associates.
19
Zach Coughlin: What are their names?
20
Thomas Frontino: Stanley Cunningham and there is another female who works in
electronics, Jessie.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin: Jessie What?

Thomas Frontino: I don't know here last name. I believe Alexis Trundy who now
works at a different facility. My supervisor Anthony Rickerson.
Zach Coughlin: who is the gentleman with shaved head, seems to be maybe
Customer Service Manager or an assistant store manger?
Hon. Judge Howard: what is the relevance to this line of questioning.
Zach Coughlin: well, the Jessie, that Frontino refers to ...there was an incident
where she accused me of something nd this CSM or Senior Wal-Mart manager
came over and was able to verify that her accusations were unfounded or
baseless.
57
320
1
2
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't see any relevance, and yes, its sua sponte, I m not
going to allow this line of inquiry. Lets speed up this process, ask another
question.
Zach Coughlin: Yes, Sir, okay, just quickly, state the objection...He is making
these accusations that are prejudicial and to the extent I have a right to rebut them
I wish to do so...
Hon. Judge Howard: I have ruled on it already ask another question...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(3:46:14 pm)
Zach Coughlin: when the police arrived on the scene, did you make statements to
the police regarding previous interactions with the accused?
Thomas Frontino: I believe I did make the statements that I had followed you in
that past, that I had seen you in the past select and consume a package of
M&M's, that you had a long standing history with the store, that our management
had already wanted to have you trespassed but had that far failed to have an
opprotunity to do so.
Zach Coughlin: Was the reason they wanted to have the accused trespassed based
upon a retaliatory motive in conjunction with the accused's attempts to hold WalMart to the Return Policy which is incorporated into all sales they make and
which is clearly and expressly displayed both in the stores and on Wal-Mart's
website.
15
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: I am going to object calls for him to speculate
into the minds of the managers as to why they wanted to trespass him.
16
Hon. Judge Howard: Do you know anything about that?
17
Thomas Frontino: I can speak to some of it, from my side, technically there are
two different operations in the store, there are operations that deal with
customers, and there is asset protection which we are technically field asociates,
so we had our own reasons for wanting to have you trespassed from the facility
based upon our own dealings with you, we meaning my manager Anthony
Rickerson, Sean who is another assitant manager who is aware of you, Alodia,
who is another assistant manager who signed your trespass form.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Zach Coughlin: When you say we, are you just referring to individuals who work
with you in your particular AP group or in your particular Wal-Mart store?
Thomas Frontino: We do communicate between stores via email, we all have
access to the same database called Apis A.P.I.S.
25
Zach Coughlin: Did you communicate about me with other stores or did anybody
else at your store?
26
Thomas Frontino: Not to my knowledge.
27
28
Coughlin: , so if the West 7th St. Walmart made a retaliatory threat to the accused
in conjunction with the accused pointing out that the managers, who had been
there for over ten years, seem to conveniently forget the Return Policy
58
321
whenever the numbers don't work out in a way that makes them happy, is that
something you would have never been informed of
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection , relevance
Hon. Judge Howard: what is the relevance of this?
Zach Coughlin: retaliatory motive, specifically for frontino or others to lie
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Thomas Frontino: I get paid...

Hon. Judge Howard: Hold on, hold on. Objection sustained. I have given you a
great deal of latitude. We have had this witness testify for over an hour. We are
going ot get through this trial tongith. The court has a perogative to expedite this
proceeding. In the future if you inquire into matters that are not relevant, whether
or not the city objects, I am going to cut you off.
Zach Coughlin: are you aware that an ap associate from Walmart made threats to
the accused that he would retaliate against they accused for trying to assert his
rights under the Return Policy that Walmart puts forth to customers, by having
him banned from all walmarts and or maliciously prosecuted.
12
Thomas Frontino: no, other than previous to court that several things were
mentioned before that, no.
13
(3:53:47 pm)
14
Zach Coughlin: so you never communicated about the accused with any other
walmart.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Thomas Frontino: we don't communicate directly through Apis its simply a

database. I have never receive a picture or an email about you.
Zach Coughlin: have you felt any pressure from your managers to retaliate
against someone, maybe a documentary filmmaker who is investigating
Hon. Judge Howard: you don't have to answer that question, that is irrelvant to
this proceeding. Another question.
Zach Coughlin: Do you believe your employer retaliates against individuals who
shine light on their employers failure to abide by their own Return Policy?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection Relevanace
22
Hon. Judge Howard: sustained.
23
Zach Coughlin: so the issue of whether his employer is pressuring him to retaliate
is not relevant
24
25
Hon. Judge Howard: thats right, I don't find it relevant, ask another question!
In his testimony during the November 30th, 2011 trial, Thomas Frontino apparently
26
27
28
realized that he needed to say something to the effect that he personally witnessed Coughlin
consuming the cough drops in the store. So, Thomas Frontino testified, under oath, the he
59
322
personally witness Coughlin consuming the cough drops throughout the store (He opened two
packages of cough drops and concealed the contents inside his pockets...). However, in his
Supplemental Witness Statement Form, Frontino does not say that. There is no mention of
seeing Coughlin consume any cough drops throughout the store. In fact, at trial, Frontino
slipped up and had to admit that official Wal-Mart policy prevented him from following
6
7
Coughlin into the restroom while he was shopping, which was unfortunate, according to
Frontino, because he wanted to see if Coughlin did anything with the cough drops in the
restroom, but could not. At trial, Frontino decided it would just be more expeditious and
10
accomplish his goals quicker to say that he personally eye witnessed Coughlin consuming the
11
12
13
14
15
cough drops while shopping.

Frontino then goes on to indicate that Coughlin also selected a chocolate bar which he
proceeded to open and eat throughout the store. At trial Frontino took great care to make clear
that he personally eye witnessed Coughlin select that exact chocolate bar from the candy
16
17
isle. Frontino was nonplussed when, on cross examination, it was pointed out to him that the
18
UPC for the chocolate bar from the candy isle was actually the UPC for an ice cream bar from
19
the refrigerated/frozen food isle.
20
21
22
23
Frontino then indicates that Coughlin did not however make any attempt to pay for the
chocolate bar and cough drops he had selected. However, at Trial, Frontino had to admit that
he was too far away from Coughlin and the cashier to hear whether or not Coughlin made any
24
attempt to pay for either the chocolate bar or the cough drops. Frontino was sure to attest,
25
under oath, at trial, that he was absolutely sure and completely able to tell from his vantage
26
point some approximately 30 yards from register 17 where Coughlin paid for the items he
27
28
selected while shopping to ascertain that none of the items the cashier rang up had the same
60
323
UPC as, say, the cough drops. However, Exhibit 1 clearly shows that Frontino was, wrong
about that given that both the receipt for $14.72 and the receipt for $83.82 have an entry for the
same Duract Cough Melt cough drops (containing 12 lozenges (2 separate foil sheet with 6
lozenges on each sheet) with 30 mg Dextromethophan HBr (DXM) in them.
Wal-Mart's Frontino then writes that He concealed the wrapper to the candy in the cart
6
7
and covered it with sanitizer wipes. However, Frontino then testified that there was absolutely
no video evidence supporting that accusation, despite the fact that the areas around cashiers are
typically subject to particularly high video scrutiny. Frontino testified that he review the video
10
from all cameras wherein Coughlin appeared in the store that day and that nothing was captured
11
12
13
on video.
Frontino cannot be said to have made an arrest immediately after the alleged infraction
14
occurred where, in his Supplemental Witness Statement he writes: informed him that I needed
15
him to reenter the facility so that we would be able to complete our investigation. He was
16
compliant at this time and followed us to the office. At this time became non compliant. The
17
18
police arrived on scene and took over the investigation.
19
Frontino's written statement is noticeably devoid of any assertions concerning the
20
questioning by the RSIC Officers and the probable cause analysis and inquiry attendant thereto.
21
Frontino's Written Statement concludes by noting that video evidence will also be compiled.
22
Indeed, in the Interrogation Room video Frontino is seen handing a cv/dvd to the RSIC Officers
23
24
Further basis for finding reversible error or a procedural and substantive infirmities and
25
curiousities in the criminal conviction at bar resides in examing RMC Judge Howard's practice
26
of making exclamations which would tend to prevent a reasonable person from feeling safe to
27
preserve one's objections for appeal:
28
61
324
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
Hon. Judge Howard: Well, I am going to deny your request.. NRS 170.4125
motions are required to be made prior to trial you failed to do that in written form
and I am not going to consider them at this point in time because there have the
obvious effect of continuing this preceding today and I think that's what you're
going after.
Coughlin: and I'll just interject an objection.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't want to hear anything further, its denied.
Coughlin: I need to enter my objections for the record.
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, I have given you fair warning if you continue
to persist in this line of performance I'm going to hold you in contempt (2:29 PM)
Coughlin: I won't be bullied into not entering my objections on the record.
Hon. Judge Howard: This matter will be continued because you're going to be
placed in custody now, you've been given fair warning, let's proceed.
Coughlin: Your Honor may I enter my objections in the record to preserve them for
the record on appeal?
Hon. Judge Howard: Go ahead.
Coughlin: It seems as though you've just told me that I may not because you just
told me you are going to have to be arrested if I do so I am a little scared to do that
at this point Your Honor and I move for your recusal from this case on that basis
Hon. Judge Howard: denied.
Coughlin: Okay,then can I enter my objections for the record and state the basis for
my objections for the motions in limine?
Hon. Judge Howard:Mr. Coughlin: let's proceed, make your objections on the
record now, go ahead.
Coughlin: Okay, I don't mean to provide a reason to get angry.. Those motions
were submitted, I believe I have submitted those motions in writing.
Hon. Judge Howard: and they have been denied.
Coughlin: well it seemed as though a second ago Your Honor said that they had not
been submitted in writing
Hon. Judge Howard: All right! (pounds fist on desk making very loud sound,
courtroom microphone malfunctions with feedback for a period of time )
(2:30:06: p.m.)
Hon. Judge Howard: anything further?
Coughlin: I do.. I am terribly shaken by what you said to me, Sir, and it's affected
my ability to concentrate right now and defend my case given the 0 to 60 in one
second approach that I have witnessed you take with me today in terms of
threatening me with contempt upon the first attempt I believe I made to preserve
and objections for the record further I believe my motion for reconsideration the
denial of appointed counsel, but it was never ruled on. There is a Sixth
Amendment right to counsel where the possibility of jail time is.
Hon. Judge Howard: your initial motion has been previously denied. I'll deny it
again in regard to motion for counsel I'll deny it again for the record that is founded
upon Scott versus Illinois which held that where an indigent individual, as you
claim you are, is not going to be sentenced to jail time, there is no requirement of
the appointment of counsel... (2:47:33 pm).
28
62
325
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...Coughlin: I am asking Mr. Frontino what he does to ascertain whether or not

there was, in fact, the requisite intent or whether or not someone who is accused of
these crimes might have sampled something and found it to be unsaleable?
(4:20:42 p.m.)
Howard: It has no relevance to these proceedings, it has no relevance.
Coughlin: Okay, and I'll just preserve my objection to that for the record, I do
believe it goes to...
Howard: You keep talking over my rulings, and I have warned you about that
haven't I. I have indicated that you have an opportunity and you've expressed your
understanding of your right to appeal. The next time that you talk over one of my
decisions or rulings, I am going to hold you in contempt again, you have fair
warning.
Coughlin: I am sorry, Your Honor, I was always under the understanding that if I
did not specifically state my objection for the record, I would be precluded from
later on arguing that on appeal, I don't mean to disrespect you, Sir.
Howard: Ask another question. I have made myself clear, you understand it. Ask
another question...
Just as another indicator of the extent to which the City of Reno Prosecutor Roberts and
14
Wal-Mart's Frontino were apparently willing to present testimony that was patently false (as
15
evinced by Wal-Mart's own interrogation room videos, as provided to Coughlin through
16
Prosecutor Roberts), Frontino clearly fails to tell the truth when describing how he himself
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prepared the receipt purporting to show the entries for the candy bar and cough drops he
alleged were stolen:
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: did you recover the candy bar wrapper that
was associate with the candy bar you saw Mr. Coughlin consume?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I did, and prepared a receipt to indicate what they value
of those items are by taking the exact wrapper of the item and preparing a
traning receipt so we can get the exact value of what they sell for in Reno
(2:56:59 pm)
Zach Coughlin: Objection hearsay
Hon. Judge Howard: Overruled! Did you hear me, Sir? Did you hear that?
(2:57:17 pm)
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did you actually conduct the scanning of
those items to creat the training receipt
63
326
1
2
3
4
5
Thomas Frontino: I don't have a cashier number so I go with them and stand
with them and watch while they scan the items to create the receipt.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: So you actually observe them going through
the motion of scanning the items and preparing the receipt?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I do.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Wish to enter as Exhibit 1 the receipt
Zach Coughlin: Objection: foundation and authentication, best evidence rule
Thomas Frontino: I identify this as a training receipt with a list of items which
he consumed or removed from the facility, including the chocolate bar and the
cough drops, I have the actual receipt with me and that photocopy is consistent
with it.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Zach Coughlin: objection basis of lack of foundation, authentication, best

evidence rule, he is not qualified to testify with regard to the business practices
of his employer in this particular circumstance, relevancy, to what extent is this
probative....
...Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: He personally observed this document
being produced by the maching and saw the items that he saw consumed or
stolen by the defendant scanned into the register.
Hon. Judge Howard: Objection overruled, admitted.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: no further questions of this witness...
The videos provided by Wal-Mart of the interaction with Coughlin, Wal-Mart
personnel and the RSIC Officers in Wal-Mart's interrogation room clearly show Frontino
18
19
remaining in the room the entire time that the allegedly stolen items were taken away by his
20
associate and a Customer Service Mananager, whereupon they subsequently returned with the
21
alleged receipt referred to above. Clearly, Frontino and Roberts carefully worked through
22
the buzz word jungle in prepping for the above testimony, the only problem is their own video
23
24
25
26
27
shows that Frontino is lying that regard and that Prosecutor Roberts is committing
professional misconduct.
Further, this criminal conviction is or should be void given the City of Reno's failure
to establish jurisdiction for this matter before the Reno Municipal Court, rather than a Tribal
28
64
327
Court. Given the extent to which Officer Crawford et al hang their hat on their assertions that
Coughlin failed to provide much of any identifying information, it could hardly be said that
Coughlin volunteered the nature of his race. Coughlin did not identify his race to anyone
that night. NRCP 60(b)(4), void for lack of jurisdiction. For any criminal violation allegedly
occuring on Indian Colony land, anyone with a drop of tribal blood must be tried in tribal
6
7
8
9
court.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: He personally observed this document
being produced by the maching and saw the items that he saw consumed or
stolen by the defendant scanned into the register.
10
Hon. Judge Howard: Objection overruled, admitted.
11
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: no further questions of this witness...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The appellate Court in this case noted, in its decision affirming the decision of the Trial
Court that:
It is worth noting that, pursuant to NRS 4.410(2), "[Ole fees for transcripts and
copies [of municipal court proceedings] must be paid by the party ordering them.
In a civil case the preparation of the transcript need not commence until the fees
have been deposited with the deputy clerk of the court." Accordingly, NRS
189.030, which requires the municipal court to transmit various papers to the
district court upon appeal, does not require action until such fees have been paid.
Here, it appears that Appellant never paid the requisite fees to secure the
transcription of the proceedings. For this reason, the appellate record Is
incomplete.
NRS 189.030 Transmission of transcript, other papers, sound recording
and copy of docket to district court.
1. The justice shall, within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, transmit
to the clerk of the district court the transcript of the case, all other papers
relating to the case and a certified copy of the docket.
2. The justice shall give notice to the appellant or the appellant's attorney that
the transcript and all other papers relating to the case have been filed with the
clerk of the district court.
3. If the district judge so requests, before or after receiving the record, the
justice of the peace shall transmit to the district judge the sound recording of the
case.
NRS4.410(2)Compensation for preparing transcript....
28
65
328
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
2.The compensation for transcripts and copies must be paid by the party
ordering them. In a civil case, the preparation of the transcript need not
commence until the compensation has been deposited with the court reporter.
The conviction forming the basis of the SCR 111 Petition which resulted in Coughlin's
temporary suspension in Nevada was appealed in CR11-2064, an appeal of a criminal
conviction in a criminal case. Clearly, the import of NRS 4.410(2) and NRS 189.030(1)-(2) is
that the justice shall see that the transcripts preparation commence regardless of whether
compensation had been deposited with the court report and that the justice shall give notice to
the appellant or the appellant's attorney that the transcript and all other papers relating to the
case have been filed with the clerk of the district court.... It is not permissible for the Reno
Municipal Court to apply the law differently to itself or otherwise seek to, in a criminal case
where defendant's freedom and, as here, protected Fourteenth Amendment property interests
(two different professional law licenses) may be adversely affected or taken away. There is a
reason why a distinction is made between civil and criminal matters. Criminal matters require a
higher burden of protection because they threaten to take away something more primary to
defendant's than could a civil matter. It is impermissible for the RMC to force defendant's to
have skin in the game whilst refusing to honor the law in the RMC's failure to ensure the
preparation and filing of the transcript with the appellate court. It is not an optional thing, to
be followed at the RMC's pleasure. Coughlin attests that he made every reasonable effort to
communicate with the court reporter mentioned by RMC filing office staff as the only
acceptable choice, in a timely manner, but that that individual, Pam Longoni.
SCR Rule111.Attorneys convicted of crimes.
6.Definition of serious crime.The term serious crime means (1) a
felony and (2) any crime less than a felony a necessary element of which is,
as determined by the statutory or common-law definition of the crime,
improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of
justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file an
income tax return, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an
attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a serious
crime.
28
66
329
1
2
3
De Minimis Exception to SCR 111 serious crime Standard:

It is not clear how the conduct Coughlin was accused of and for which a conviction was
issued is technically theft based instead of some variation of a destruction of property
4
5
crime. Coughlin was accused of consuming a candy bar and some cough drops while
shopping for any paying for some $83.82 worth of groceries. Coughlin had never been
charged with any sort of theft based offense previously, ie, a first time accusation, yet the City
of Reno refused to even consider any plea bargaining. However, there is some suggestion that
9
10
a de minimis exception or approach to other attorney convictions for petty theft has been
11
followed by past Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Nevada, and it is unclear how this
12
conviction, for $14.00 of food consumables and or over the counter medication would not
13
auger for a similar application.
14
15
State v. Nevens, 197 N.J. Super. 531, 485 A.2d 345 (1984): The judicial system must
16
once again rely on the trial courts as the gatekeeper. The Legislature has established a self-
17
regulating provision in the Code that can be used to protect against frivolous prosecutions
18
under the 1991 Act. The gap-filler measure is the de minimis infraction provision.. It
19
provides: The assignment judge may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of
20
21
the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it
22
finds that the defendant's conduct: a. Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither
23
expressly negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the
24
purpose of the law defining the offense; b. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil
25
26
sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to
27
warrant the condemnation of conviction; or c. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot
28
reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense...The

67
330
drafters of the MPC the historical basis for that section as a kind of unarticulated authority
to mitigate the general provisions of the criminal law to prevent absurd applications.
(dismissing theft charge stemming from the defendant's taking of a few pieces of fruit from a
buffet table); State v. Nevens, 197 N.J.Super. 531, 534, 485 A.2d 345, (Law Div. 1984).
5
6
7
In State v. Nevens, Mr. Nevens and his wife, after eating lunch at the Cornucopia Buffet
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
in the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City, decided to leave the buffet with several pieces of fruit
and eat them outside for dessert. Mr. Nevens was later stopped on the boardwalk by hotel
security guards and charged with theft of two bananas, an orange, an apple and a pear. The court
held that Nevens was not stockpiling food since he did not attempt to take enough food to
satisfy one additional meal for either himself or his wife and characterized the entire infraction
as de minimis.
State v. Smith, 195 N.J.Super. 468, 477, 480 A.2d 236 (Law Div.1984) (stating that
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
statute
avoids an injustice in a case of technical but trivial guilt). In State v. Smith, the defendant was
charged with shoplifting three pieces of bazooka bubble gum valued at $. 15 from a "7-11"
convenience store. ' The defendant moved for a dismissal of his prosecution based upon the "de
minimis" doctrine. The court noted that "[i]n the milieu of bubble gum pilferage the only cases
more trivial were those involving two pieces or one"' and subsequently dismissed the case.'
State v. Smith, 195 N.J.Super. 468, 477, 480 A.2d 236 (Law Div.1984).
People v Curtis, NY Slip Op 51717(U), 2 Misc 2d 1003(4), 784 NYS 2d 922, (2003):
defendant was observed by the deponent store detective at a Stop & Shop store, to take a bottle
of Advil valued at $6.59, place it in her pocket book and walk out of the store without paying
for the medication. Defendant was arraigned on March 3, 2003, at which time the court, sua
sponte, dismissed the complaint in the furtherance of justice pursuant to CPL 170.40...
28
68
331
At hearing, the parties stipulated that defendant has had no prior contacts with the
criminal justice system, is a well respected public school teacher who has taught kindergarten
for 21 years and at the time of the incident her life was consumed by her role as sole caregiver
for her terminally ill husband, who died prior to the hearing date. It was also noted at hearing
that defendant had been removed from working in the classroom by her employer as a result
6
7
of her arrest,, the New York State Legislature replaced the common law doctrine of "nolle
prosequi", which granted to the prosecutor discretion to discontinue a prosecution in progress,
by permitting the court to dismiss an indictment "in the furtherance of justice." Id.
10
Coughlin, on his own behalf, filed a MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR PLED IN THE
11
12
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND on March 26the, 2012 in the appeal of
13
the petty larceny conviction in CR11-2064 in the Second Judicial District Court. The City of
14
Reno failed to file an Opposition, but rather filed a Motion to Strike. Under DCR 13(3) and
15
Polk the City of Renos failure to oppose Coughlins March 26th, 2012 Motion operates as an
16
admission by the City of Reno of the merit of Coughlins argument. This combined with the
17
18
failure of the RMC to ever prepare the transcript in this criminal case, in violation of NRS
19
189.030, augurs for reversing the criminal conviction or otherwise vitiating the import of it
20
for the purposes of deciding whether to apply a temporary suspension of Coughlin's license:
21
Failure to Address Issue in Brief, Unfortunate Outcome: Polk v. State, 126 Nev. Adv.
22
23
Op. No. 19 (June 3, 2010). The Polk decision is a cautionary tale for attorneys in appellate
24
practice. The court took the opportunity to express its displeasure with the state for its failure to
25
address the constitutional issue raised by Polk. This is a significant constitutional issue that
26
compels a response. As a sanction, the court granted Polks motion to exclude the states oral
27
28
argument on the constitutional issues and harmless error. Accordingly, since the state was
69
332
1
2
3
4
deemed to have failed to respond to Polks constitutional claims, the court reversed the
conviction and remanded for a new trial, which, in this case, will be the third. Id.
The City Attorney filed a Motion on the day after Coughlins March 26th, 2012 Motion,
but that was a Motion, not an Opposition. Additionally, upon information and belief, the RMC
5
6
does not have any signed acknowledgment by Coughlin that he was provided any real and clear
directions for effectuating the preparation of this transcript (nor does the Record on Appeal in
CR11-2064 in the Second Judicial District Court for Washoe County contain any such record).
9
10
11
12
Degree or quantum of proof necessary to justify disbarment or suspension of attorney, 105

A.L.R. 984.
Nevada
13
14
15
16
17
18
Clarke, In re, 46 Nev. 304, 212 P. 1037 (1923): and that "courts will not
disbar on doubtful evidence," in Re Clarke, (1923) 46 Nev. 304, 212 P. 1037.
Copren v. State Bar, 64 Nev. 364, 183 P.2d 833, 173 A.L.R. 284 (1947): A higher degree of
proof is required in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney than is required to determine
19
questions of fact in the ordinary civil case or proceeding. Copren v. State Bar, 64 Nev. 364,
20
183 P.2d 833, 173 A.L.R. 284 (1947).
21
22
Davidson, In re, 64 Nev. 514, 186 P.2d 354 (1947): Evidence warranted finding that attorney
23
remunerated taxi driver for soliciting and obtaining professional employment for attorney in
24
divorce cases, justifying suspension from practice of law for 6 months. Rules of Professional
25
Conduct of State Bar, rule 3. In re Davidson, 64 Nev. 514, 186 P.2d 354 (1947).
26
27
28
Wright, In re, 68 Nev. 324, 232 P.2d 398 (1951): In disciplinary proceeding against attorney,
denial by board of governors of attorney application for change of venue on ground that
70
333
attorney could not obtain fair hearing before committee in and for district in which attorney
practiced was not error. N.C.L.1929, 8407, 8572, 10913. In re Wright, 68 Nev. 324, 232 P.2d
398 (1951)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
37 CFR 11.24 Reciprocal discipline.

(a) Notification of OED Director. Within thirty days of being publicly censured,
publicly reprimanded, subjected to probation, disbarred or suspended by another
jurisdiction, or being disciplinarily disqualified from participating in or appearing
before any Federal program or agency, a practitioner subject to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Office shall notify the OED Director in writing of the same. A
practitioner is deemed to be disbarred if he or she is disbarred, excluded on consent,
or has resigned in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding. Upon receiving notification
from any source or otherwise learning that a practitioner subject to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Office has been so publicly censured, publicly reprimanded,
subjected to probation, disbarred, suspended or disciplinarily disqualified, the OED
Director shall obtain a certified copy of the record or order regarding the public
censure, public reprimand, probation, disbarment, suspension or disciplinary
disqualification and file the same with the USPTO Director. The OED Director
shall, in addition, without Committee on Discipline authorization, file with the
USPTO Director a complaint complying with 11.34 against the practitioner
predicated upon the public censure, public reprimand, probation, disbarment,
suspension or disciplinary disqualification. The OED Director shall request the
USPTO Director to issue a notice and order as set forth in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Notification served on practitioner. Upon receipt of a certified copy of the record
or order regarding the practitioner being so publicly censured, publicly reprimanded,
subjected to probation, disbarred, suspended or disciplinarily disqualified together
with the complaint, the USPTO Director shall issue a notice directed to the
practitioner in accordance with 11.35 and to the OED Director containing:
21
(1) A copy of the record or order regarding the public censure, public reprimand,
probation, disbarment, suspension or disciplinary disqualification;
22
(2) A copy of the complaint; and
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) An order directing the practitioner to file a response with the USPTO Director
and the OED Director, within forty days of the date of the notice establishing a
genuine issue of material fact predicated upon the grounds set forth in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iv) of this section that the imposition of the identical public
disqualification would be unwarranted and the reasons for that claim.
(c) Effect of stay in another jurisdiction. In the event the public censure, public
reprimand, probation, disbarment, suspension imposed by another jurisdiction or
disciplinary disqualification imposed in the Federal program or agency has been
71
334
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
stayed, any reciprocal discipline imposed by the USPTO may be deferred until the
stay expires.
(d) Hearing and discipline to be imposed. (1) The USPTO Director shall hear the
matter on the documentary record unless the USPTO Director determines that an
oral hearing is necessary. After expiration of the forty days from the date of the
notice pursuant to provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the USPTO Director
shall consider any timely filed response and shall impose the identical public
disqualification unless the practitioner clearly and convincingly demonstrates,
and the USPTO Director finds there is a genuine issue of material fact that:
(i) The procedure elsewhere was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard
as to constitute a deprivation of due process;
(ii) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the conduct as to give rise to
the clear conviction that the Office could not, consistently with its duty, accept
as final the conclusion on that subject;
(iii) The imposition of the same public censure, public reprimand, probation,
disbarment, suspension or disciplinary disqualification by the Office would result in
grave injustice; or
(iv) Any argument that the practitioner was not publicly censured, publicly
reprimanded, placed on probation, disbarred, suspended or disciplinarily
disqualified.
(2) If the USPTO Director determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact,
the USPTO Director shall enter an appropriate final order. If the USPTO Director is
unable to make such determination because there is a genuine issue of material fact,
the USPTO Director shall enter an appropriate order:
(i) Referring the complaint to a hearing officer for a formal hearing and entry of an
initial decision in accordance with the other rules in this part, and
(ii) Directing the practitioner to file an answer to the complaint in accordance with
11.36.
(e) Adjudication in another jurisdiction or Federal agency or program. In all other
respects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction or Federal agency or program
that a practitioner, whether or not admitted in that jurisdiction, has been guilty of
misconduct shall establish a prima facie case by clear and convincing evidence that
the practitioner violated 37 CFR 10.23, as further identified under 37 CFR 10.23(c)
(5), (or any successor regulation identifying such public censure, public reprimand,
probation, disbarment, suspension or disciplinary disqualification as a basis for a
disciplinary proceeding in this Office).
(f) Reciprocal discipline-action where practice has ceased. Upon request by the
practitioner, reciprocal discipline may be imposed nunc pro tunc only if the
practitioner promptly notified the OED Director of his or her censure, public
reprimand, probation, disbarment, suspension or disciplinary disqualification in
another jurisdiction, and establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the
practitioner voluntarily ceased all activities related to practice before the Office and
72
335
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
complied with all provisions of 11.58. The effective date of any public censure,
public reprimand, probation, suspension, disbarment or disciplinary disqualification
imposed nunc pro tunc shall be the date the practitioner voluntarily ceased all
activities related to practice before the Office and complied with all provisions of
11.58.
(g) Reinstatement following reciprocal discipline proceeding. A practitioner may
petition for reinstatement under conditions set forth in 11.60 no sooner than
completion of the period of reciprocal discipline imposed, and compliance with all
provisions of 11.58.
37 CFR 11.25 Interim suspension and discipline based upon conviction of
committing a serious crime.
(a) Notification of OED Director. Upon being convicted of a crime in a court of the
United States or any State, or violating a criminal law of a foreign country, a
practitioner subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office shall notify the OED
Director in writing of the same within thirty days from the date of such conviction.
Upon being advised or learning that a practitioner subject to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Office has been convicted of a crime, the OED Director shall
make a preliminary determination whether the crime constitutes a serious crime
warranting interim suspension. If the crime is a serious crime, the OED Director
shall file with the USPTO Director proof of the conviction and request the USPTO
Director to issue a notice and order set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The
OED Director shall in addition, without Committee on Discipline authorization, file
with the USPTO Director a complaint against the practitioner complying with
11.34 predicated upon the conviction of a serious crime. If the crime is not a serious
crime, the OED Director shall process the matter in the same manner as any other
information or evidence of a possible violation of a Mandatory Disciplinary Rule
identified in 10.20 (b) of this subchapter coming to the attention of the OED
Director.
(b) Interim suspension and referral for disciplinary proceeding. All proceedings
under this section shall be handled as expeditiously as possible.
24
(1) The USPTO Director has authority to place a practitioner on interim suspension
after hearing the request for interim suspension on the documentary record.
(2) Notification served on practitioner. Upon receipt of a certified copy of the court
record, docket entry or judgment demonstrating that the practitioner has been so
convicted together with the complaint, the USPTO Director shall forthwith issue a
notice directed to the practitioner in accordance with 11.35(a), (b) or (c), and to
the OED Director, containing:
(i) A copy of the court record, docket entry, or judgment of conviction;
25
(ii) A copy of the complaint; and
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
(iii) An order directing the practitioner to file a response with the USPTO
Director and the OED Director, within forty days of the date of the notice,
establishing that there is a genuine issue of material fact that the crime did not
constitute a serious crime, the practitioner is not the individual found guilty of
73
336
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
the crime, or that the conviction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be

heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process.
(3) Hearing and final order on request for interim suspension. The request for
interim suspension shall be heard by the USPTO Director on the documentary
record unless the USPTO Director determines that the practitioner's response
establishes a genuine issue of material fact that: The crime did not constitute a
serious crime, the practitioner is not the person who committed the crime, or
that the conviction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process. If the USPTO Director determines that
there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defenses set forth in the
preceding sentence, the USPTO Director shall enter an appropriate final order
regarding the OED Director's request for interim suspension regardless of the
pendency of any criminal appeal. If the USPTO Director is unable to make such
determination because there is a genuine issue of material fact, the USPTO Director
shall enter a final order dismissing the request and enter a further order referring the
complaint to a hearing officer for a hearing and entry of an initial decision in
accordance with the other rules in this part and directing the practitioner to file an
answer to the complaint in accordance with 11.36.
(4) Termination. The USPTO Director has authority to terminate an interim
suspension. In the interest of justice, the USPTO Director may terminate an
interim suspension at any time upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances,
after affording the OED Director an opportunity to respond to the request to
terminate interim suspension.
(5) Referral for disciplinary proceeding. Upon entering a final order imposing
interim suspension, the USPTO Director shall refer the complaint to a hearing
officer to conduct a formal disciplinary proceeding. The formal disciplinary
proceeding, however, shall be stayed by the hearing officer until all direct appeals
from the conviction are concluded. Review of the initial decision of the hearing
officer shall be pursuant to 11.55.
(c) Proof of conviction and guilt-(1) Conviction in the United States. For purposes of
a hearing for interim suspension and a hearing on the formal charges in a complaint
filed as a consequence of the conviction, a certified copy of the court record, docket
entry, or judgment of conviction in a court of the United States or any State shall
establish a prima facie case by clear and convincing evidence that the practitioner
was convicted of a serious crime and that the conviction was not lacking in notice or
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process.
(2) Conviction in a foreign country. For purposes of a hearing for interim suspension
and on the formal charges filed as a result of a finding of guilt, a certified copy of
the court record, docket entry, or judgment of conviction in a court of a foreign
country shall establish a prima facie case by clear and convincing evidence that the
practitioner was convicted of a serious crime and that the conviction was not lacking
in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process.
However, nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the practitioner from
demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence in any hearing on a request for
interim suspension there is a genuine issue of material fact to be considered
74
337
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
when determining if the elements of a serious crime were committed in

violating the criminal law of the foreign country and whether a disciplinary
sanction should be entered.
(d) Crime determined not to be serious crime. If the USPTO Director determines
that the crime is not a serious crime, the complaint shall be referred to the
OED Director for investigation under 11.22 and processing as is appropriate.
(e) Reinstatement-(1) Upon reversal or setting aside a finding of guilt or a
conviction. If a practitioner suspended solely under the provisions of paragraph (b)
of this section demonstrates that the underlying finding of guilt or conviction of
serious crimes has been reversed or vacated, the order for interim suspension shall
be vacated and the practitioner shall be placed on active status unless the finding of
guilt was reversed or the conviction was set aside with respect to less than all
serious crimes for which the practitioner was found guilty or convicted. The
vacating of the interim suspension will not terminate any other disciplinary
proceeding then pending against the practitioner, the disposition of which shall be
determined by the hearing officer before whom the matter is pending, on the basis of
all available evidence other than the finding of guilt or conviction.
(2) Following conviction of a serious crime. Any practitioner convicted of a
serious crime and disciplined in whole or in part in regard to that conviction,
may petition for reinstatement under conditions set forth in 11.60 no sooner
than five years after being discharged following completion of service of his or
her sentence, or after completion of service under probation or parole,
whichever is later.
(f) Notice to clients and others of interim suspension. An interim suspension under
this section shall constitute a suspension of the practitioner for the purpose of
11.58.
Conclusion
18
19
20
21
Coughlin respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order granting this Petition for
Dissolution of
Temporary Suspension Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 102(4); and/or
alternatively, SCR 111(7) Petition to Show Good Cause For the Court To Set Aside Its Order
22
23
24
25
26
Temporarily Suspending Attorney From the Practice of Law or otherwise require the State Bar
of Nevada and the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board to expedite this process should the
suspension not be subject to dissolution.
Dated this August 13th, 2012 by
27
28
75
338
/s/ Zach Coughlin
1
2
3
Zach Coughlin
Petitioner
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
76
339
Proof of Service
1
2
I file and served this electronically and deposite for delivery in the United States mail to on
David Clark, Esq., Bar Counsel State Bar of Nevada
600 East Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas , NV 89104
Phone Number: 702-382-2200 Fax number: 702-385-2878 email: davidc@nvbar.org
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Patrick King, Esq. Assistant Bar Counsel State Bar of Nevada

9456 Double R Blvd. Suite B
Reno , NV 89521
Phone Number: 775-329-4100 Fax number: 775-329-0522 Email: patrickk@nvbar.org
J. Thomas Susich, Esq., Chair, Northen Nevada Disciplinary Board
Nevada Employment Security Division
1675 E. Prater Way Suite 103
Sparks , NV 89434
Phone Number: 775-284-9533 Fax number: 775-284-9513 Email: tsusich@nvdetr.org
William R. Covey, Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline and Director of the Office of
Enrollment and DisEsqcipline, by telephone at (571) 272-4097.
16
17
Dated this August 13th, 2012 by
18
19
20
21
_/S/ Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin
Petitioner
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
77
340
1
2
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OFElectronically

NEVADA
Filed
ZACH COUGHLIN
5
Appellant
6
7 v.
Oct 21 2013 10:16 a.m.
)
Tracie K. Lindeman
)
)
) Supreme Court No: 61383
)
)
8 MATT MERLISS, MERLISS LIVING TRUST,

9
Respondent
10
Petition for En Banc Reconsideration.

11
12
COME NOW Zachary Barker Coughlin, in proper person, as Appellants, and hereby submit
13
their PETITION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION. Coughlin v. Merliss, Case No. 61383
14
15
PETITION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION
16
This Appeal brings a single, clear, material, and unambiguous question of law to this Court
17
(see POINTS & AUTHORITIES, page 4); and A petition for en banc reconsideration is allowed to
18
secure or to maintain uniformity of this Courts decisions (NRAP 40A(a)(1)), and the instant Appeal
19
has resulted in inconsistent holdings by this Court (see POINTS & AUTHORITIES, page 5); and A
20
21
petition for en banc reconsideration is allowed when the proceeding involves substantial precedential,
22
constitutional, or public policy issues (NRAP 40A(a)(2)), and the question brought by the instant
23
Appeal brings all three (see POINTS & AUTHORITIES, pages 5, 6, and 7).
24
In this Appeal, Petitioners presented a few, simple question of law to this court, with
25
arguments and citations to this Courts own opinions and to other authorities. Despite the absence of
26
27
28
any contrary arguments or authority, and despite a petition for rehearing (denied by this Court), this
Court has failed to address the single, clearly stated question brought by this Appeal. In its ORDER
- 1/11 -
AMENDMENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL, OR REQUEST TO SUBMIT SUCH AS TO THE

PETITION FOR REHEARING
341
OF AFFIRMANCE (15 September 2011) this Court completely avoided and ignored the single issue
brought before it. (see PETITION FOR REHEARING,) question is material, and this Courts
avoidance of the issue leaves standing a ruling which contradicts this Courts previous published
opinions, violates the constitutional requirements of due process, and establishes a dangerous public
5
6
7
8
9
policy. Under due process, Petitioner is entitled to a hearing, but has not had one.
THEREFORE Appellants respectfully petition this Court, as allowed by NRAP 40A, for a
reconsideration of the decision in its ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE (2011.09.15), correcting the
aforementioned errors; and Appellants further petition this Court for a ruling on the sole question of
10
law presented to this Court by this Appeal.

11
12
IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, Appellants have attached their MEMORANDUM OF
13
POINTS & AUTHORITIES and their Exhibit A, the 3 October 2011 PETITION FOR REHEARING.
14
DATED this 10/15/13 /s/ Zachary Coughlin Zachary Coughlin, Appellant
15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
16
1. This appeal brings a few, clear, unambiguous question of law to this Court. The question,
17
18
as asked in the Statement of the Issues on page 4 of APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF (2010.06.29),
19
is: Can an appeal be taken from the denial of a Motion for Stay by a district court under NRS 40.385
20
(or, in the alternative, a Motion for TRO) by one whose tenancy is at least in part commercial
21
(Coughlin also filed a NRAP 8 Motion for Stay with this Court) where, pursuant to the 2011 revisions
22
of RNS 40.385, the district court was exercising its original jurisdiction as to the commercial tenants
23
24
25
motion for stay.

Also, the appeal seeks to resolve the important question of whether NRS 69.050 provides a
26
basis for a prevailing party attorneys fee award in an appeal to the district court from a justice court
27
summary eviction order (where such only applies to judgments not summary removal orders),
28
- 2/11 -

342
and, if not, does not NRS 40.400 and NRAP 38 preclude any such attorney fee award of 6/25/12
where the district courts 6/28/12 Order makes clear such 6/25/12 attorney fee award was not a
sanction? Further, in a larger sense this case asks to what extent district courts may ignore NRAP
where a statute specifies that such applies to an appeal thereto from the justice court (witness the
5
6
2JDCs five page limit to briefs in even criminal appeals (see 60838) all whilst ignoring the failure of
justice courts and municipal courts that claim to be courts of record to transmit (or even order the
commencement of the preparation of) the transcript required by NRS 189.030(1), only to deny
Coughlins appeal in CR11-2064 upon an assertion that Thomas v. State and NRAP 28 and 32
10
somehow make the municipal courts failure to transmit the transcript a basis for failing to even
11
12
consider Coughlins brief). The analogy is not perfect, but it highlights the extent to which there is
13
vast confusion and judicial free styling going on with respect to the application of NRAP in the
14
district courts (the de facto intermediate level court of appeals that Nevada owes itself).
15
Also, what does cases arising in either the district or justice courts actually mean in the
16
constitutional/appellate jurisdictional analysis (especially where a statute like NRS 40.385 makes
17
18
things so murky as to a commercial tenancy).
19
By analogy: the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rather than the appropriate regional
20
court of appeals, has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court decision when a party
21
asserts an action which has claims arising under both the federal circuit's jurisdiction and the regional
22
court of appeals' jurisdiction; such an appeal of a claim arising in the regional court of appeals must
23
24
25
26
27
be heard in the federal circuit when they are joined with claims that fall within the federal circuit's
exclusive jurisdiction. S. V. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S. Ct. 2246, 96 L. Ed. 2D 51 (1987).
Lastly, is not the stay provided for under NRS 40.385 mandatory (ie, merely of a ministerial
nature the granting thereof, ie not a discretionary decisiontenant puts down the $250 set by statute,
28
- 3/11 -

343
an automatically obtains a stay pending the appeal of a summary eviction, during which time the
statue more than protects the landlord by requiring tenant continuing to pay rent, at peril of another
speedy/no hassle summary eviction by the landlord for non-payment of rent (ie, no more, oh, well
sidestep the retaliatory eviction claims incident to the tenants complaining of habitability,etc., and
5
6
just no cause themie, make it less easy for the landlord to avoid deciding such matters on the merits
(especially where, as here, the landlord and his attorneys fraud in lying that the lease had expired
when it patently had not, made the use of such a no cause summary eviction under NRS 40.254(2)
voidable, not to mention the fact that the use of such against a commercial tenant is void anyways (ie,
10
landlord must allege non-payment of rent against a commercial tenant to partake in NRS 40.253 by
11
12
13
way of NRS 40.254Nevada, pro business climate that it is).

Anvui, and (not published SCR 123 disclaimer) the Venetian v. Two Roads case seem to leave
14
room for confusion in this regard. Additionally, an awfully important (and perhaps constitutional
15
under a due process theory) issue involved herein (implicating Art. 4. Sec 21) relates to the current
16
practice of the Washoe County Sheriffs Office in interpreting NRS 40.253(5)(a) in a way that no
17
18
other county in Nevada does (ie, the WCSO believes it is not a burglary for it to race over to a tenants
19
home or office (or, as with Coughlin, his home office) a couple hours after the summary eviction
20
hearing concludes, and break in without even announcing themselves as law enforcement, cuff/detain
21
the tenants, do a protective sweep, then act as if they are being generous in allowing the tenant five
22
minutes to grab some necessaries before they are threatened with a NRS 199.280 or NRS 197.190
23
24
charge for obstruction or, a criminal trespass charge under NRS 207.200, at which point, the
25
tenants personalty is subject to the vagaries of a justice courts and landlords approach and
26
interpretation of NRS 118A.480 respecting the creative applications of such lien on a tenants
27
personalty for moving, storage, and inventorying. That is, all other counties, at the very least, post
28
- 4/11 -

344
1
2
3
a summary removal order, and wait 24 hours before conducting a lockout.

2. Continuing, the Statement of the Issues, in only five lines, summarized the arguments on
both sides: The District Court, in concluding the negative, reasoned that (1) absent statutory
authority, there is no right to appeal; and (2) the TPO having expired, the appeal would be moot. The
5
6
Adverse Parties, Appellants in the matter, believe that both of those arguments are incorrect,
inasmuch as (3) there is sufficient authority to permit the appeal; and (4) the appeal is not moot, given
a contemplated action for malicious prosecution by the Adverse Parties.
3. The District Courts ignored Coughlins 12/30/12 NRS 40.385 Motion for Stay, and rather simply
10
denied a TRO. Further the courts 6/25/12 Order premised an attorney fee award for the appeal of a
11
12
summary removal order upon a statute that applies only to appeals of judgments in civil actions.
13
4. This Court's Panel's 5/28/13 Order Dismissing Coughlins' Appeal ruled: "The district court has
14
final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in justice courts. Nev. Const. art. 6, 6; see also
15
Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969). Although NRAP 3A(b)(3) authorizes
16
an appeal from an order refusing to grant an injunction, and NRAP 3A(b)(8) authorizes an appeal
17
18
from a post-judgment order awarding attorney fees, see Winston Prods. Co., Inc. v. DeBoer, 122 Nev.
19
517, 525, 134 P.3d 726, 731 (2006) (recognizing that an order awarding attorney fees and costs is
20
substantively appealable as a special order after final judgment), because the orders challenged in
21
this case arose from the district court's exercise of appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a
22
justice court decision, the district court's orders were ostensibly rendered final and are not
23
24
25
26
appealable to this court.'

"orders challenged in this case arose from the district court's exercise of appellate
jurisdiction" versus "cases arising in justice courts"
27
28
- 5/11 -

345
One, the 1/11/12 Order in the District Court did not "arise from the district court's exercise of
appellate jursidiction at least to the portion of Coughlins' 12/30/11 Motion for Stay pursuant to NRS
40.385 made in his capacity as a commercial tenant. NRS 40.385's invocation of NRAP 8 makes
such 1/11/12 Order by the District Court one stemming form its exercise of its "original jurisdiction".
5
6
And Klein makes clear that any such exercise of "original jurisdiction" by the District Court is within
this Court's appellate jurisdiction. Further, "the district court has final appellate jurisdiction in all
cases arising in the justice court". Nevada law clearly establishes a distinction between "cases" and
"proceedings", particularly "summary eviction proceedings" . (witness the distinctions manifest
10
between "cases" and "proceedings" in Nevada law, then consider Nev Const Art 6 Sect 6's invocation
11
12
13
14
15
of "cases" only, and failure to include the term "proceedings" in specifying that to which such final
appellate jurisdiction attaches (NRS 128.020, 104.9702, NRS 40.253, NJCRCP 101, etc.)
Further, where the justice court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a no cause summary
eviction (ie, where no affidavit alleging non-payment of rent under NRS 40.253(5) was filed, but
16
rather, an "unlawful detainer affidavit" under NRS 40.254(2) seeking a summary eviction for no17
18
cause) against a commercial tenant (and clearly, Coughlin pled from the jump that he was a
19
commercial tenant (in part, given the mixed use tenancy inherent to a "home law office"), allusions to
20
his "home law office" are manifest throughout the early filings in the record, inclucing his 10/6/11
21
Tenant's Answer and numerous other filings prior to the 10/25/11 "Trial"/"continuation of the
22
summary) no "case" could be said to be "arising in" the justice court". A "summary eviction
23
24
proceeding" that the justice lacks subject matter jurisdiction to even adjuciated (failure to oppose the
25
lack of jurisdictional facts pointed out in Coughlin's 10/17/11 Motion at page 6 thereof (which
26
expressly points out the lack of jurisdiction of the justice court to adjudicate a summary eviciton
27
28
- 6/11 -

346
brought under NRS 40.254 against a commercial tenant) can hardly be said to "arise in" the justice
court. Such an action does not "arise" anywhere given it is verboten under NRS 40.254.
Similarly, where the 10/27/11 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Summary
Eviction" by the justice court (to which the district court accorded a clearly erroneous level of
5
6
deference to, in addition to refusing to apply a "de novo review" or "de novo appeal" to the record,
whee the 3/30/12 Order dismissing Coughlin's appeal
8
9
Merliss's counsel apparently agrees. Its important to note that Hill's own 5/20/13 Reply to
Opposition itself concedes that the 1/11/12 Order (and, apparently, the 6/25/12 Order awarding
10
attorney's fees for the appeal premised upon NRS 69.050) is appealable, as Hill wrote: "While that
11
12
13
decision was an appealable order...". This Court's adjudicatory boundaries may be limited to what
was argued/conceded by Hill. Breliant.
14
Unless authority is provided by a statute or a rule, this court has no jurisdiction. Kokkosv.
15
Tsalikis, 91 Nev. 24, 25,530 P.2d 756 (1975). NRAP 3A(b)(3) authorizes an appeal from an order
16
refusing to grant an injunction, and NRAP 3A(b)(8) authorizes an appeal from a post-judgment order
17
18
awarding attorney fees, see Winston Prods. Co., Inc. v. DeBoer, 122 Nev. 517, 525, 134 P.3d 726, 731
19
(2006) (recognizing that an order awarding attorney fees and costs is substantively appealable as a
20
special order after final judgment). Further, at least with respect to a commercial tenant (and
21
Coughlin was both a commercial and residential tenant, as the lease in question specifically allowed
22
for such a mixed use), NRS 40.385 allows for, essentially, an appeal to this Court upon the District
23
24
Court denying a stay where such statute (at least the version thereof that became effective 10/1/11,
25
and all the motions for stay in question her occurred after that date) specifically incorporates NRAP 8,
26
which required Coughlin, for that portion of his tenancy which amounted to a commercial tenancy, to
27
first move for a stay from the District Court.
28
- 7/11 -

347
1
2
3
The Panel, Couglin respectfully submits, misapplied NRAP 3A(b)(8) and Winston, and
overlooked NRS 40.385, in connection with misapprehending the material facts that Judge Flanagan's
1/11/12 Order, in failing to address in any way Coughlin's 12/30/11 Motion for Stay (which
specifically invoked NRS 40.385) was a denial, in essence of such a motion. The Panel's Order of
5
6
5/28/13 similarly appears to misapprehend the fact that Coughlin's 12/30/11 Motion was not just a
Motion for TRO, but, the caption itself titled such in the alternative as a Motion for Stay, and NRS
40.385 is specifically cited to and argued upon at length therein. Such motion is not discretionary, at
least according to the transcript of the hearing on the motion to stay in Venetian v. Two Roads
10
(unpublished per SCR 123) before District Court Judge Herndon (the transcript of that Hearing on
11
12
13
Two Roads NRS 40.385 Motion for Stay is attached as an exhibit to the 2/16/11 Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss Appeal).
14
Further, the 6/25/12 Order awarding attorney's fees was clearly entered pursuant to the district
15
court undertakign to enter an order in excess of its jurisdiction. One, the 21 day safe harbor of NRCP
16
Rule 11 is jursidictional (and to the extent NRS 40.400 makes NRS 7.085's incorproation of NRCP
17
18
Rule 11 inapplicable, but rather makes NRAP 38 the operative standard, the district court's failure to
19
enter any "sancton" on "its own motion" is a jurisdicitonal bar as well, however, the 8/28/12 Order in
20
03628 makes clear such 6/25/12 attorney fee award was not a sanction at all...meaning, it was, rather,
21
a simple application of NRS 69.050, apparently finding Merliss, somehow, a "prevaling party",
22
(though, perhaps an applciation of DCR 13(3) was made, though Coughlin's 1/14/12 Oppoistion in
23
24
advance to any such motion for attorney's fees should have precluded such, as should DCR 13 "no
25
motion once made made be made again" rule precluded such 4/19/12 motion for attorney's fees where
26
merliss's counsel made atty fee motions based on the exact same work (whether int he trial court,
27
especially with respect to "preparing for the " 11/7/11 hearing therein or the 12/20/12 heraing therein
28
- 8/11 -

348
(somehow merliss's counsel measure the timefrime in which to rack up NRS 69.050 billables (, and
really, Sellers , 119 nev 31, requires such be actually incurred, not just imaginary incident to a flat rate
deal with Merliss) from Coughlin filing his "first" notice of appeal of 11/3/11 (Merliss counsel
fraudulently omits the problematic notices of appeal coughlin filed in the trial court on 10/19/11, and
5
6
the notice of appeal submitted along with the ifp application and delcaration supporting such in the
initial appeal to the district court in cV11-03051, (ifp's perfect appeals), which made all occuring
thereafter in CV11-03628 void), rather than the 12/21/11 date of docketing such second appeal to the
district court in CV11-03628. plus, at least california law precludes post 'judgment" motions for
10
sanctions...and anyways, nrs 69.050 appleis only to appeals of "judgments", not appeals of summary
11
12
eviction orders, as here. as such, the exceeding of its jurisdiciton by both the justice and district
13
court's provide ripe grouns for issuing whichever extraordinary writ seems most applicable (its hard
14
to chooe between mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition on these facts).
15
further, as opposed to the case indicating that a de novo review in the dist ct. of a state bar fee
16
dispute arb, and the judgment issuign therefrom did not "arise in" the district court sufficient to allow
17
18
a nev const art 6 sec 4 basis for this Court to hear an appeal thereof, NRS 69.050 presents a clearly
19
different set of circumstances, as no such 6/25/12 award of attorney's fees "arose in" the justice court,
20
as such relates solely to conduct occuring within the appeal, such conduct not having even occurred
21
when this matter was still in the justice court.
22
Further, the law in Nevada needs clarification as to jsut what Nev Const Art 6 Sec 6 means
23
24
where it indicates "all cases arising in the justice court"...see 292 F. 3d 61, precon, 45 BR 847, 718 F.
25
2d 736, 295 NE 2d 478, 32 SD 596, 144 NW 130, Mainor 120 Nev 750, Gross 12 P. 269 (california),
26
Railroad 120 sw 2d 423, stat 162 p 674, ermeson 230 f. 29. brett 97 p 259, 28 p 650.
27
28
- 9/11 -

349
1
2
3
Consider BDC proper v City of Reno (61787) nrsap 3A(b)(1)'s final order requirement...see
argentena 126 Nev 527...
Waugh speaks to "commenced and tried" and clearly no judgment or order awarding attorney's
fees for the appeal to district court was 'commenced or tried" in the justice court...and further, the nrs
5
6
40.385 motion for stay is somethign the justice court refused to adjuciated (see Coughlin's 12/5/11
and 12/14/11, and 12/22/11 motions for such in the justice court and the Post-It Note Orders
seemingly refusing to adjuciated such but deferring to the 2JDC.
Additionaly CG Wallace v 8jdc 262 P.3d 1135 supports the view that as to NRs 69.050 and
10
40.385, contrary legist intent and purpose to refuse to allow coughlin the automatic stay, and an
11
12
appeal of a denial tehreof, in addition to precluding coughlin from appealing any nrs 69.050 award
13
where the legislature clearly did nto view such as "arising in the justice court" where such necessarily
14
speaks to "separate appealable order" (per Deboer" that relates only to conduct on appeal and "arising
15
in" the appeal, not in the justice court.
16
10. Second, this Court, by affirming the District Court, has allowed the District Court to
17
18
contradict this Courts holdings that court rules have the force of law. (see, for example, Shimrak v.
19
Garcia-Mendoza, Nev. No. 25100 (1996)). NRAP 38 by way of NRS 40.400, in consideration of NV
20
JCRCP 81 precludes applying NRS 69.050 for an attorney fee award in an appeal of a mere summary
21
removal order, (ie, not even a judgment from a civil action, which is all that NRS 69.050 applies
22
to). It is ridiculous and shameful that this case threatens to have Coughlin permanently disbarred.
23
24
And that is not even getting in to the burglaries dressed up as summary eviction lockouts.
25
Conclusion. To maintain uniformity of this Courts decisions; to address substantial precedential,
26
constitutional, and public policy issues; and to provide due process of law to Appellants, Petitioners
27
ask this Court to grant this PETITION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION, and to allow us to
28
- 10/11 -

350
address the issues brought forth in this Appeal as set forth in APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF.
I hereby certify under penalties of perjury that on this date I served true and correct copies of the
foregoing document by electronically filing upon: Richard G. Hill, Esq.

5
6
Affirmation (Pursuant to NRS 239B.030) I hereby affirm that the preceding document filed in the
above-described manner does not contain the social security number of any person. Dated 10/15/13
Zachary Coughlin
9
10
11
/s/ Zach Coughlin
12
Zach Coughlin
13
Pro Per Attorney
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11/11 -

351
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
FindCase...
TheSupremeCourt
ofNevada
Cases
CaseSearch
ParticipantSearch
AppellateCaseManagementSystem
C-Track,thebrowserbasedCMSforAppellateCourts
Disclaimer:Theinformationanddocumentsavailablehereshouldnotberelied
uponasanofficialrecordofaction.
Onlyfileddocumentscanbeviewed.Somedocumentsreceivedinacasemaynot
beavailableforviewing.
Somedocumentsoriginatingfromalowercourt,includingrecordsand
appendices,maynotbeavailableforviewing.
Forofficialrecords,pleasecontacttheClerkoftheSupremeCourtofNevadaat
(775)684-1600.
CaseInformation:60302
ShortCaption:
LowerCourt
Case(s):
COUGHLINVS.
WASHOELEGAL
SERVICES
Classification:
WashoeCo.-Second
JudicialDistrictCV1101896
Disqualifications: Hardesty
Replacement:
Related
Case(s):
CaseStatus:
CivilAppeal-GeneralOther
60317,60331,60838,
60975,64855
RemittiturIssued/Case
Closed
Panel
Assigned:
Panel
SPStatus:
Exempt
JusticeGibbonsforChief
JusticeHardesty
ToSP/Judge:
OralArgument:
SubmissionDate: 11/30/2012
OralArgument
Location:
How
OnBriefs
Submitted:
+PartyInformation
DocketEntries
Date
Type
02/27/2012 FilingFee
02/27/2012
NoticeofAppeal
Documents
02/27/2012 Other
Description
AppealFilingfeewaived.
InFormaPauperis.
FiledNoticeofAppeal.
Appealdocketedinthe
SupremeCourtthisday.
(Docketingstatement
mailedtocounselfor
appellant.)
JusticeJamesW.
Hardestydisqualified
fromparticipationinthis
matter.Disqualification
Reason:Voluntary
Recusal.
IssuedNoticeofReferral
toSettlementProgram.
Thisappealmaybe
assignedtothe
Pending? Document
12-06119
352
1/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
02/27/2012 Notice/Outgoing
02/27/2012 SettlementNotice
03/09/2012 Order/Incoming
03/26/2012 Motion
03/26/2012 Notice/Incoming
04/09/2012 Motion
04/13/2012
NoticeofAppeal
Documents
04/16/2012 Motion
05/31/2012 Order/Procedural
06/14/2012 TranscriptRequest
06/14/2012 DocketingStatement
settlementprogram.
Timelinesforrequesting
transcriptsandfiling
briefsarestayed.
IssuedNoticetoFile
CaseAppeal
Statement/Civil.Due
date:10days.
IssuedNotice:
Exemptionfrom
SettlementProgram.It
hasbeendetermined
thatthisappealwillnot
beassignedtothe
settlementprogram.
Appellant(s)15days
transcriptrequestform
120daysopeningbrief:
FiledDistrictcourtorder.
CopyofOrderDenying
MotiontoProceedIn
FormaPauperisfiledin
districtcourton3/8/2012
andCaseAppeal
Statementor,Pledinthe
alternative,Motionfor
ExtensionofTimeto
CorrectDeficienciesin
AppealPapers.
FiledMotiontoDismiss
Appeal.
FiledNoticeof
Appearance(BrianA.
Gonsalvesappearingon
behalfofrespondent
CrisisIntervention
Services).
FiledOppositionto
MotiontoDismiss.
FiledCaseAppeal
Statement.
FiledReplyinSupportof
MotiontoDismiss
Appeal.
FiledOrderDismissing
AppealinPart.We
dismissthisappealasto
CIS,only.Appellantshall
have11daysfromthe
dateofthisordertofile
andservehis(1)
orcertificatethatno
transcriptwillbe
requested,and(2)
docketingstatement.
FiledCertificateofNo
TranscriptRequest.
FiledDocketing
Statement.
IssuedNoticetoFile
OpeningBriefand
Appendix.DueDate:15
days.
12-06121
12-06126
12-06222
12-07769
12-09480
12-09496
12-11097
12-11962
12-12020
12-17190
12-18622
12-18740
12-20249
353
2/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
07/13/2012 Motion
07/25/2012 Motion
07/26/2012 Motion
07/31/2012 Motion
08/03/2012 Motion
08/23/2012 Motion
08/23/2012 Brief
FiledNoticeof
Appearance(Joseph
GarinandShannon
NordstromofLipson
NeilsonColeSeltzer&
Garinappearingon
behalfofrespondents).
FiledRespondents'
MotiontoDismiss
Appeal.
FiledMotionfor
PermissiontoFile
OpeningBriefAfter
Deadlinehasrunand
OppositiontoMotionto
Dismiss.
FiledOppositionto
MotiontoDismiss(and
requestfor15days
extensiontofileopening
briefandappendix).
FiledResponseto
Plaintiff'sMotionfor
PermissiontoFile
OpeningBriefAfter
DeadlineHasRunand
Dismiss.
Respondents'Motionto
DismissAppeal.
FiledMotiontoLeaveto
FileSurreplyConsisting
ofProposedAppellant's
OpeningBriefsetforth
herein.
ReceivedAppellant's
OpeningBrief(viaEFlex).(FILEDPER
ORDEROF8/28/12).
FiledOrderDenying
MotiontoDismiss,
DirectingTransmission
ofRecord,andSetting
RevisedBriefing
Schedule.Asappellant
isnowproceedingasa
properpersonappellant
withoutanattorney,we
vacatetheoriginal
briefingscheduleand
denythemotionto
dismissandthemotion
foranextensionoftime.
Recordonappealdue
fromdistrictcourtclerk:
30days.Weconstrue
appellant'sAugust23,
2012,motionforleaveto
fileasurreplyconsisting
ofappellant'sproposed
openingbriefasa
motionseekingleaveto
filebriefsinproper
person.Wegrantthe
12-22194
12-22195
12-23543
12-23572
12-24165
12-24569
12-26633
12-27199
354
3/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
motionanddeclineto
placethisappealinthe
pilotprogramforcivil
appellantsproceedingin
properperson.Theclerk
ofthiscourtisdirected
tofileappellant's
proposedopeningbrief,
provisionallyreceivedby
thiscourtonAugust23,
2012.Respondents:45
daystofileananswering
brief.Appellant:15days
tofileareplybrief.No
latereplybriefwillbe
accepted.
08/28/2012 Brief
09/18/2012
RecordonAppeal
Documents
09/25/2012 Order/Clerk's
10/22/2012 Brief
11/08/2012 Motion
11/19/2012 Motion
11/28/2012 Motion
11/28/2012 Motion
FiledAppellant's
OpeningBrief.
FiledRecordonAppeal
Vols1thru5(viaFTP).
FiledOrderGranting
TelephonicExtension.
AnsweringBriefdue:
October19,2012.
FiledRespondents'
AnsweringBrief.
FiledNRAP26.1
Disclosure.
FiledRequestfor
ExtensionofTimetoFile
Appellant'sReplyBrief:
andGiventhatthisCourt
hasIndicatedNonewill
beForthComing,
Appellant'sReplyBrief.
FiledNoticeOfLackOf
AccessBeingAccorded
toAppellantWith
RespectToRecordOn
Appeal.
FiledRespondents'
ResponsetoAppellant's
RequestforExtensionof
TimetoFileAppellant's
ReplyBrief.
FiledResponseto
repsondentsrespone.
FiledUpdatedresponse
torespondent'srespone.
FiledOrderGranting
MotionforExtensionof
TimetoFileReplyBrief
andDenyingAllOther
RequestsforRelief.
Havingconsideredthe
motionandopposition
thereto,wegrantit.
Accordingly,because
thereplybriefwas
incorporatedinthe
motionthatappellant
filedonNovember8,the
briefingisnowcomplete,
andthisappealstands
12-27202
12-29552
12-30225
12-33351
12-33950
12-35305
12-35541
12-36704
12-37504
12-37505
355
4/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
submittedfordecision.
Havingconsideredthe
requestformoretime
containedinthenotice,
wedenyitas
unnecessary,asthe
openingandreplybriefs
havealreadybeenfiled,
andgivenappellant's
contentionthathewas
unabletoaccessthe
electronicallyfiledrecord
untilafterhewasalmost
donebriefinghisappeal,
thiscourtwillconsider
themeritsofthe
argumentsmadeinhis
briefsdespitethelackof
citationstotherecord.
Thiscourtwillnot
considerthemeritsbasedargumentsin
appellant'sNovember9
noticeorthe
attachmentsthereto,
whichappeartobe
portionsoftranscripts
fromjusticecourtcases.
12-37862
11/30/2012 CaseStatusUpdate
SubmittedforDecision.
05/22/2013 Order/Dispositional
FiledOrderAffirmingin
Part,ReversinginPart
andRemanding."We
affirmthejudgmentof
thedistrictcourtwith
respecttoall
respondentsexcept
WLSandPaulElcano.
Asforthesetwo
respondents,wereverse
thejudgmentofthe
districtcourtandremand
thismattertothedistrict
courtforproceedings
consistentwiththis
order."NNP12KP/MG/NS
13-15095
06/17/2013 Remittitur
IssuedRemittitur.
13-17729
Closed
FiledRemittitur.
ReceivedbyDistrict
CourtClerkonJune25,
2013.
13-17729
356
5/5
8/23/2015
61901:CaseView
FindCase...
TheSupremeCourt
ofNevada
Cases
CaseSearch
ParticipantSearch
(775)684-1600.
ShortCaption:
LowerCourt
Case(s):
INRE:DISCIPLINEOF
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN
NONE
Disqualifications:
CaseStatus:
BarMatter-SCR111Petition
NoticeinLieuof
Closed
Panel
Assigned:
EnBanc
Classification:
Replacement:
ToSP/Judge:
OralArgument:
SubmissionDate:
SPStatus:
OralArgument
Location:
How
Submitted:
+PartyInformation
DocketEntries
Date
Type
10/15/2012 Petition/Bar
10/24/2012 Motion
10/24/2012 Motion
10/29/2012 Motion
11/09/2012 Motion
Description
FilingFeeWaived:Bar
matter.
FiledPetitionpursuantto
SCR111.
FiledMotionforleaveto
fileoppositionor
oppositiontoSCR
111(4)petition.
ReceivedSupplementto
Opposition.
ReceivedSupplemental
MotionforNewTrial,or,
Alternatively,
SupplementalMotionto
VacateJudgmentor
Conviction,orinthe
Alternative,Motionfor
ArrestofJudgment.
ReceivedAmendmentto
OppositiontoBar
Counsel'sSCR111(4)
Pending? Document
12-32685
12-33724
357
1/2
8/23/2015
61901:CaseView
06/18/2015 Order/DispositionalBar
Petition.
FiledSupplementto
Opposition.
FiledSupplemental
MotionforNewTrial,or,
Alternatively,
SupplementalMotionto
VacateJudgmentor
Conviction,orinthe
Alternative,Motionfor
ArrestofJudgment.
FiledAmendmentto
OppositiontoBar
Counsel'sSCR111(4)
Petition.
DisciplinaryProceedings
WithoutPrejudice.
Thesearepetitionsby
barcounselfiled
regardingattorney
ZacharyB.Coughlin.
Thiscourthasentered
anordertransferring
Coughlintodisability
inactivestatus.Docket
No.60975,requiresthat
anypendingdisciplinary
proceedingagainstan
attorneybesuspended
whenheistransferredto
disabilityinactivestatus.
Therefore,these
proceedingsmustbe
suspended.These
mattersaredismissed
withoutprejudicetothe
StateBar'sabilityto
reinitiatesuch
proceedings,if
appropriate,upon
Coughlin'sreinstatement
totheactivepracticeof
law.Fn1[Coughlin's
requeststofileadditional
documentsandfor
remandtothe
disciplinaryboardare
denied,asareallother
requestspendingin
thesematters,This
orderconstitutesour
finaldispositionofthese
matter.]ENBANCNos.
61901/62337/64903
IssuedNoticeinLieuof
Remittitur.
NoticeinLieuof
Closed.
13-19874
13-19875
13-19877
15-18701
15-21118
358
2/2
8/23/2015
62337:CaseView
FindCase...
TheSupremeCourt
ofNevada
Cases
CaseSearch
ParticipantSearch
(775)684-1600.
ShortCaption:
LowerCourt
Case(s):
INRE:DISCIPLINEOF
ZACHARYCOUGHLIN
NONE
Disqualifications:
Classification:
CaseStatus:
Panel
Assigned:
BarMatter-DisciplineAppeal
Closed
EnBanc
Replacement:
ToSP/Judge:
OralArgument:
SubmissionDate:
SPStatus:
OralArgument
Location:
How
Submitted:
+PartyInformation
DocketEntries
Date
Type
12/24/2012
RecordonAppeal
Documents
01/25/2013 Motion
Description
FilingFeeWaived:bar
matter.
FiledRecordofBar
Proceedings,Pleadings
andTranscriptof
Hearings.Vols.1
through3.--STRICKEN
PER2/7/13ORDER-IssuedNoticeofBriefing
Schedule/BarDiscipline.
Duedate:30days.Ifno
openingbriefisfiled,the
matterwillbesubmitted
fordecisiononthe
recordwithoutbriefingor
oralargument.
FiledOrderGranting
OpeningBriefdue:
January30,2013.
FiledSupplemental
MotionforExtensionand
ExceedPage
Pending? Document
12-40572
13-02731
13-02770
359
1/5
8/23/2015
62337:CaseView
01/31/2013 Brief
02/01/2013 Motion
02/01/2013 Motion
02/13/2013
RecordonAppeal
Documents
03/19/2013 Motion
03/25/2013 Motion
Limitations.
ReceivedOpeningBrief
andAppendixfrom
ZacharyCoughlin.RETURNEDUNFILED
PER2/7/13ORDERFiledMotionupon
StipulationtoExtend
AppellantCoughlin's
TimetoFileOpening
Brief,orAlternatively,
MotionShowingGood
CausewhyExtensionof
30DaystoFileOpening
BriefShouldIssue.
FiledRequesttoInspect
12/24/12Recordon
AppealandStrike
DefectiveTranscriptand
DefectiveROAand
SuspendBriefing
Schedule.
FiledOrderwedirectthe
clerktostrikethethreevolumerecordfiled
December24,2012,and
weordertheStateBar
tore-submittherecord
intheproperformat.
Appellant:30daysafter
recordfiledtosubmitan
openingbrief.Allother
pendingmotionsare
denied.Allpleadings
submittedtothiscourt
mustbeintherequired
format.Noappendixis
required:theparties
shallcitetotherecord.
Anyfurtherpleadings
submittedwhichdonot
complywiththe
applicablerulesmaybe
returned.
FiledRecordofBar
Proceedings,Pleadings
andTranscriptof
Hearings.Vols.1
through9.
FiledOrderGranting
Openingbriefdue:
March20,2013.
FiledMotiontoStrike
RecordonAppealand
MotionShowingGood
CauseforExtensionof
TimetofileOpening
Brief
FiledNoticeofErratato
3/19/13MotiontoStrike.
FiledMotionfor
Appellant'sBrief.
FiledMotionParts1
13-03407
13-03473
13-04051
13-06503
13-08255
13-08764
13-08766
360
2/5
8/23/2015
62337:CaseView
04/16/2013 Motion
through5of6.
13-11201
04/16/2013 Motion
FiledMotionPart6of6.
13-11202
06/07/2013 Motion
07/08/2013 Motion
03/10/2014 Motion
03/14/2014 Brief
03/19/2014 Brief
03/27/2014 Motion
04/02/2014 Motion
06/03/2014 Other
Fileddocumentsfrom
ZacharyCoughlin.
Fileddocumentsfrom
ZacharyCoughlin.
FiledNoticefrom
ZacharyCoughlin.
FiledNoticeof
Irregularities.
FiledNoticeof
Irregularities.
FiledNoticew/Exhibits.
FiledNoticeof
Unimaginable
ImproprietyofWCDA.
Fileddocumentsfrom
ZacharyCoughlin.
FiledProperPerson
Brief.Appellant'sBrief
andContinuationPage
forAppellant'sBrief.
FiledProperPerson
Supplementto
Appellant'sBrief.
FiledNoticefrom
ZacharyCoughlin.
FiledSupplementalto
Brieforinthe
AlternativeMotionto
RemandReinstateand
orRehabilitate.
FiledAmendedor
SupplementalBrief,orin
theAlternativeMotion
forRemand,Reinstate
and/orRehab.
FiledNoticeofSCR
105.5Offertobe
RespectfullyPresented
toCourtandorSBNor
AlternativeSupplement
toRecent
Motions/Briefs.
FiledNoticeofDismissal
ofCasesfromWhich
AllegedCriminal
Trespass'Conviction'
and'CriminalContempt'
ConvictionStem.
FiledOrdertoFile
Response.StateBar:
Responsedue:10days.
Fn1[Theclerkshallsend
acopyofthenoticefiled
onApril22,2014,tothe
StateBar'scounsel.]
ReceivedReturnedMail.
Orderfiled5/16/14
addressedtoZachary
Coughlin.Ordermailed
13-16653
13-19745
13-20762
13-21067
13-21913
13-25460
13-30110
14-07522
14-08448
14-08803
14-09644
14-09742
14-10370
14-11832
14-12934
14-15997
361
3/5
8/23/2015
62337:CaseView
06/04/2014 Motion
06/06/2014 Motion
05/29/2015 Motion
06/08/2015 Motion
06/08/2015 Motion
06/08/2015 Motion
06/16/2015 Motion
06/18/2015 Order/DispositionalBar
toincorrectaddress.
Remailedtocorrected
addressonfile.
FiledResponseto
SupremeCourt'sOrder
ofMay16,2014.
FiledOppositionto
SBN's6314Response.
FiledEmergencyMotion
toReinstateCoughlin's
LicensetoPracticeLaw,
or,Alternatively,Motion
toRemandtoNNDB,
etc.
FiledRequesttoSubmit
Coughlin'sBriefand
OustandingMotionsfor
Determination.
FiledMotiontoTreat
StateBar'sChoiceNot
toFileBriefas
ConfessionofError.
FiledRequesttoSubmit
BriefandOutstanding
MotionstoCourtfor
Consideration.
FiledSupplementto
MotiontoReinstate.
DisciplinaryProceedings
WithoutPrejudice.
Thesearepetitionsby
barcounselfiled
regardingattorney
ZacharyB.Coughlin.
Thiscourthasentered
anordertransferring
Coughlintodisability
inactivestatus.Docket
No.60975,requiresthat
anypendingdisciplinary
proceedingagainstan
attorneybesuspended
whenheistransferredto
disabilityinactivestatus.
Therefore,these
proceedingsmustbe
suspended.These
mattersaredismissed
withoutprejudicetothe
StateBar'sabilityto
reinitiatesuch
proceedings,if
appropriate,upon
Coughlin'sreinstatement
totheactivepracticeof
law.Fn1[Coughlin's
requeststofileadditional
documentsandfor
remandtothe
disciplinaryboardare
denied,asareallother
requestspendingin
thesematters,This
orderconstitutesour
14-18135
14-18375
15-16370
15-17335
15-17338
15-17339
15-18263
15-18704
362
4/5
8/23/2015
62337:CaseView
finaldispositionofthese
matter.]ENBANCNos.
61901/62337/64903
IssuedRemittitur.
Closed.
FiledRemittitur.
ReceivedbyBar
CounselonJuly15,
2015.
15-21126
15-21126
363
5/5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FILED
Electronically
2014-05-15 10:55:27 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 4434871 : jwise
Zach Coughlin,Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473 temp. suspended
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tele: and Fax: 949-667-7402
pro se Defendant
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA
ZACH COUGHLIN ,
)
APPELLANT
v.
) Case CR12-2025
Dept 8
STATE OF NEVADA
)
RESPONDENT
)
11
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN
12
Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (C.A.4.S.C.,2010) Under the statute providing the district courts
13
14
of the United States with original jurisdiction of all offenses against the laws of the United States, the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 - MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN
364
recently did this as to the criminal contempt "conviction" ("lying"/misrepresenting RPC 3.3(a)
(1)/8.4(c) violations) that the State Bar largely basis its attempt to irrevocably disbar Coughlin upon.
5
6
7
8
9

Thus, after an accused has been convicted, the prosecution may, with the court's consent,
enter a nolle prosequi without prejudice to a new indictment or information. Ala.Anthony v. City
of Birmingham, 240 Ala. 167, 198 So. 449 (1940). N.H.State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212, 72 A.2d 778
10

11
12
13
14
15
receiving treatment froma psychologist and psychiatrist at Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health
and completed and 8 week course while incarceration from November 2013 to April 18, 2014 in
16
Washoe jail. Similar is In Re Beckett (where an attorney (Pahrump DA) convicted of NRS 199.280
17
18
was deemed to have committed a serious crime) (former Pahrump DA failed to turn over receipts
19
to the Treasuser....such conviction was ultimately dismissed, resulting in Beckett's temporary
20
suspension under SCR 111(10) being two months long compared to the two year long suspension
21
Coughlin is currently still subject to incident to a conviction that was not affirmed on appeal), but not
22
before a temporary suspension was put in place):

23
24
25
26
27
28
365
1
2
3


5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Sup. Ct. 1993).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
larceny, but also receiving stolen property, which is in violation of Shepp and Staab v. State, 526
28
366
P.2d 338 (1974)in Nevada as "a thief cannot receive the fruit of his own larceny from himself".
5
6
existence of the requisite mental state was highly doubtful. In People v. Torres, 166 Misc. 2d 798,
10
634 N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995).

11
12
I do believe if one had the benefit of seeing what really happened on 8/20/11, the night of the
13
arrest, and were apprised of all the other moving parts and factors ancillary to my defense of that
14
case, you would have the empathy necessary to agree to a stipulation along the lines I mentioned
15
above. The skaters did not tell the police officer about the Finder for a reason (their contributory
16
negligence), the officer admitted that he failed to read the written statement of Zarate, and the
17
18
officer's account of what Zarate told him indicated that no mention of the Finder was made. Further,
19
both Goble and Zarate admitted that I could have easily fled with the phone upon being passed by the
20
Finder, but both indicated that I did not do so, but rather, casually took some laps around the parks
21
perimeter while an extended (ie, lengthy) chain of events took place before Goble was alerted that I
22
"might" have "his" phone. Further, witnesses (including Templeton) contradicted any claim that I
23
24
"lied" about not have "the" phone, as Templeton testified that I made a point about the ambiguity as
25
to the phone's ownership as such point. Even Goble had to back off his original claim that I lied
26
about not having the phone in admitting that I questioned him as to why he would be interested in a
27
mere 3G phone.
28
367
1
2
3
Lastly, whether I exhibited any "intent to permanently deprive" turned on my failing to hand
over a phone that its still not clear belonged to Goble (and a warrantless data search of the phone was
conducted which still did not seem to conclusively establish such was Goble's phone) incident to a
hostile group of skaters in their early twenties admittedly lunging at me in attempts to reach into my
5
6
pockets (Goble is captured on 911 indicating he is going to do just that, with others exclaiming they
were going to steal my bicycle and dog) while yelling things at me like "Give us the phone, faggot!",
and an officer indicating to me that he would "probably" not arrest me if I consented to a search of
my pockets and turned over the phone.
10
I was a 34 year old licensed attorney whom had never been convicted of a crime at the time of
11
12
such arrest. I had essentially just been through a divorce after a four year domestic partnership
13
ended six weeks prior to this arrest. I had unexpected financial difficulties incident thereto and was
14
unable to afford two powerful medications that I had been maintained on for over a decade,
15
Wellbuttrin and Adderall, abruptly ceasing to take both just two weeks prior to this arrest due to
16
being unable to afford them.

17
18
There is simply no way my failing to turn over such phone was evidence of anything other
19
than a desire not to be wrongfully charged with a theft crime, as the officer's saying "probably" was a
20
rather tenuous proposition, and I was only given seconds to make a decision, and I bet on the Fourth
21
Amendment (and given the skaters testified that they did not hear the phone vibrate at any time, and
22
that the video/audio of the arrest filmed from 8 inches away from the iPhone on another phone
23
24
reveals absolutely none of the "vibrating sound" the officer testified to having heard (from an
25
unlawful vantage point, no less, while conducting what was ruled an impermissible search via the
26
second touching after the initial pat down), there was plenty of prophylactic basis for applying such).
27
28
368
1
2
3
Had the officer conducted a more thorough investigation, and had the skaterboarders not
ommitted the involvement of the Finder (witness Nicole Watson was caught on a video taped
interview a week after the arrest admitting to having witnessed the Finder hold the phone aloft after
finding it abandoned on the ground, and ask for it to be claimed, and that upon such going unclaimed,
5
6
the Finder then threatened to throw the phone in the river, and only at that point, did I go up to the
Finder and receive the phone. Zarate is captured on that same tape immediately dissuading Watson
from testifying and or being interviewed any further because such testimony reveals the extent to
which Zarate's misconduct led to a false arrest).
10
The main evidence to support any finding of guilty intent was directed towards such alleged
11
12
"fleeing" and "lying" about having "the" phone (versus "a", "my", "your", phone, etc.). For all these
13
reasons the State made an original plea offer that allowed for a disturbing the peace conviction. I
14
accepted such plea deal because it was a good one. For whatever reason, Judge Sferrazza felt I did
15
not do so voluntarily enough.
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
existence of the requisite mental state was highly doubtful. In People v. Torres, 166 Misc. 2d 798,
27
634 N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995),
28
369
1
2
3
58[a] Nonappearance of unavailable, unwilling, or reluctant witnesses

Dismissal warranted. Nicole Watson's failure to obey Coughlin's subpoena and the failure to grant
a continuance in light of such, especially where the State's main witness Zarate admitted to disuading
Watson (and was caught on tape that was ruled inadmissible) from doing so as to her witnessing
5
6
7
8
9
Finder make his threat to throw the iPhone in the river.

In City of Willoughby v. Hoffman, 64 Ohio Misc. 15, 18 Ohio Op. 3d 71, 409 N.E.2d 1387
(Mun. Ct. 1980), a municipal court dismissed, in the interest of justice, a charge of disorderly
conduct, finding that the defendant had been prejudiced by the nonappearance of a subpoenaed
10
deputy court clerk who was a material witness in the case. The witness was never served, even
11
12
though the subpoena, which was requested by the defendant in a cover letter, was ultimately issued.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
370
1
2
3
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
371
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
While I would prefer if the original plea deal could be reinstated or stipulated to (the one I
16
accepted on 8/27/12 disposing of CR12-2025 and CR13-0614 with two disturbing the peace
17
18
convictions and 6-8 months of providing reports from my pyschiatrist), my biggest concern (and I
19
could be wrong here, given 0614 and 1890 may be construed as obstructing justice by other state
20
bars...or even our own Supreme Court) is the petty larceny conviction in RCR2011-063341. I do not
21
take this lightly, and have profound respect for this Court and the WCDA's Office and DDA Young.
22
I wish this would be done as it would greatly assist Washoe Legal Services and its Executive
23
24
25
Director Paul Elcano in their goals of helping me move on with my career and life.
I feel that this case is not something that should prevent me from practicing law any longer,
26
much less ever being reinstated to practice. Yet, that is exactly what it now stands to do absent some
27
dismissal of this case being entered prior to the expiration of the probationary term. I declare under
28
372
penalty of perjury everything herein is true and correct. AFFIRMATION: NO SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBERS HEREIN.

5
6
Pro se Defendant
8
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND MAILING: I HEREBY CERTIFY that on 5/14/14 a true and correct copy
10
of the foregoing was served on the WCDA's Office. to: WCDA DDA Young. Dated this 5/14/14
11
12
/s/ Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
373
8/23/2015
CaseSearch
FindCase...
TheSupremeCourt
ofNevada
Cases
CaseSearch
ParticipantSearch
Disclaimer:Theinformationanddocumentsavailablehereshouldnotberelieduponasanofficialrecordofaction.
Onlyfileddocumentscanbeviewed.Somedocumentsreceivedinacasemaynotbeavailableforviewing.
Somedocumentsoriginatingfromalowercourt,includingrecordsandappendices,maynotbeavailableforviewing.
Forofficialrecords,pleasecontacttheClerkoftheSupremeCourtofNevadaat(775)684-1600.
SearchforCase
Search
CaptionContains:
CaseNo.:
coughlin
ExcludeClosed:
Clear
Search
1to30of30rowsaredisplayed.
SearchResults
CaseNo.
65587
64903
64855
64804
64425
64424
64069
63978
63968
63822
63342
63041
62821
62337
ShortCaption
FiledDate
INRE:
REINSTATEMENT
05/07/2014
OFZACHARY
COUGHLIN
INRE:
DISCIPLINEOF
01/30/2014
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
COUGHLINVS.
01/24/2014
LOPEZ
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
GLASSON
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
CITYOFRENO
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
CITYOFRENO
COUGHLINVS.
MERLISS
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
STATE
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
CITYOFRENO
COUGHLINVS.
NEVADA
SUPREME
COURTCLERK'S
OFFICE
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
CLIFTON
Category
Type
Subtype
BarMatter
SCR111
Petition
BarMatter
SCR111
Petition
CivilAppeal
General
ProperPerson
01/15/2014
Original
Proceeding
Criminal
ProperPersonWrit
Petition
11/18/2013
CriminalAppeal
Other
Other/ProperPerson
11/18/2013
CriminalAppeal
Other
Other/ProperPerson
09/23/2013
CivilAppeal
General
ProperPerson
09/10/2013
CriminalAppeal
Other
Other/ProperPerson
09/09/2013
CriminalAppeal
Other
Other/ProperPerson
08/19/2013
Original
Proceeding
Civil
Other
06/11/2013
Original
Proceeding
Civil
Mandamus/Prohibition
CriminalAppeal
Other
Other/ProperPerson
CriminalAppeal
FastTrack
Other
BarMatter
Discipline
Appeal
COUGHLIN
(ZACH)VS.RENO 04/18/2013
JUSTICECT.
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
03/19/2013
STATE
INRE:
DISCIPLINEOF
12/24/2012
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
62104
COUGHLINVS.
STATEBAROF
NEVADA
11/14/2012
Original
Proceeding
Civil
Mandamus
61901
INRE:
DISCIPLINEOF
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
10/15/2012
BarMatter
SCR111
Petition
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
CaseStatus
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Disposition
Filed/CaseClosed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
374
1/2
8/23/2015
CaseSearch
61462
INRE:
DISCIPLINEOF
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
08/13/2012
BarMatter
Reinstatement Petition
61383
COUGHLINVS.
MERLISS
07/31/2012
CivilAppeal
General
ProperPerson
05/31/2012
BarMatter
Other
Petition
05/10/2012
BarMatter
SCR111
Petition
04/10/2012
CriminalAppeal
Other
Other/ProperPerson
02/29/2012
CivilAppeal
General
Other
02/28/2012
CivilAppeal
General
Other
02/27/2012
CivilAppeal
General
Other
11/05/2009
CivilAppeal
General
Other
60975
(Confidential)
60838
60630
60331
60317
60302
54884
INRE:
DISABILITYOF
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
(CONFIDENTIAL)
INRE:
DISCIPLINEOF
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN
COUGHLIN
(ZACHARY)VS.
CITYOFRENO
COUGHLINVS.
MERLISS
COUGHLINVS.
WASHOELEGAL
SERVICES
COUGHLINVS.
WASHOELEGAL
SERVICES
DARKPEAK
DRIVEVS.DEL
WEBB
COMMUNITIES
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
DispositionFiled
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
CaseClosed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
NoticeinLieuof
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
54844
COUGHLINVS.
DIST.CT.
(BHARTI)
10/28/2009
Original
Proceeding
Civil
Mandamus
36012
MCGHANVS.
DISTRICT
COURT
04/27/2000
Original
Proceeding
Civil
Prohibition
35039
MCGHANVS.
DISTRICT
COURT
10/29/1999
Original
Proceeding
Civil
Prohibition
CivilAppeal
General
Other
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
CivilAppeal
General
Other
Remittitur
Issued/Case
Closed
35013(c/w)
34586(c/w)
MCGHANVS.
MEDICALDEVICE
10/22/1999
ALLIANCEC/W
34586
MEDICALDEVICE
ALLIANCEVS.
07/29/1999
AHRC/W35013
1to30of30rowsaredisplayed.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
375
2/2
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
FindCase...
TheSupremeCourt
ofNevada
Cases
CaseSearch
ParticipantSearch
(775)684-1600.
ShortCaption:
LowerCourt
Case(s):
COUGHLINVS.
WASHOELEGAL
SERVICES
Classification:
WashoeCo.-Second
JudicialDistrictCV1101896
Disqualifications: Hardesty
Replacement:
Related
Case(s):
CaseStatus:
CivilAppeal-GeneralOther
60317,60331,60838,
60975,64855
Closed
Panel
Assigned:
Panel
SPStatus:
Exempt
JusticeGibbonsforChief
JusticeHardesty
ToSP/Judge:
OralArgument:
SubmissionDate: 11/30/2012
OralArgument
Location:
How
OnBriefs
Submitted:
+PartyInformation
DocketEntries
Date
Type
02/27/2012
NoticeofAppeal
Documents
02/27/2012 Other
Description
AppealFilingfeewaived.
InFormaPauperis.
FiledNoticeofAppeal.
Appealdocketedinthe
SupremeCourtthisday.
(Docketingstatement
mailedtocounselfor
appellant.)
JusticeJamesW.
Hardestydisqualified
fromparticipationinthis
matter.Disqualification
Reason:Voluntary
Recusal.
IssuedNoticeofReferral
toSettlementProgram.
Thisappealmaybe
assignedtothe
Pending? Document
12-06119
376
1/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
02/27/2012 SettlementNotice
03/09/2012 Order/Incoming
03/26/2012 Motion
04/09/2012 Motion
04/13/2012
NoticeofAppeal
Documents
04/16/2012 Motion
06/14/2012 TranscriptRequest
06/14/2012 DocketingStatement
settlementprogram.
Timelinesforrequesting
transcriptsandfiling
briefsarestayed.
IssuedNoticetoFile
CaseAppeal
Statement/Civil.Due
date:10days.
IssuedNotice:
Exemptionfrom
SettlementProgram.It
hasbeendetermined
thatthisappealwillnot
beassignedtothe
settlementprogram.
Appellant(s)15days
120daysopeningbrief:
FiledDistrictcourtorder.
CopyofOrderDenying
MotiontoProceedIn
FormaPauperisfiledin
districtcourton3/8/2012
andCaseAppeal
Statementor,Pledinthe
alternative,Motionfor
ExtensionofTimeto
CorrectDeficienciesin
AppealPapers.
FiledMotiontoDismiss
Appeal.
FiledNoticeof
Appearance(BrianA.
Gonsalvesappearingon
behalfofrespondent
CrisisIntervention
Services).
FiledOppositionto
MotiontoDismiss.
FiledCaseAppeal
Statement.
MotiontoDismiss
Appeal.
AppealinPart.We
dismissthisappealasto
CIS,only.Appellantshall
have11daysfromthe
dateofthisordertofile
andservehis(1)
orcertificatethatno
transcriptwillbe
requested,and(2)
docketingstatement.
FiledCertificateofNo
TranscriptRequest.
FiledDocketing
Statement.
IssuedNoticetoFile
OpeningBriefand
Appendix.DueDate:15
days.
12-06121
12-06126
12-06222
12-07769
12-09480
12-09496
12-11097
12-11962
12-12020
12-17190
12-18622
12-18740
12-20249
377
2/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
07/13/2012 Motion
07/25/2012 Motion
07/26/2012 Motion
07/31/2012 Motion
08/03/2012 Motion
08/23/2012 Motion
08/23/2012 Brief
FiledNoticeof
Appearance(Joseph
GarinandShannon
NordstromofLipson
NeilsonColeSeltzer&
Garinappearingon
behalfofrespondents).
FiledRespondents'
MotiontoDismiss
Appeal.
FiledMotionfor
PermissiontoFile
OpeningBriefAfter
Deadlinehasrunand
Dismiss.
FiledOppositionto
MotiontoDismiss(and
requestfor15days
extensiontofileopening
briefandappendix).
FiledResponseto
Plaintiff'sMotionfor
PermissiontoFile
OpeningBriefAfter
DeadlineHasRunand
Dismiss.
Respondents'Motionto
DismissAppeal.
FiledMotiontoLeaveto
FileSurreplyConsisting
ofProposedAppellant's
OpeningBriefsetforth
herein.
ReceivedAppellant's
OpeningBrief(viaEFlex).(FILEDPER
ORDEROF8/28/12).
FiledOrderDenying
MotiontoDismiss,
DirectingTransmission
ofRecord,andSetting
RevisedBriefing
Schedule.Asappellant
isnowproceedingasa
properpersonappellant
withoutanattorney,we
vacatetheoriginal
briefingscheduleand
denythemotionto
dismissandthemotion
foranextensionoftime.
Recordonappealdue
fromdistrictcourtclerk:
30days.Weconstrue
appellant'sAugust23,
2012,motionforleaveto
fileasurreplyconsisting
ofappellant'sproposed
openingbriefasa
motionseekingleaveto
filebriefsinproper
person.Wegrantthe
12-22194
12-22195
12-23543
12-23572
12-24165
12-24569
12-26633
12-27199
378
3/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
motionanddeclineto
placethisappealinthe
pilotprogramforcivil
appellantsproceedingin
properperson.Theclerk
ofthiscourtisdirected
tofileappellant's
proposedopeningbrief,
provisionallyreceivedby
thiscourtonAugust23,
2012.Respondents:45
daystofileananswering
brief.Appellant:15days
tofileareplybrief.No
latereplybriefwillbe
accepted.
08/28/2012 Brief
09/18/2012
RecordonAppeal
Documents
10/22/2012 Brief
11/08/2012 Motion
11/19/2012 Motion
11/28/2012 Motion
11/28/2012 Motion
FiledAppellant's
OpeningBrief.
FiledRecordonAppeal
Vols1thru5(viaFTP).
FiledOrderGranting
AnsweringBriefdue:
October19,2012.
FiledRespondents'
AnsweringBrief.
FiledNRAP26.1
Disclosure.
FiledRequestfor
Appellant'sReplyBrief:
andGiventhatthisCourt
hasIndicatedNonewill
beForthComing,
Appellant'sReplyBrief.
FiledNoticeOfLackOf
AccessBeingAccorded
toAppellantWith
RespectToRecordOn
Appeal.
FiledRespondents'
ResponsetoAppellant's
RequestforExtensionof
TimetoFileAppellant's
ReplyBrief.
FiledResponseto
repsondentsrespone.
FiledUpdatedresponse
torespondent'srespone.
FiledOrderGranting
MotionforExtensionof
TimetoFileReplyBrief
andDenyingAllOther
RequestsforRelief.
Havingconsideredthe
motionandopposition
thereto,wegrantit.
Accordingly,because
thereplybriefwas
incorporatedinthe
motionthatappellant
filedonNovember8,the
briefingisnowcomplete,
andthisappealstands
12-27202
12-29552
12-30225
12-33351
12-33950
12-35305
12-35541
12-36704
12-37504
12-37505
379
4/5
8/23/2015
60302:CaseView
submittedfordecision.
Havingconsideredthe
requestformoretime
containedinthenotice,
wedenyitas
unnecessary,asthe
openingandreplybriefs
havealreadybeenfiled,
andgivenappellant's
contentionthathewas
unabletoaccessthe
electronicallyfiledrecord
untilafterhewasalmost
donebriefinghisappeal,
thiscourtwillconsider
themeritsofthe
argumentsmadeinhis
briefsdespitethelackof
citationstotherecord.
Thiscourtwillnot
considerthemeritsbasedargumentsin
appellant'sNovember9
noticeorthe
attachmentsthereto,
whichappeartobe
portionsoftranscripts
fromjusticecourtcases.
12-37862
SubmittedforDecision.
05/22/2013 Order/Dispositional
FiledOrderAffirmingin
Part,ReversinginPart
andRemanding."We
affirmthejudgmentof
thedistrictcourtwith
respecttoall
respondentsexcept
WLSandPaulElcano.
Asforthesetwo
respondents,wereverse
thejudgmentofthe
districtcourtandremand
thismattertothedistrict
courtforproceedings
consistentwiththis
order."NNP12KP/MG/NS
13-15095
IssuedRemittitur.
13-17729
Closed
FiledRemittitur.
ReceivedbyDistrict
CourtClerkonJune25,
2013.
13-17729
380
5/5
Case Information
Case Description: CV11-01896 - MATTHEW MERLISS VS. WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES ETAL(D8) Filing Date:
27-Jun-2011
Case Type:
WT - EMPLOYMENT TORT
Status:
NEF - Proof of Electronic Service
Case Cross Reference
Cross Reference Number
1. SCN 60302
2. SCN 64855
Case Parties
Seq
9
10
14
19
33
38
39
42
Event
Information
(top)
Type
ATTY - Attorney
ATTY - Attorney
DEFT - Defendant
DEFT - Defendant
DEFT - Defendant
JUDG - Judge
ATTY - Attorney
REAL - Real Party in Interest
Name
Garin, Esq., Joseph P.
Nordstrom, Esq, Shannon D
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES,
LOPEZ, ZANDRA
ZANDRA LOPEZ, EMPLOYEE WLS,
STIGLICH, LIDIA
Hill, Esq., Richard G.
MERLISS, MATTHEW
(top)
Date/Time
Hearing Judge
1. 20-Jun-2014 at
16:33
2. 06-Jan-2014 at
13:30
Honorable
LIDIA STIGLICH
Honorable
LIDIA STIGLICH
3. 13-Nov-2013 at
13:24
4. 13-Nov-2013 at
14:09
5. 19-Aug-2013 at
10:00
Honorable
LIDIA STIGLICH
Honorable
LIDIA STIGLICH
Honorable
LIDIA STIGLICH
6. 02-May-2012 at
11:14
7. 25-Apr-2012 at
15:13
8. 11-Apr-2012 at
15:28
9. 06-Apr-2012 at
16:25
10. 02-Apr-2012 at
10:53
11. 06-Mar-2012 at
16:31
12. 06-Mar-2012 at
16:30
13. 27-Feb-2012 at
15:09
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Honorable
LYNNE SIMONS
Event
Outcome
Description
S1 - Request S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 26-Jun-2014
for Submission
Extra Text:
H364 D435 - Heard ... filed on: 06-Jan-2014
HEARING...
Extra Text: MOTION SUBSTITUTING IN AS REAL PARTY
INTEREST IS GRANTED; MOTION FOR A MORE
DEFINITIVE STATEMENT IS GRANTED; PLTF TO FILE A
MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS;
COUNSEL HILL TO PREPARE ORDER.
S1 - Request S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 21-Nov-2013
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER TO SET HEARING
S2 - Request S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 07-Jan-2014
for Submission
Extra Text: GRANTED IN 1/6/14 HEARING
H820 D435 - Heard ... filed on: 19-Aug-2013
STATUS
Extra Text: DEFTS HAVE 30 DAYS TO FILE AN ANSWER
HEARING
S1 - Request S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 07-May-2012
for Submission
Extra Text: order
S1 - Request S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 26-Apr-2012
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
S2 - Request S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 13-Mar-2012
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
for Submission
Extra Text: ORDER
Notice: This is NOT an Official Court Record
381
14. 21-Feb-2012 at
09:49
15. 07-Feb-2012 at
09:52
16. 10-Jan-2012 at
15:45
17. 10-Jan-2012 at
15:45
18. 09-Jan-2012 at
11:20
19. 09-Jan-2012 at
16:50
20. 28-Dec-2011 at
10:50
21. 28-Dec-2011 at
10:53
22. 27-Dec-2011 at
10:52
23. 21-Dec-2011 at
13:44
24. 15-Dec-2011 at
13:41
25. 15-Dec-2011 at
16:50
26. 21-Jul-2011 at
16:30
27. 27-Jun-2011 at
16:55
Docket Entry
Information (top)
Docket Description
1. 2540 - Notice of
Entry of Ord
2. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
3. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
4. 3225 - Ord Sealing
...
5. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
6. 3860 - Request for
Submission
7. 2610 - Notice ...
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S2 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S2 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S2 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S2 - Request
LYNNE SIMONS
for Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
CONNIE STEINHEIMERfor Submission
Honorable
S1 - Request
CONNIE STEINHEIMERfor Submission
S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 13-Mar-2012

Extra Text: ORDER
S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 08-Feb-2012
Extra Text: ORDER
S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 11-Jan-2012
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
Extra Text: ORDER
S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 10-Aug-2011
Extra Text:
S200 - Request for Submission Complet filed on: 30-Jun-2011
Extra Text:
Date Filed Extra Text

03-Jul-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4503092 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 07-03-2014:10:05:17
03-Jul-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4503100 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 07-03-2014:10:06:06
26-Jun-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4494773 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-26-2014:16:23:07
26-Jun-2014 Extra Text: ORDER SEALING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - Transaction 4494766 Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-26-2014:16:22:18
20-Jun-2014 Extra Text: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND RELEASE UNDER SEAL (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) Transaction 4486371 - Approved By: MFERNAND : 06-20-2014:16:00:45 PARTY
SUBMITTING: JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 06/20/2014 SUBMITTED
BY: M. FERNANDEZ DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
19-May-2014 Extra Text: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT - Transaction 4437223 - Approved By: YLLOYD :
05-19-2014:10:32:34
19-May-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4437619 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 05-19-2014:10:33:24
8. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
9. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
10. 2490 - Motion ... 16-May-2014 Extra Text: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND RELEASE UNDER SEAL - Transaction 4435077 - Approved By:
MCHOLICO : 05-16-2014:10:26:11
11. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
12. 4127 - Supreme 01-May-2014 Extra Text: SUPREME CT NO. 64855/ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL - Transaction
382
12. 4127 - Supreme 01-May-2014 Extra Text: SUPREME CT NO. 64855/ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL - Transaction
Ct Ord Dismis Appeal
4412927 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 05-01-2014:15:18:41
13. NEF - Proof of
04-Feb-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4289431 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 02-04-2014:14:42:21
Electronic Service
14. 1188 - Supreme 04-Feb-2014 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT NO. 64855/RECEIPT FOR DOCUMENTS - Transaction
Court Receipt for Doc
15. F100 - Voluntary 28-Jan-2014 Extra Text:
Dismissals
16. NEF - Proof of
27-Jan-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4276853 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 01-27-2014:16:15:17
Electronic Service
17. 2585 - Notice of 27-Jan-2014 Extra Text: VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL - Transaction 4276191 - Approved By: MCHOLICO
Voluntary Dismissal
: 01-27-2014:16:14:07
18. 1350 - Certificate 17-Jan-2014 Extra Text: CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL of Clerk
Transaction 4264488 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 01-17-2014:10:15:39
19. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
20. 1310E - Case
Appeal Statement
21. 2515 - Notice of 11-Jan-2014 Extra Text:
Appeal Supreme Court
22. MIN - ***Minutes09-Jan-2014 Extra Text: 1/6/14 HEARING ON MOTIONS - Transaction 4245826 - Approved By:
NOREVIEW : 01-09-2014:11:11:43
23. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
24. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
25. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
26. 2540 - Notice of 07-Jan-2014 Extra Text: Transaction 4240019 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 01-07-2014:14:40:53
Entry of Ord
27. 3105 - Ord
07-Jan-2014 Extra Text: ORDER - Transaction 4237538 - Approved By: NOREVIEW :
Granting ...
01-07-2014:08:52:51
28. 1250 30-Dec-2013 Extra Text: JANUARY 6, 2014 - 1:30 PM
Application for Setting
29. NEF - Proof of
11-Dec-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 4191660 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 12-11-2013:15:28:13
Electronic Service
30. 1810 - Inmate
11-Dec-2013 Extra Text: INMATE REQUEST FORM RESPONSE - Transaction 4191539 - Approved By:
Request Form Filed
MCHOLICO : 12-11-2013:15:25:38
31. NEF - Proof of
21-Nov-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 4150125 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 11-21-2013:09:18:45
Electronic Service
32. 3347 - Ord to Set 21-Nov-2013 Extra Text: HEARING - Transaction 4150118 - Approved By: NOREVIEW :
11-21-2013:09:17:10
33. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
34. 1830 - Joinder... 18-Nov-2013 Extra Text: JOINDER TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND
AMENDED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - Transaction 4141641 - Approved By:
JWISE : 11-19-2013:08:58:01
35. 3860 - Request
13-Nov-2013 Extra Text: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, OR IN THE
for Submission
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (NO PAPER
ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 4131231 - Approved By: PDBROWN :
11-13-2013:13:54:55 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ. DATE
SUBMITTED: 11-13-13 SUBMITTED BY: PDBROWN DATE RECEIVED JUDGE
OFFICE:
36. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
37. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
38. 3860 - Request
12-Nov-2013 Extra Text: MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST - Transaction 4128229
383
38. 3860 - Request

for Submission
12-Nov-2013 Extra Text: MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST - Transaction 4128229
- Approved By: MPURDY : 11-13-2013:12:48:15 DOCUMENT TITLE: MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST PARTY SUBMITTING: RICHARD HILL DATE
SUBMITTED: 11/13/15 SUBMITTED BY: MPURDY DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
12-Nov-2013 Extra Text:
39. 1325 - ** Case

Reopened
40. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
41. 2645 - Opposition 07-Nov-2013 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND AMENDED
to Mtn ...
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - Transaction 4122420 - Approved By: MPURDY :
11-08-2013:16:32:30
42. 2490 - Motion ... 31-Oct-2013 Extra Text: AMENDED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND TO OPPOSE MEMORANDUM OF
COSTS IN ASSOCIATES CV11-03628 CASE AND OPPOSE HILL AND MERLISS'S
ATTEMPTS TO SUBSTITUTE IN OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISH THAT COUGHLIN HAS
NOT INTERST (sic) IN THIS LITIGATION - Transaction 4104070 - Approved By:
MPURDY : 10-31-2013:14:18:39
43. NEF - Proof of
31-Oct-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 4105845 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 10-31-2013:13:56:37
Electronic Service
44. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
45. 2525 - Notice of 31-Oct-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 4105408 - Approved By: AZION : 10-31-2013:14:16:05
Change of Address
46. 2490 - Motion ... 31-Oct-2013 Extra Text: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND TO OPPOSE MEMORANDUM OF CUSTS IN
ASSOCIATES CV11-03628 CASE AND OPPOSE HILL AND MERLISS'S ATTEMPTS TO
SUBSTITUTE IN OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISH THAT COUGHLIN HAS NOT INTERST Transaction 4104068 - Approved By: MPURDY : 10-31-2013:13:53:08
47. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
48. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
49. 2645 - Opposition 24-Oct-2013 Extra Text: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
to Mtn ...
- Transaction 4092759 - Approved By: MPURDY : 10-28-2013:13:46:33
50. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
51. 2610 - Notice ... 21-Oct-2013 Extra Text: NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF PLANTIFF'S INTERESTS - Transaction 4081201 Approved By: TWHITE : 10-22-2013:08:47:44
52. 2490 - Motion ... 21-Oct-2013 Extra Text: MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST - Transaction 4081201
- Approved By: TWHITE : 10-22-2013:08:47:44
53. 2195 - Mtn for
18-Oct-2013 Extra Text: EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY SHERIFF'S SALE PURSUANT TO WRIT OF
Stay ...
EXECUTION IN CV11-03628 - Transaction 4075514 - Approved By: MPURDY :
10-18-2013:13:55:07
54. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
55. 2275 - Mtn to
08-Oct-2013 Extra Text: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CV11-01896 WITH CV11-01955 - Transaction
Consolidate
4049222 - Approved By: JWISE : 10-08-2013:15:44:09
56. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
57. 3870 - Request
08-Oct-2013 Extra Text: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIS SUPPLEMENT TO
9/29/13 FUNCTIONA EQUIVALENT OF A RESPONSE OR OPPOSITION TO 9/18/13
MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT NOTICE OF UNIMAGINABLE
IMPROPRIERTY ATTENDANT TO WLS HAVING BOARD MEMBER IN WCDA BRUCE
HAHN ON COUGHLIN'S APRIL 2012 NNDB SCREENING PANEL WHERE COUGHLIN,
OBVIOUSLY, IS AND WAS SUING WLS, AND HAHN IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE
WCSO'S SYSTEMIC BURGLARIES OF TENANTS DRESSED UP AS SUMMARY
EVICTION LOCKOUTS AND ATTENDANT RATIONALE FOR APPLYING
SUPERINTENDING CONTROL TO ALL THESE INFERIOR TRIBUNALS- Transaction
4049223 - Approved By: JWISE : 10-08-2013:16:02:32
58. NEF - Proof of
384
58. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
59. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
60. 2540 - Notice of
Entry of Ord
61. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
62. 2610 - Notice ...

03-Oct-2013 Extra Text: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER - Transaction 4040887 - Approved By:
MPURDY : 10-03-2013:16:47:38
30-Sep-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 4030111 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 09-30-2013:10:33:07
29-Sep-2013 Extra Text: NOTICE OF UNIMAGINABLE IMPROPRIERTY ATTENDANT TO WLS

HAVING BOARD MEMBER IN WCDA BRUCE HAHN ON COUGHLIN'S APRIL 2012
NNDB SCREENING PANEL WHERE COUGHLIN, OBVIOUSLY, IS AND WAS SUING
WLS. AND HAHN IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE WCSO'S SYSTEMIC BURGLARIES OF
TENANTS DRESSED UP AS SUMMARY EVICTION LOCKOUTS - Transaction 4029277 Approved By: JWISE : 09-30-2013:10:30:49
63. MIN - ***Minutes19-Sep-2013 Extra Text: 8/19/13 STATUS HEARING - Transaction 4009542 - Approved By: NOREVIEW
: 09-19-2013:16:32:21
64. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
65. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
66. 2610 - Notice ... 18-Sep-2013 Extra Text: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE DEFAULT DISCHARGING RPC 3.5A DUTY
IN A MANNER IN WHICH GAYLE KERN, ESQ. FAILED TO IN REV2012-000374, WHICH
THE RJC CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO TRANSMIT COUGHLIN'S NOTICE OF APPEAL
OR, WHICH IS ANOTHER CASE INVOLVING YET ANOTHER INSTANCE OF THE
WCSO BURGLARIZING COUGHLIN'S FORMER HOME LAW OFFICE, IN VIOLATION
OF RUSSELL AND IORIO - Transaction 4003261 - Approved By: MPURDY :
09-18-2013:07:54:09
67. 2610 - Notice ... 18-Sep-2013 Extra Text: NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL ELCANO'S AND JOHN
SPRINGGATE, ESQ'S MISCONDUCT REQUIRING CANON 2, RULE 2.15 APPROPRIATE
ACTION VIA REPORTING SUCH TO APPROPRIATE AUTHOIRTY(sic), IE STATE BAR A
- Transaction 4003342 - Approved By: MPURDY : 09-18-2013:10:49:34
68. 2100 - Mtn More 18-Sep-2013 Extra Text: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, OR IN THE
Definite Statement
ALTNERATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM - Transaction
4006198 - Approved By: MPURDY : 09-19-2013:11:31:36
69. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
70. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
71. NEF - Proof of
19-Aug-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 3932999 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 08-19-2013:14:38:27
Electronic Service
72. 2700 - Ord After 19-Aug-2013 Extra Text: Transaction 3932979 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 08-19-2013:14:35:33
Hearing...
73. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
74. 3370 - Order ... 05-Aug-2013 Extra Text: ORDER FOR STATUS CONFERENCE UPON REMAND - Transaction
75. 3863 - **Submit 28-Jun-2013 Extra Text: DOCUMENT TITLE: ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART,
regarding Appeals
AND REMANDING PARTY SUBMITTING: DATE SUBMITTED: 6-28-13 SUBMITTED BY:
S HAMBRIGHT DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
76. 4111 - Supreme 25-Jun-2013 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT NO. 60302/CLERKS CERTIFICATE AND JUDGMENT Ct Clk's Cert & Judg
77. 4145 - Supreme 25-Jun-2013 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT NO. 60302/REMITTITUR - Transaction 3813399 Court Remittitur
Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-25-2013:11:32:00
78. 4134 - Supreme 25-Jun-2013 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT NO. 60302/ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING
Court Order Affirming
IN PART AND REMANDING - Transaction 3813399 - Approved By: NOREVIEW :
06-25-2013:11:32:00
79. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
80. 3370 - Order ... 11-Jun-2013 Extra Text: MATTER TRANSFERRED TO DEPT. 8 - Transaction 3781430 - Approved By:
NOREVIEW : 06-11-2013:15:46:20
385
81. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
82. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
83. 3863 - **Submit 23-May-2013 Extra Text: DOCUMENT TITLE: ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART,
regarding Appeals
AND REMANDING PARTY SUBMITTING: DATE SUBMITTED: 5-23-13 SUBMITTED BY:
S HAMBRIGHT DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
84. 4134 - Supreme 23-May-2013 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT NO. 60302/ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING
Court Order Affirming
IN PART AND REMANDING - Transaction 3745486 - Approved By: NOREVIEW :
05-23-2013:14:10:42
85. 1188 - Supreme 21-Sep-2012 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 60302/RECEIPT FOR DOCUMENTS Court Receipt for Doc
86. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
87. 1350 - Certificate 18-Sep-2012 Extra Text: CERTIFICATE OF CLERK & TRANSMITTAL - RECORD ON APPEAL of Clerk
88. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
89. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
90. 4128 - Supreme 29-Aug-2012 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 60302/ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
Court Order Denying
DISMISS, DIRECTING TRANSMISSION OF RECORD, AND SETTING REVISED
BRIEFING SCHEDULE - Transaction 3183920 - Approved By: NOREVIEW :
08-29-2012:15:38:43
91. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
92. 4127 - Supreme 04-Jun-2012 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 60302/ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL IN PART
Ct Ord Dismis Appeal
- Transaction 2995722 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-04-2012:16:33:27
93. 1315 - ** Case
08-May-2012 Extra Text:
Closed
94. 2545 - Notice of 07-May-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2934978 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 05-07-2012:14:39:18
Entry ...
95. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
96. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
97. 1105 - Amended 07-May-2012 Extra Text: AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND - Transaction
Ord and/or Judgment
98. 3860 - Request
02-May-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OF MARCH 13, 2012
for Submission
- Transaction 2925225 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 05-02-2012:10:05:01 PARTY
SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 5/2/12 SUBMITTED BY:
LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
99. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
100. 2540 - Notice of 30-Apr-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2921920 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 04-30-2012:16:10:23
Entry of Ord
101. NEF - Proof of 30-Apr-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2921934 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 04-30-2012:16:12:36
Electronic Service
102. 1105 - Amended 26-Apr-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2914839 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 04-26-2012:13:40:11
Ord and/or Judgment
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
105. 3860 - Request 25-Apr-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING MOTION
for Submission
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - Transaction 2911085 - Approved By: LMATHEUS
: 04-25-2012:11:21:11 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED:
4/25/12 SUBMITTED BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
Electronic Service
386
107. 2645 Opposition to Mtn ...

109. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
111. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
112. 1350 Certificate of Clerk
113. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
114. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
115. 1310 - Case
Appeal Statement
117. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
118. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
121. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
122. 3860 - Request
for Submission
123. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
124. 3860 - Request
for Submission
125. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
126. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
127. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
128. 3060 - Ord
Granting Mtn ...
129. 2250 - Mtn Alter
or Amend Judgment
20-Apr-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAITIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER

ORAMEND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Transaction 2903348 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-20-2012:16:39:54
20-Apr-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND ORDER OF MARCH 13M, 2012 - Transaction 2902985 - Approved By:
LMATHEUS : 04-20-2012:13:46:55
20-Apr-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2903141 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 04-20-2012:13:48:42
20-Apr-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - Transaction
2904207 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-20-2012:17:02:56
13-Apr-2012 Extra Text: CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL - NRAP 3(g)(1)(B) Transaction 2889376 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 04-13-2012:15:53:40
12-Apr-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2887457 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-13-2012:09:19:48
12-Apr-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS - Transaction 2887001 - Approved By:
LMATHEUS : 04-12-2012:16:36:03
11-Apr-2012 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE Transaction 2884163 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-11-2012:16:51:07
11-Apr-2012 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIF'S MOTIONS FILED ON APRIL 3, 2012 Transaction 2884024 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-11-2012:15:55:38
11-Apr-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (NO PAPER ORDER
PROVIDED) - Transaction 2882845 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-11-2012:15:25:25
PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 04/11/12 SUBMITTED
BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
06-Apr-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE
OF PROCESS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2874499 - Approved By:
LMATHEUS : 04-06-2012:14:39:01 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE
SUBMITTED: 04/06/12 SUBMITTED BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE
OFFICE:
03-Apr-2012 Extra Text: FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES - Transaction 2865805 - Approved By: NOREVIEW :
04-03-2012:12:57:41
03-Apr-2012 Extra Text: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND OR ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - Transaction 2863861 - Approved By: LMATHEUS :
04-03-2012:08:40:08
130. 2250 - Mtn Alter 03-Apr-2012 Extra Text: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OF MARCH 13, 2012 - Transaction
or Amend Judgment
Electronic Service
387
132. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
133. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
134. 3860 - Request
for Submission
135. 1360 Certificate of Service

136. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
137. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
138. 2250 - Mtn Alter
or Amend Judgment
140. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
141. 2175 - Mtn for
Reconsideration
142. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
143. 2540 - Notice of
Entry of Ord
145. 3370 - Order ...
146. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
147. 2540 - Notice of
Entry of Ord
148. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
149. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
150. 1350 Certificate of Clerk
151. 1310 - Case
Appeal Statement
152. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
153. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
154. 2010 - Mtn for
Attorney's Fee
155. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
156. 2842 - Ord
Denying Motion
157. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
158. 2075 - Mtn for
Extension of Time
159. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
160. 3860 - Request

30-Mar-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2860180 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 03-30-2012:16:56:46
30-Mar-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2860201 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 04-02-2012:10:48:28
DOCUMENT TITLE: DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLICHT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S
FEES PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 04/02/12
SUBMITTED BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
30-Mar-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2859935 - Approved By: AZION : 03-30-2012:16:52:36
27-Mar-2012 Extra Text: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS
- Transaction 2849616 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 03-27-2012:11:56:04
26-Mar-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCEES - Transaction 2849192 - Approved By:
LMATHEUS : 03-27-2012:11:53:40
22-Mar-2012 Extra Text: DEFTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Transaction 2843689 Approved By: LMATHEUS : 03-23-2012:11:02:15
14-Mar-2012 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO EXTND TIME FOR SERVICE
09-Mar-2012 Extra Text: CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL - Transaction 2815628 Approved By: NOREVIEW : 03-09-2012:13:09:02
08-Mar-2012 Extra Text: CASE APPEAL STATEMENT OR, PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN APPEAL PAPERS Transaction 2811757 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 03-08-2012:10:41:38
08-Mar-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLICHT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES Transaction 2813540 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 03-08-2012:15:52:59
08-Mar-2012 Extra Text: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Transaction 2813864 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 03-08-2012:16:29:52
07-Mar-2012 Extra Text: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM SERVICE OF PROCESS
06-Mar-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RETAX COSTS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED)-
388
160. 3860 - Request

for Submission
161. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
162. 3860 - Request
for Submission
163. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
06-Mar-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RETAX COSTS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED)Transaction 2806642 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 03-06-2012:13:56:17 PARTY
SUBMITTING: Joseph Garin, Esq. DATE SUBMITTED: 03/06/12 SUBMITTED BY:
lmatheus DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
06-Mar-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND (NO PAPER ORDER
PROVIDED)- Transaction 2806643 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 03-06-2012:13:57:05
PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 03/06/12 SUBMITTED
BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
05-Mar-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDNAT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL - Transaction 2804909 - Approved By: LMATHEUS :
03-06-2012:10:17:10
165. 1950 02-Mar-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT CARYN STENLICHT'S VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
Memorandum of Costs
166. NEF - Proof of 02-Mar-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2801031 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 03-02-2012:16:10:04
Electronic Service
167. 1188 - Supreme 29-Feb-2012 Extra Text: SUPREME COURT ORDER NO. 60302/RECEIPT FOR DOCUMENTS Court Receipt for Doc
168. NEF - Proof of 29-Feb-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2794564 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 02-29-2012:12:20:43
Electronic Service
169. 3860 - Request 27-Feb-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
for Submission
ELCANO, TORVINEN, SASSER, ASHLEY, SABO, WLS, CIS AND BRECKENRIDGE'S
MOTION(S) TO DISMISS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2788535 Approved By: LMATHEUS : 02-27-2012:14:59:39 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN,
ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 02/27/12 SUBMITTED BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED
JUDGE OFFICE:
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
172. 3790 - Reply
25-Feb-2012 Extra Text: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING D
to/in Opposition
MOTION(S) TO DISMISS - Transaction 2787319 - Approved By: LMATHEUS :
02-27-2012:13:30:32
173. 2645 23-Feb-2012 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
Opposition to Mtn ...
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Electronic Service
175. 1350 22-Feb-2012 Extra Text: CERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND TRANSMITTAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL Certificate of Clerk
176. 4132 - Supreme 22-Feb-2012 Extra Text: NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFICIENCY - Transaction 2780505 - Approved By:
Ct Deficiency Notice
NOREVIEW : 02-22-2012:14:04:21
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
180. 3795 - Reply... 21-Feb-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES Transaction 2776783 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 02-21-2012:13:34:31
181. 1325 - ** Case 21-Feb-2012 Extra Text:
Reopened
Electronic Service
183. 2645 21-Feb-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND - Transaction 2776799 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 02-21-2012:13:33:55
Electronic Service
389
20-Feb-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2775068 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 02-21-2012:09:38:48

DOCUMENT TITLE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (NO PAPER
ORDER PROVIDED) PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED:
02/21/12 SUBMITTED BY: LMATHEUS DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
186. 2645 20-Feb-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RETAX COSTS - Transaction
187. 2540 - Notice of 20-Feb-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2775053 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 02-20-2012:11:22:34
Entry of Ord
Electronic Service
189. 2645 15-Feb-2012 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS
190. 2515 - Notice of 15-Feb-2012 Extra Text: APPELLANT, ZACHARY COUGHLIN - Transaction 2765533 - Approved By:
Appeal Supreme Court
LMATHEUS : 02-15-2012:12:21:15
191. 2385 - Mtn
15-Feb-2012 Extra Text: MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL (NO PAPER
Proceed Forma
ORDER PROVIDED)- Transaction 2768363 - Approved By: LMATHEUS :
Pauperis
02-16-2012:13:52:00
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
195. 2645 13-Feb-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
ORDER - Transaction 2761482 - Approved By: MCHOLICO : 02-13-2012:14:23:07
196. 2645 11-Feb-2012 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO ALL MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES - Transaction
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
199. 3060 - Ord
08-Feb-2012 Extra Text: CARYN STERNLICHT'S MOTION TO DISMISS - Transaction 2752867 Granting Mtn ...
Approved By: NOREVIEW : 02-08-2012:15:25:17
200. 2645 08-Feb-2012 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO STERNLICHT ET AL'S MOTION TO DISMISS; OR PLEASE
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND TO ORDER - Transaction
201. 2645 07-Feb-2012 Extra Text: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION
TO STERNLICHT OR WHOEEVER'S MOTION TO DISMISS - Transaction 2747321 Approved By: LMATHEUS : 02-07-2012:10:29:39
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
204. 3860 - Request 07-Feb-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLICHT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
for Submission
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2747811 Approved By: MCHOLICO : 02-07-2012:09:32:43 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH P.
GARIN, ESQ. DATE SUBMITTED: 2/7/12 SUBMITTED BY: MCHOLICO DATE
RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
205. 4085 - Summons 02-Feb-2012 Extra Text: Complaint served on Todd Torvinen and Paul Elcano on 10/27/11 - Transaction
Filed
Electronic Service
207. 2250 - Mtn Alter 01-Feb-2012 Extra Text: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; OR, PLED IN THE
or Amend Judgment
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER - Transaction 2734358 Approved By: LMATHEUS : 02-01-2012:14:02:03
Electronic Service
209. 2430 - Mtn to
31-Jan-2012 Extra Text: MOTION TO RETAX COSTS - Transaction 2731132 - Approved By:
Retax Costs
LMATHEUS : 01-31-2012:14:13:33
210. NEF - Proof of 31-Jan-2012 Extra Text: Transaction 2733080 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 01-31-2012:14:17:40
185. 3860 - Request
for Submission
390
210. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
211. 2010 - Mtn for
Attorney's Fee
212. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
213. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
215. 2450 - Mtn to
Set Aside Decree

30-Jan-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES - Transaction 2730796 Approved By: MCHOLICO : 01-30-2012:16:24:56
29-Jan-2012 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER - Transaction 2727949 Approved By: AZION : 01-30-2012:08:16:17
26-Jan-2012 Extra Text: MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S ELCANO,
TORVINEN, SASSER, AHSLEY, SABO, WLS, CIS AND BRECKENRIDGE'S MOTION(S)
TO DISMISS - Transaction 2721567 - Approved By: LMATHEUS : 01-26-2012:09:18:42
216. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
217. 1950 23-Jan-2012
Memorandum of Costs
218. NEF - Proof of 23-Jan-2012
Electronic Service
219. PAYRC 19-Jan-2012
**Payment Receipted
220. NEF - Proof of 19-Jan-2012
Electronic Service
221. 2315 - Mtn to
18-Jan-2012
Dismiss ...
Extra Text: DEFTS VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS - Transaction 2715147 Approved By: MLAWRENC : 01-23-2012:16:52:17
Extra Text: Transaction 2715209 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 01-23-2012:16:56:24
Extra Text: A Payment of $213.00 was made on receipt DCDC344381.
Extra Text: Transaction 2706497 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 01-19-2012:08:11:28
Extra Text: DEFENDANT CARYN STERNLICHT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS - Transaction 2705909 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
01-19-2012:08:09:56
222. $1560 - $Def 1st 18-Jan-2012 Extra Text: CARYN STERNLICHT - Transaction 2705909 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
Appearance - CV
01-19-2012:08:09:56
Entry of Ord
Electronic Service
Entry of Ord
Electronic Service
227. 3060 - Ord
11-Jan-2012 Extra Text: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS - Transaction 2695157 - Approved By:
Granting Mtn ...
NOREVIEW : 01-11-2012:16:21:21
Electronic Service
229. 3860 - Request 10-Jan-2012 Extra Text: DEFT PAUL ELCANO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF
for Submission
PROCESS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS Transaction 2691925 - Approved By: AZION : 01-10-2012:15:21:55 DOCUMENT TITLE:
DEFT PAUL ELCANO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS AND
IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS - PARTY SUBMITTING:
JOSEPH GARIN ESQ DATE SUBMITTED: 01-10-12 SUBMITTED BY: AZION DATE
230. 3860 - Request 10-Jan-2012 Extra Text: DEFT WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
for Submission
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT SERVICE
OF PROCESS - Transaction 2691923 - Approved By: AZION : 01-10-2012:15:19:55
DOCUMENT TITLE: DEFT WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT SERVICE
OF PROCESS - PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN ESQ DATE SUBMITTED:
01-10-12 SUBMITTED BY: AZION DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
391
234. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
235. 3860 - Request
for Submission
236. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
237. 3860 - Request
for Submission
239. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
240. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
241. 3795 - Reply...
242. 3860 - Request

for Submission
243. 3860 - Request

for Submission
244. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
245. 3795 - Reply...
246. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
247. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
249. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
250. NEF - Proof of
Electronic Service
251. 2490 - Motion ...

09-Jan-2012 Extra Text: DEFT MARC ASHLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF
PROCESS - Transaction 2688104 - Approved By: AZION : 01-09-2012:11:19:10
DOCUMENT TITLE: DEFT MARC ASHLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN ESQ DATE
SUBMITTED: 01-09-12 SUBMITTED BY: AZION DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
09-Jan-2012 Extra Text: DEFT JON SASSERS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON SERVICE OF
PROCESS - Transaction 2688039 - Approved By: MLAWRENC : 01-09-2012:11:32:58
DOCUMENT TITLE: DEFT JON SASSERS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON SERVICE
OF PROCESS PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH GARIN ESQ DATE SUBMITTED: 1-09-12
SUBMITTED BY: MLAWRENCE DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
07-Jan-2012 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES OR PLED IN THE
ALTERNATIVE; REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES - Transaction 2686688 - Approved By: LMATHEUS :
01-09-2012:09:28:06
27-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFT KAREN SABOS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
INSUFFICIENT PROCESS - Transaction 2668493 - Approved By: MLAWRENC :
12-27-2011:14:10:51
27-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT KATHY BRECKENRIDGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON
SERVICE OF PROCESS, OPPOSITION(S) FILED DEC. 15 AND 22, 2011 AND REPLY
BRIEF FILED DEC. 27, 2011 (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2669419 Approved By: MCHOLICO : 12-28-2011:09:48:17 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH P.
27-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT KAREN SABO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON SERVICE OF
PROCESS, OPPOSITION(S) FILED DEC. 15 AND 22, 2011, AND REPLY BRIEF FILED
DEC. 27, 2011 (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2669432 - Approved By:
MCHOLICO : 12-28-2011:09:49:30 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.
DATE SUBMITTED: 12/27/11 SUBMITTED BY: MCHOLICO DATE RECEIVED JUDGE
OFFICE:
27-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFT KATHY BRECKENRIDGES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DIMISS FOR NONSERVICE OF PROCESS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT
22-Dec-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2661731 - Approved By: JWISE : 12-22-2011:08:45:56
20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFT PAUL ELCANOS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS Transaction 2656097 - Approved By: MLAWRENC : 12-20-2011:09:40:51
252. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
253. $1560 - $Def 1st 20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES - Transaction 2656091 - Approved By:
Appearance - CV
MCHOLICO : 12-20-2011:09:30:18
254. NEF - Proof of 20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2656116 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 12-20-2011:09:32:55
392
254. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
255. 3795 - Reply...

20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
QUASH SERVICE AND TO DISMISS - Transaction 2658430 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
12-21-2011:11:44:52
20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: A Payment of $213.00 was made on receipt DCDC340778.
256. PAYRC **Payment Receipted

257. 2490 - Motion ... 20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT WASHOE LEGAL SERVICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE
OF PROCESS - Transaction 2656091 - Approved By: MCHOLICO : 12-20-2011:09:30:18
258. 3860 - Request 20-Dec-2011 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE ADN TO
for Submission
DISMISS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2658431 - Approved By:
MCHOLICO : 12-21-2011:11:46:41 PARTY SUBMITTING: BRIAN A. GONZALVES, ESQ.
DATE SUBMITTED: 12/20/11 SUBMITTED BY: MCHOLICO DATE RECEIVED JUDGE
OFFICE:
Electronic Service
260. $1560 - $Def 1st 16-Dec-2011 Extra Text: JON SASSER - Transaction 2650162 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
Appearance - CV
12-16-2011:09:40:14
261. $1560 - $Def 1st 16-Dec-2011 Extra Text: MARC ASHLEY - Transaction 2650226 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
Appearance - CV
12-16-2011:11:01:28
262. 2490 - Motion ... 16-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT JON SASSER'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF
PROCESS - Transaction 2650162 - Approved By: MCHOLICO : 12-16-2011:09:40:14
263. 2490 - Motion ... 16-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT MARC ASHLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE
OF PROCESS - Transaction 2650226 - Approved By: MCHOLICO : 12-16-2011:11:01:28
264. PAYRC 16-Dec-2011 Extra Text: A Payment of $213.00 was made on receipt DCDC340417.
**Payment Receipted
Electronic Service
266. PAYRC 16-Dec-2011 Extra Text: A Payment of $213.00 was made on receipt DCDC340444.
**Payment Receipted
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
270. 2645 15-Dec-2011 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS and all
Defendant's Motions to Quash Service, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND/CONTINUANCE; OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS
SIMLUTANEOUSLY SEEKING EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONTINUANCE TO
RESPOND - Transaction 2648496 - Approved By: MCHOLICO : 12-15-2011:15:56:03
271. 3860 - Request 15-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFT PAUL ELCANOS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NONSERVICE OF
for Submission
PROCESS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS Transaction 2648669 - Approved By: MLAWRENC : 12-15-2011:14:13:31 DOCUMENT
TITLE: DEFT PAUL ELCANOS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NONSERVICE OF PROCESS
AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS PARTY
SUBMITTING: ZACHARY COUGHLIN ESQ DATE SUBMITTED: 12-15-11 SUBMITTED
BY: MLAWRENCE DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
272. 3860 - Request 15-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT TODD TORVINEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
for Submission
INSUFFICIENT PROCESS (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) - Transaction 2647981 Approved By: MCHOLICO : 12-15-2011:12:28:34 PARTY SUBMITTING: JOSEPH P.
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
393
12-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFT PAUL ELCANO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
NONSERVICE OF PROCESS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE INSUFFICIENT SERCICE OF
277. 3795 - Reply... 12-Dec-2011 Extra Text: DEFT TODD TORVINENS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR INSUFFUCIENT PROCESS - Transaction 2640449 - Approved By: MLAWRENC :
12-12-2011:16:31:39
278. 4085 - Summons 10-Dec-2011 Extra Text: TRAVIS SHERMAN - 12-9-11 - Transaction 2638026 - Approved By:
Filed
MLAWRENC : 12-12-2011:09:45:27
279. NEF - Proof of 30-Nov-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2614955 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 11-30-2011:08:24:39
Electronic Service
280. 2645 30-Nov-2011 Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO DEFT'S TORVINEN AND ELCANO'S MOTIONS TO
DISMISS - Transaction 2614886 - Approved By: AZION : 11-30-2011:08:21:25
281. 2520 - Notice of 29-Nov-2011 Extra Text: ZACH COUGHLIN ESQ FOR ZACH COUGHLIN - Transaction 2611947 Appearance
Approved By: AZION : 11-29-2011:09:21:03
Electronic Service
Electronic Service
284. 1817 - Initial
28-Nov-2011 Extra Text:
Appear. Fee Disclosure
285. $1560 - $Def 1st 28-Nov-2011 Extra Text: KATHY BRECKENRIDGE - Transaction 2610607 - Approved By: ASMITH :
Appearance - CV
11-28-2011:13:12:36
286. $1560 - $Def 1st 28-Nov-2011 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES, INCORRECTLY NAMED AS TAHOE
Appearance - CV
WOMEN'S SERVICES
287. 2490 - Motion ... 28-Nov-2011 Extra Text: DEFT KATHY BRECKENRIDGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NONSERVICE
OF PROCESS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT PROCESS - Transaction
2610607 - Approved By: ASMITH : 11-28-2011:13:12:36
288. 2490 - Motion ... 28-Nov-2011 Extra Text: CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES' MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE AND TO
DISMISS (SCANNED IMAGE REFLECTS MANNER IN WHICH DOCUMENT WAS
RECEIVED - 11-30-2011 - SC)
289. PAYRC 28-Nov-2011 Extra Text: A Payment of $213.00 was made on receipt DCDC337950.
**Payment Receipted
290. PAYRC 28-Nov-2011 Extra Text: A Payment of -$213.00 was made on receipt DCDC338008.
**Payment Receipted
Electronic Service
292. 4085 - Summons 22-Nov-2011 Extra Text: KATHY BRECKENRIDGE SERVED 11/15/11 ZANDRA LOPEZ - NO SERVICE
Filed
**Payment Receipted
294. $1560 - $Def 1st 21-Nov-2011 Extra Text: KAREN SABO - Transaction 2603171 - Approved By: AZION :
Appearance - CV
11-22-2011:08:59:10
295. 2490 - Motion ... 21-Nov-2011 Extra Text: DEFT KAREN SABO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT PROCESS
- Transaction 2603171 - Approved By: AZION : 11-22-2011:08:59:10
296. $1560 - $Def 1st 15-Nov-2011 Extra Text: PAUL ELCANO - Transaction 2588920 - Approved By: AZION :
Appearance - CV
11-15-2011:09:09:22
297. 2490 - Motion ... 15-Nov-2011 Extra Text: PAUL ELCANO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR NON-SERVICE OF PROCESS,
AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS - Transaction
2588920 - Approved By: AZION : 11-15-2011:09:09:22
298. 2490 - Motion ... 15-Nov-2011 Extra Text: DEFENDANT TODD TORVINEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
INSUFFICIENT PROCESS - Transaction 2589539 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
11-15-2011:10:34:11
299. $1560 - $Def 1st 15-Nov-2011 Extra Text: TODD TORVINEN - Transaction 2589539 - Approved By: MCHOLICO :
Appearance - CV
11-15-2011:10:34:11
**Payment Receipted
Electronic Service
**Payment Receipted
276. 3795 - Reply...
394
303. NEF - Proof of

Electronic Service
304. 3720 - Proof of
Service
305. 4090 - **
Summons Issued
306. 4090 - **
Summons Issued
307. 1425 Complaint - Civil

02-Nov-2011 Extra Text: TODD TORVINEN & PAUL ELCANO - OCTOBER 27, 2011
27-Oct-2011 Extra Text: (4)
14-Oct-2011 Extra Text:
11-Aug-2011 Extra Text: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION; TORTIOUS CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF
PUBLIC POLICY; BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, WRITTEN, ORAL, OR
IMPLIED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; SEC. 1983 STATE
ACTOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS; WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION; PUNITIVE
DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (SCANNED IMAGE REFLECTS MANNER IN
WHICH DOCUMENT WAS RECEIVED - 8-11-2011 -SC)
308. 3035 - Ord Grant 09-Aug-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2397771 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 08-09-2011:17:46:32
in Forma Pauperis
309. NEF - Proof of 09-Aug-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2397772 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 08-09-2011:17:47:44
Electronic Service
310. 3860 - Request 21-Jul-2011 Extra Text: MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND THE SUBSEQUENT
for Submission
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THAT MOTION (NO PAPER ORDER PROVIDED) Transaction 2361079 - Approved By: MCHOLICO : 07-21-2011:16:15:17 : PARTY
SUBMITTING: ZACH COUGHLIN DATE SUBMITTED: 7/21/11 SUBMITTED BY:
MCHOLICO DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
311. NEF - Proof of 21-Jul-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2361213 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 07-21-2011:16:19:59
Electronic Service
312. NEF - Proof of 11-Jul-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2335498 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 07-11-2011:08:16:42
Electronic Service
313. 4105 08-Jul-2011 Extra Text: SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT - Transaction 2335347 Supplemental ...
Approved By: ASMITH : 07-11-2011:08:15:27
314. 3370 - Order ... 30-Jun-2011 Extra Text: ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA
PAUPERIS - Transaction 2321539 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-30-2011:16:48:10
315. NEF - Proof of 30-Jun-2011 Extra Text: Transaction 2321580 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-30-2011:16:52:08
Electronic Service
316. 3860 - Request 27-Jun-2011 Extra Text: DOCUMENT TITLE: MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS (PAPER
for Submission
ORDER PROVIDED) PARTY SUBMITTING: ZACH COUGHLIN DATE SUBMITTED:
6/27/11 SUBMITTED BY: MCHOLICO DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:
317. 2385 - Mtn
27-Jun-2011 Extra Text:
Proceed Forma
Pauperis
318. 1047 - Affidavit 27-Jun-2011 Extra Text:
of Poverty
319. COV - **Civil 27-Jun-2011 Extra Text:
Cover Sheet
395
EXHIBIT 17
EXHIBIT 17
396
R50,77-4.1or
qil Pqrf r5L01)

P-Ptev V'TS
I
.c)f-iPE.f!
&IMO
DEPUTY CLERK
VI()
P,r5e)-5C7F41-1-
r: To. cr4 rF,c
111.
PP Lc)
/)
~1 ~j
e;'~ ~;, \ ~~"tl
ie )If--r~-~------J)~lgJ-.jjJJ/ttj- ,-
Jrl.
. -.
21
.__.- .-.. . , ~L~~

:l,,,lc~~J .~
.-----
-,---------------------------
25- f - " - - - - - - - -.........- - - . - -
. - _. . .-
+--f----l~--.~~.......-----.---.---"---.-~----'------
27
TRACE K. E
CLERK OE Sup,
397
er
43,-A
l'' C..N.
Q, . .
''
,krA,oy P-?
,t. ,
\
6 12 A- hiql qr ,
: t.c on...A 14 , (13

i
6
(
--./ evo 4.-:. (--vcs ,,,,
yr c.- a
5. 0 f- ',
,,k t.(cts :sq

,
ct/G,.
;.. ,
1I
'
83" (
pi . ..
, , -
"
.._
kA
7V. F(. 4
Q,
:
,
.,
6 4- 00,5 r Sq.1 T.
,
k
"." .
za '. efictVe.
' 1
r'77
,
,,zeo-t-, 3
..t..
R.
v
\5 6.' 111
t. ,L,,,e,'\i=0._.,1 t' ,.,
)1(4...) bi,cc,,.p,
'
(4102
!A.,
t -,
In
e....' r.:_f'
1'
,
1-1.;vtP
v
-E--. 5 evt,R . -cAi

I
_
j
lel,
t)j Ars 17
ty.k._Cr
I
kl
A.
-7
5. ------'`
. . efr
46
,052gt ct
.
,
'
o '
L-Y!,...
.."
f,7-
'y j t-Cf- c A: i--I

0 @,51c6v . 4.-a lf-e ci. . ek.,S, '0,0.4 ,i ,,A;
e
ey t ke.
4
I
tk, preck.it're yil......1071'qJtirreffb
icvc45 t...t ig.
,
ft,/ei,c,-1.:: -._At
,
_. ,
.4 t r
1
:
fs
A ,.0,1,..
'
c.
me751.4-1)ce:dc 5vr Iva 1-1.4.e -5 ( 4 ;.:.,

,
,
----,s -
s 0-1.-C-7 4
,,
.-,:e.
'
ck
xie Ii
.
, ),
,':',-,
r\....... .,
C-
1 li Ce, v
1
igIN 41
ir\E--.-
,- e
'61 :
5P
.--16, st,...."
I,
v laivc.
ie
n fiqc
L.tli
f
3
cie
tvOr-D
- -47-11
eas,t le,
. l's....0
, c
u
L.
(.11 1 ef's
6 b
14
' vvt41,9
)
,
'
7J
17 1S) 94 )
142
5
re
pl,
\,
. Z,
5tk,
'S
.ei
4 tht.dez,e..V
:..
,_
ize., (e-TICL.14 ,.
civf:evtic
,
5 1 , 0P/1;21 1 AI
714 1
P.4
Q
or ,,,
Si': F
-5,,cAluos,
i_rwricc--f
'
41,14v1'
4 5,
nit/A-K:4
us
;fa
acl-'
- t,.
,t- -7;,.
N4 . 1, ,i
04-!ipr:
)0
ti,
.( "Q
_/)._5(,_ CI (I (5)1 a IO, k:.et.:
544W
c..:40-ii 7
1:'
4-,
/
,
-7
1, P*
/
,-.-e
-4c,4
'4
-47 -
1 t 0 'A v.<
Ce 01
41'. tii
(
--4,.\ faLo. CA v'vcif
:4.... 6 C
0 4-
vt .
C.i:'''50
5 Cic-N, 3
lie lAtagse'_
f3cecii:
,FVe;'''''''
(.9
1'
au Sue..:;
'
(Lio
tet.5.
.ii'.
4q 5, 0
rf
009:- 3 -5k.A. 4;',::$:,6.0.:398
- ;2:
1 Z 6P
c/5
1.(a 55-eS
PoPtaPA
,fo-i
-eA7
g las(?
(a
ti 64.0 /le
7,-- it;
V4/I
kZ
fts)
v(
Vcce,
(1,
VA<
ie,k)-eci 4
;
(0-
rfog
rfteY5
Qwl A.e..442.< 1
e (567-14,z- .7)
- 2 i(', ' i -1
ex tic,4 ,,,,ci
(4130 :
-46 if v.4 444
rwc.\.leiS T 2 ZS'IM '.5 im

" - ' , ' i
,f-7-'
CC1/1
/it( t.r. --
II' tre.ev ZIA
-!-2-
ge-
fA
(it
vey.
Pc 1 1
4Th.L5
1.1
e....k
I
LeL
399
(44-C
~~
~)
.....
t.
C-c-
. 1, It"V`PC10-1 0
;:j.J7-"il L iii' \(Zcl

,t
fr-stoo 5cefc:5(
fr---I 3 6S
4
);
ro4cs; s0L4
Aecl r t ev.
iC r
i ,( 15)
iltco po"g2 I '1 i fluz c vor '0,1,4,42TR
( ,40)
ei RA;
.)ti A
S
-
cc L
!
tA"
a5 .
412.
k..c..2
k,S
A, al
4,..-"-
7.'2_'ir2 ,5"-f-i
400
evQ4revv42
65 /7-1P_It-e
;re ek ekv'; J ?s
e"."*"
5,C9,
C(
11-6,-,1 44 Ris
Iri
'641;
ca.iC
/4- 5 1/
)
tinki
41,2
552:19 7cY;
v.
kochitioi
Cia
tts5
et-Gti
lackurc."1. /ant5,1?0 ,V )
e,r4. 7 re_
/lee,
LI-AXE:2/A
Lif`s--410
/7
1 5 -Jv) kot,s
. 5a iCni5
.117. t UMW; sem,.
gr41.0.
27
K-ac.
tI
SL-c-k VAS cL
401
7,,i
toLttv4.1
7,,,,,z
;17-6'
Ivy. p el LT.)
Kr ,( Lik?
/7ls
7:,117;
kc
.
...;;
0,
et
7)
vto la 12-4
4.
C4 IC
teg.e0a?
Pt csa
.).
!"(!"
vorde
d -31C
A; 5 ev---
"de
tt-tl/ 4fritv1/4
-
'1'77"Te -c71
,1
/76.
e.6
5f
CA'A
IvouP
t5Ci?7-ti
0,0kW,
oeld
rte.
Qr. "4
Ccv.C, Iv
-
reg.7e-
tou -
CogS3 ia
I(J .) 9/eCtv
Vol:kke L 54144 i$,Ve
vi 6
I evy,cif
Q.Pc i/0
g1367: /-4/
402
eoZZ r"
tOr,
nor`f) i
ILPc.,.
a
toPAS
403
I.
cit
..(c:L.,-e_ iv
/.42_,I(r_ 4
tL
L,
a...,...4.,
11 i '4A,s
ck
5ert 'r
- ' (Aro._ . , -eyv
,)
(
{beV,i
_ I -1-1.Q_
i
AMR
cou(\sel
,
019, 4;.-:s ,
.5301-
SQv
'
ar
I
ckos-e"
a/a cry
z.
a-r5 dv\
2 -46" 2?Fo,
cc
4-12,
14 1
4.-J70
13
S
WI A h5 cSkela Yko' Ir
atiG
CEA/
:17
k.J 6-7`'. 11-12
(44404 46
te)60\
-"co,....ej
'I'M 1)/01 Vo
et
roof ciercAA-1,
e6?;
evi v\ ce$
.ey16(4tv.c.4., iI
cc
As
Iv
,e")
PPC.
Occ ,
Pe,
SMP'-`ct-t
AA...pAe
leg y54 tJ
c
P05-e4zu-tt - )
It 0-AY' 5, 2A 574 (2 0133-)7

r c, 3a (P6
6g_t61,
-,3
1444/\/(Peotze
IWYs-71-fiftwrit-Z
FtACkf,( 1
- i404
C 5 0-da
t.4.1,Qe(-4Pk, "It
?, Lac) 1/11
ICLA
V1S
cuL5
'al/3 1
tkz
02130
-1-1) To,
460
S'Id 406 (F-1 1 1
G-eiji-t-tcoli
egpolw -
v,
P-11 'Few
CV
.aoz.s(zY4)) 5
(359 -7 74
t5 51-
,41-ra -0 ,a ,A; ,"li 3,4
0-4.--d(2- 1 sceqa-111
71/-
.1e)
:0.7
e) 7 i
J
14
a. 4
Cp\c.
_
'8 , q6
sar(Qs, 5-750,, scoz3(3)>A3
vet t,/ et/cc-4-1s
Le
15Q
fcc
/4
277:a4r_42r_
ap,
114,42,Ae
Ind
IxaS4ci
dlat-tig
'
A;Z:7".
) 62
Aect-PA,
5(4/a-sr
f
cke,1"
2/2 7
R C)Ci 3 3(45
7 Lect
tt.55
a we
1-142
esrc..
iti
t.01
C2,C)
tohz
**\ ck
1---447 (4 a
1,e11
11,,
(Ls t s7,5-07
a-
cfr.4,
J`738 V5ee(Adt(
;7173
110 8.
12Pc
vo 13,4
tia
405
e 5c 1, 1 Cy)
4( 5
lt-) IN" ct
erczAprel
tic/ Lf;.5
eit:r
_1
5+
,
ti s)
6
-do* wkiPerect.
66,:ki 11,1
/r
1.1 wo, c1
W\IA.N et
)),o
Nott.se
1 el
't
)4t.
Pck-A.1 , 55-a2/0,3-(i
1 h)
(CT
?a;q?
5 ,-.12,0a-4
17):;
ekx-Le,!L
\ frialA.
ty
ige
Z)
0
.
1-4.4
130;4 Te7
fvetw
041
be%
406
:
.d
41 "'`- r)
407
,jer
2%74,
'
>
7'1'14
12,5
o/f4i.-oz:M o
; 29)
Ca- 4Z
ti-174FC
s
.0V7011,-
- oh-6
st
ca) \141v71
II Z71
-w4 V -tr-
7-
11001110151... 111%
',
;?;
0-444
r7".77, 1
,44
20 ".
Lk&
(f-
020v1
1.
4fr
1
td 1 101A .S drp
thA
'<NAV
1,
\
2b-7
t
...41),41
r1) s"re--ai
774t
j-9-;:szs
-
-4
/
V.AbpN.i0
' 1r1/7`17
:"1" ?.;
''
CA:
/4'7
"111 AI
-1,0z91 ,
(-z, ra l`193:
<1telrf
SVIrA
I
110...000.
't
( 9'1
1''
9t t 1
77;011 Z),,
r? al s Z Aid
.00moRwor.
nav04
\ "1
' 0'10 17c
Vicn
,
117,4
I t 1,3
r,
tof.tri(
'271b1")(3(
) e
)14
tz-0Z:
14
7'
'?
e,
00111
g 3 ,.5(
c .e..4)
ekt
Pl V
M 6\r, 1 1
? ?C
S g-tZ r, ,
pja
Cet.L4
408
5y
?i
17-1,
57S1
Ara
Wif4 ,
1
ie
WA,.
1\04-4
t'LL1
Ce.r.tio
12,1'56 -) ,
V..)
3
(JoiLicti 1e-5-
37e
1 ,14,
Z
v (614-t
't
eln
vlq,
ac,
409
tt*
5.,e(,,R
t1
zc
11-efi
C:(
1
fat
"TiO5
di) Gt"
eti137
:77o
6-40 cokek
% I va-2
soakprez)(c)
71
sca of .) Jr.mi, _
s4
eN
1C.0
MAU inv4
?t
v,1-0
ra Ler
$cie
A t 4_,
ceotAxio.
q 6,4
J.
kickly
/ ' kir tl
Ay-5,61,01-12..Ce-e.wt-'
""
6.
51).,2e. la
02-1367
tv\56kav-kcii-oq'z'
1Th.
GA-1
wks
410
se v tre,
it
s55
b/f5S21'5 i 0/74
ir_727 ev,i t,-Nrn

kvat.er)
1-
14Vi U-42- 4
(A
ec, 0(A
\ tstiv4
A23 e-r76 --- /-76-7

5D,AC
tercv c14.-c+ I
ve
VLISDA-41),
ii
wr k
6 0, -
Le-C,
7i)rs
akAA
/7
-0
6.47-dj
12 I 3 6T
Gi(
4itl,
attie
&ke$1-s
5,42 ,
16
L4
O ck10 (0. Mk3c60"01;

p.,v,k2k tevp.ii _'
(2c5:69'!
II
rti8
P\
v-ets
apki
Ibrea-ili pc, -
r1,b4v50t.(1Rt-eC 46Is . 40 Tec:19
t5e145A
'("it
01 I d'41 C4701
, Vt
Wok
Cc.,1
'etAvel-)
ANL_
'C
1 "\-
411
,I
Kiit
r6AAt4
1.40 4,444
.4:arAlrithitik
rto P-e
4-9-Z,t
4012
k4-\
;4-(61,-,r;\
1
f%
Ak5
CLCS2
c<C1/C: 11--z
9.S51 ', n sP:3 1
!v\cc
461;
.1
F1,4tS
4.7,0`
Z 1%*1") I
'kV 1
t iP-
%:
10 5.17)(d)
2 - OP 7
;
-cii-ley
kw-e-
voli,ecA
c rrvic
e 5 S.
8-qtc\s -e,troy
412
5-s-t o
p 2.8 1 -7.?5(71\I
"4"It "I"' PIC)
11 C
ktA
cf-2
frt
/1/-2111 A-42'
r__
P.,1540
_ if :15C1
2 3
-- --c 45 (- 47,
Pik:* 7
.
1
Itzk;77,4,7
s
Aokiit
/4.1c, ( v.< 5
3,4\ )
(
kilo
r71(''Z'
sey v(.s? f
rt)
co(pck
'V
r 1.9
SI7
41.
(.)z,
iz PC ,77),/, e, k a /
11\1 LL
ce 10-
.60cdsi ti I_
3, LIC 1/101 4-10
ki7C7
I sf
5'9 /2/
r(
s. -
_, _a_ Pf.'cnii.
S 54-6.-,v)(1---
CL
at t.,
vNi.
tE
Li
L4e/...t."?
qvc
I'
125 1
..,.. / /13
AQvc90 (i175
Qr."
c41 LILC;
/4-
ad
A ehe
f
L
1.4", _
sy.NA
4 r
,"55
/ 21c. 3 , -5(1`)(6 c,-,,,:

lo--Ce.1-4via. /
PFC
Orr ,t sts-f,C;
Liahe_
-75u5'c!,
pea-v.4,0.75
3(4)
1Fre"'C' W-C2/ /
5 c
C/A(
etet.". ( p Lks,
4.4
pcibiic
14;
CA'VT1f47;17-fri:ii-reir
c4(
4.44,
P(27-j4
f "i4-eat5c,oe_,
Ar-e 6(2 ir
--)V`
(0
Pa-
ae
4 ,0
tovi
442S,
e42-((c17')(3
t Q
co/ cf..9
ad5T1
6tYcl
fv
Ce. InCh, t(c; (X:4 g" It
ulk I
413
1051-e,
hie
6.e'e
rig
1I
Pre
ol -z,
ke
I/v
c(11,07S( 2 C(700j5t4C 651-1P,CiS
Lkiclecp( -5 I/
0 I
4- 1,e.,,L,_, .t ito..) , ,,
( --r7 -71'Fo(t- 7l'^ '--( -1' ' -,c3--,k.A11
,
s_,t
_ ,,,,, A
V '
i
1 ' IA cr , ..-7 7 t1.7
f. (
7C
: 7-.177
7
A740"..-7
77.
4.)
C.t7"7.
4.44,....7
' '-:''
'54_,
4? V" _
. ....i.___ . , ----, ,i.i,r 4'1 L.- :A.:"..,,,,,,,,eTP1:-: .g-J.,,,ce7----'------_..(A, )
,i,
., . .,., _-- - . -6- . ,'..-- ..,
1 6-.54
.;) ,:?1,
/-7,
a IS
Nk_
keeV'e
NCA
fr\a-rer.. ,
cce
/4=
kACt --cd..0
___ NoSpr t.,..74-ei fri,,,,,, ,s
us4et
5( LA C o
44
"
-1)e? 0
:`
,Pqr 53fY 7 (2,1

J:st.
_ e
6s- I v
4 .- 1 34 "31
c.(
4,k(
i,A)rt..D
C_ C I
.)
[
`
7,
; , L
,
FLcka
s
( bee
LA-ex rek,
VCJ-- tAvo,-e.
0 0, 4.-7Ag 911
l .., S 1,....p. 6
,
rr
1
l
Srif-- Le 1 t
\- (1,..,t,. ) e,cie
-
"k
,v\.z.
0--- --1 (0.--k[
,,,. e_e_vc.. )1\-0-etet--, (r.t 0----1
v\: ,,..
-r , ,. 44
,,,,,, t ytt.,
-w,( )14f 7tri,,,,,
pvt.. VIviN4r41 ..-.)Ot-,----- *e?
6k-,`? '2- c. CIttAr ptic
--
. &, 4A t.:,- , El?, 411
1-3
6t, I rk,
, i
414
L.,
1/441
Cti
4:e
** t; tr4/
64 2
sI
415
vcr-es
Li
-
6-egi
"C)
kp.(4
-5
4e-
12-
zovAi(o
Lkierc-
(5s-u-Q
irtiforl
Cc>
/ti
Lt/k
6 "3
vs/
"4
k.
P
""w5
416
1/
) cALi v\X-1
ri%
gtpt
vo,
Ne-
ot
9 5-0 rsvpit
K-42-4
107
s C4,1 (9 01/.
/
f k\C.i
Or, t"1.1
0 11
,r
//5)
C,
LC)
et( 1 vl LO/N,
417
!
t"
cj)
'
L. C
rjAV:i,,21-1
fr
64:54, 11 71401 16
' ( 5 9...A6V:A ciTt 46 TO 6411Vki!'..
/5-7I
;11 -.21?
,
vvt
PAAS
.4:97
"
rkCer
Rig 61"; Z6-1 56-5 4 1,)rr79-if
6o251'9 retr reti ,411i
-txr4 644, 04-14.4.1Q,IN F/4/ 4/6 Ale
CrkDi
dr, tor t
J,
i<
ii
v. Ca
1
'44o.
(ierf/CS
IA 5 12/16111 F '"1 i" 1 ,1 1:2 04d.
5
121Vgjvrookief
I
VO-1-
'
? /
2
t/E!iriri;'11
defy
1 .0c1
4.A-4a',
(/-
tft`?,')l-4\
je4,/
01..;
ic,47-avoitts
IWIPZ
ei
L,
Lrio) Yii4
6 L,G4.,,, :d
EVQ5,0Alc
r"c*-4111
t;<.,6..
c4,14.4C:
r val v. 45c,
55
c tA,ate.
t ktitt -
S4.dw
t frt,
v ifer,vk
(C0-4,4,A4
t.
440
Irj,i,titV
tsia)
1"sk-
C:662
4041+A
or
ovi
p4 L ig
41,Se,
Mtty,0 ,
e
We?!
- te 145
(04e
40 le.t.A0 -
7: gsErco.,-4,4.e.i
f
C. A
t. .1 .5 .0.-.1 5 /CRYpi
vie .A
c'c, C k
'
rt.(,)
y .LI
418
01
ic?,p ),_evi :NO ) 2_

et ymCti, ceo
I Ice L
5
k 4X6155
\t
'
419
cs.;
\
';1 1//1
49
420
fv/-714-9 '1 Tr
0,55) ,M51'
--341:41,3111C
-yciive2tvi 71(404
titA
1C1 51 5j,
tfri 3%11 1
II ::+4 11 '42/Vie/
amtv
* 0 pin
/14:77
,.
-------,
t7
Ab WI
\A
4>ci(
7V
I,
.a
a'\1 s'"A.1 1 eltoR

1
rst,
,),,4 5-0,-y) . Arh ol d ,...via,

' Tt I' er,-TI SAAI hit/ slypbasv4) 7 ,
1'
,i 1 1 1
'/: N /
c,..?_,)
/.1.T# nvel9,..91/
,ALs?)1_t:19,.;?
3/A (7_1'_
bri/1
../1",1t1
Y94 /
k'
71
Z
;4
".1
Tr
(71/
2 .f7,4rai
,)
V
011,0j
3210\4
Si
e.; IN
lijcid V, cp/7c;e14
1/4 0
)L4/
(-,327t.e7.
p to
iitigitcbc, 0 2-7, vi
.sr.*
"11
01.,
Ar
,}
II
CAA
97 _
'19
oc2 -9 purr t9 5931.04,33 7$23 7 '70fisliN

1.4(.
crt'l
cv)///
(7.47 "7fy
NVIrfatINIT )1 3i
Pez77,
7lq v
.21
77/...1.0N
TY5:AWFli 7`0
/14 viii?3
dp ritri
sic'
1 )V
wi-o -t)2
t',5 1 1`4. 1iti-9(7e,7
Dv-)
1710Z Z Z eldt/
a3ild
qn 3 -34-t1d
JA
1)6
,
)mvmo?N-177-1
1I
<2
12
FILID
FILED
RENO
MUNICIPAL COURT
DEPT.
DEPT. NO.3
NO. 3
CaseNo.
No. 11
Case
11 TR.
TR 26800 21
APR
201~
APR -17 2014
i1<' :
Dept. 3
Dept.
T1ME:wr-_ _ _ _ __
TIME
BY
BY
COROT~
NASH HOLMES,
HOLMES, JUDGE
JUDGE
DOROT Y NASH
33
44
55
IN
IN THE
THE MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL COURT
COURT OF
OF THE
THE CITY OF RENO
66
COUNTY
COUNTY OF
OF WASHOE,
WASHOE, STATE
STATE OF NEVADA
...............
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER
OFDISMISSAL
DISMISSAL
ORDER OF
vs.
12
BARKER COUGHLIN,
ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN,
13
Defendant.
Defendant,
______________________
~I
14
15
16
IT IS
IS THE
THEORDER
ORDEROF
OFTHIS
THfSCOURT,
COURT, for good
good cause
cause appearing
appearing and
and in
in the
the
IT
interest of
justice, that
of justice,
thatthis
thiscase
casebe,
be,and
andhereby
herebyis,
is,DISMISSED.
DISMISSED.
17
IT
IT IS
ISSO
SOORDERED.
ORDERED.
18
18
Dated
Dated this
this 77thth day of
ofApril,
April, 2014,
2014.
19
19
20
20
21
21
.&~~~
.Dorothy
Dorothy Nash
NaSlfOfmes
. .
Valmes
Municipal Judge
Judge
Municipal
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
RENO
RENO
MUNICIPAL.
MUNICIPALCOURT
COURT
P.O.
P.o.Dm
!lor1000
1Il00
Reno.
W 0605
Reno,"",""
(102)
335400
(7II2)3u-mo
28
28
421
..
'
forth below:
X Placing said document in a sealed envelope and placed for collecting and mailing by
practices.
Facsimile (FAX)
X

Booking # 1317561
911 Parr Blvd
Reno NV 96512
Dan Wong
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
Marilyiinrogn
Judici I Assistsint
Depa rtment Three

P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 80505
(770 334-3822
422
I
2
FILED

DEPT. NO. 3

Dept. 3
APR 7 2014
TIME
BY 411LAC
4
5
7
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant,
14
15'
IT IS THE ORDER OF rigs COURT, for good cause appearing and in the
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7 th day of April, 2014.
18
19
20
21
Dorothy Nash Holmes

Municipal Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
RENO
MUNICIPAL COURT
P.O. Be, 1900
28
Reno, W 49606
(10E) 5344200
423
CV3TFGATIOF SERVICE
Reno, Nevada, that I am over the ago of 18 years and not a party to the above action, and that
forth below:
X Placing said document in a sealed envelope and placed for collecting and mailing by
practices.
Facsimile (FAX)
=1.1111111

Booking # 1317581
911 Parr Blvd
Reno NV 96512
Dan Wong
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505

ifloa
Marilyyt Togno
Judici4I AssistItht
Department Three

P.O. Sox 1900
Reno, NV 89505
(77$) 334-3822
424
I
f4-
425
An unpublish d order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF

ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, BAR NO.
9473.
No. 62337
FILED
MAY 16 2014
ORDER TO FILE RESPONSE
On April 22, 2014, attorney Zachary Coughlin filed a notice

asserting that certain cases against him in the Reno Municipal Court have
been dismissed. A response to this notice would be helpful to this court.
Accordingly, within 10 days from the date of this order, the State Bar shall
file a response to the notice that addresses: to which cases the orders of
dismissal attached to Coughlin's notice pertain; the status of those cases
and any related charges against Coughlin; and the effect, if any, such
statuses have on the instant bar discipline matter .1
It is so ORDERED.
24'
cc:
C.J.

State Bar of Nevada/Las Vegas
State Bar of Nevada/Reno
11t
is not clear that the State Bar was served with Coughlin's notice;
in the interest of efficiency, the clerk shall send a copy of the notice filed
on April 22, 2014, to the State Bar's counsel.
SUPREME CoURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A . . . ,
426
1
2
3
STATE BAR OF NEVADA,
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
vs.
May 29 2015 08:10 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
62337of Supreme Court
Supreme Court Case No.:Clerk
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.,

Defendant
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
MOTION TO REINSTATE COUGHLINS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW; OR,

ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO REMAND TO DISCIPLINARY PANEL TO
CONSIDER ADDITIONAL MITIGATING FACTORS AND CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES, MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
ON APPEAL AND TO EXTEND TIME FILE AN OPENING BRIEF, MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON APPEAL AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AN OPENING BRIEF
15
Movant ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully moves, on his
16
17
own behalf, for an Order from this Court reinstating his license to practice law.
18
This Motion is made and based upon the points and authorities set forth below, the record
19
in this matter, and any exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein, as well as the attached
20
21
sworn Declaration of Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq. Coughlin has recently been in
22
communication with the State Bar of Nevadas Bar Counsel David Clark 1 and NNDB
23
Chairman Douglas Rands and both indicate that they support both the remand of this
24
25
26
27
In declining to oppose a remand, the State Bar, in addition to applauding Coughlins recovery,
recognizes that such relief is more appropriate than would be expanding the record before the
Court with new evidence. As this Court noted in a recent order, the task of fact-finding is better
suited for disciplinary panels to perform. See, State Bar v. Breck, Order Declining SCR 102
Petition, Case No. 59726 (March 22, 2012).
28
- 1/9
427
matter to the NNDB and the immediate reinstatement of Coughlins license to practice law
via bringing the temporary suspension thereof to a close.
,
4
5
1. Introduction
A. Procedural Posture of this case and background facts
Coughlin was convicted of petty larceny of over the counter cough medication consumed
7
8
while shopping at a Walmart on September 9th, 2011. He was temporarily suspended by the
Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to SCR 111(7) on June 12, 2012 and has remained so
10
11
temporarily suspended since such time, a three year indefinite temporary suspension, so far.
Coughlin filed his Opening Brief in this matter on 3/10/14. The State Bars brief is over one
12
13
14
15
16
17
year overdue according to the docket in 62337, which also notes that this matter has yet to be
submitted for decision.
This motion is made in the context of a State Bar disciplinary matter appeal presently
pending before this honorable Court (despite the fact that Coughlin filed NRCP 52, 59 and 60
and other tolling motions within 10 days of any service of the 12/14/12 Findings of Fact;
18
19
Conclusions of Law (which is not, notably, titled a Recommendation)). The State Bar Clerk
20
of Court indicates that she failed to file such tolling motion in, and, apparently, failed to provide
21
a copy of such to the Board and or Panel. As such, the Record on Appeal in this matter ought
22
arguably have never been transmitted to this Court in the first place given the pendency of such
23
24
tolling motions. A decision has not yet been rendered by this Court. As this Court will see
25
below, there are facts in mitigation and changed circumstances for this Court's consideration
26
prior to rendering its decision.
27
28
- 2/9
428
1
2
3
In the meantime, movant submits that his license to practice law has been temporarily
suspended more than long enough with respect to the petty theft conviction of over the counter
cough medication, a potent intoxicant in the quantities Coughlin was accused of consuming
4
5
6
while shopping at Walmart in September 2011.

2. The underlying conviction resulting in the current temporary suspension of
Coughlins law license was not affirmed on appeal.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Movant respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the arguments and
supporting documentation for this position via a review of the filings in Nevada Supreme Court
Cases 65587 and 61462 and in Coughlins filing of 6/6/14 in case NV. S. Ct. case 62337.
3. Even if this Court views the underlying conviction as having been affirmed, such
does not call for a suspension of longer than six months in length, and, as such, Coughlin
may now be given credit for time served and have his license to practice law ordered
reinstated.
Movant respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the arguments and
15
16
17
supporting documentation for this position via a review of the filings in Nevada Supreme Court
Cases 65587 and 61462 and in Coughlins filing of 6/6/14 in case NV. S. Ct. case 62337.
18
Coughlin hereby respectfully requests that this Court either find that no conviction exist
19
(which is the crux of Coughlins Reinstatement Petition in 65587), or, should one be deemed to
20
exist, enter an order specifying a suspension length of less than six months such that SCR 116
21
22
would not be invoked and, thus, allowing for Coughlin to be given credit for time served to
23
satisfy any such suspension and for Coughlins license to practice law ordered reinstated
24
immediately.
25
Regardless of whether or not a conviction actually exists, the undersigned recognizes that
26
27
28
he has behaved poorly throughout these matters and that he was a sick person in need of
treatment and has taken many strong steps to correct his character defects and receive such
- 3/9
429
treatment. Coughlin has ceased taking the prescription Adderall (amphetamine) he was
prescribed which he now believes was doing him such a disservice and contributing
mightily to much of his dysfunctional behavior.
4
5
Indeed, the petty theft of over the counter cough medication at issue here (resulting in the
referral to NNDB in 60838) was begat by Coughlin abruptly going off the Adderall and an
antidepressant due to being unable to afford them, and, essentially, dealing with the
withdrawal effects by relapsing on over the counter cough medication (Dextromethorphan,
9
10
11
12
13
14
which is potent intoxicant in the quantities Coughlin was accused of consuming while shopping
for, and paying for, some $83.82 worth of groceries at a Reno Walmart in September 2011).
Coughlin recognizes he was unable to afford such medications (the Adderall and
Wellbutrin he was then prescribed) at such time because his life was unmanageable. Such was
due to his having ceased working a program of recovery, failing to go to hardly any AA
15
16
meetings or maintain a relationship with a sponsor, much less maintain a conscious
17
connection with a God, or Higher Power of his understanding. Further, at the time of the
18
arrest in question and on through the formal hearing in this matter Coughlin had alienated
19
himself from friends, family, and his former legal aid employer and mentor at Washoe
20
Legal Services, Paul Elcano due to his use of Adderall seemingly exacerbating his character
21
22
23
24
25
defects rather than helping with ADHD, which Coughlin is not even sure he has anymore.
The undersigned has further redoubled his participation in the twelve-step program of
Alcoholics Anonymous (having recently attended 300 AA meetings in the last 150 days, and met
two hours a week with his AA sponsor for the last four months, whilst weekly attending the
26
27
28
Tuesday meeting of The Other Bar in San Diego (Californias version of Lawyers Concerned for
Lawyers) and the Wednesday Doctors, Lawyers, and Others AA meeting in Pacific Beach) and
- 4/9
430
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (which Coughlin has been an active participant in since 2003
when he reported his alcoholism to the State Bar of Nevada) via regular conversations with Coe
Swobe, Mitch Cobeaga, and Tom Hall, all of which Coughlin consents to this Court, the Bar, and
4
5
or the NNDB having direct communication with in regard to Coughlins recovery. Coughlin
also attended The Other Bars Spring Retreat aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach between
April 24th-26th, 2015.
Additionally, Coughlin has continued the psychotherapy he was receiving in Reno
9
10
(please see the records attached to Coughlins filings in 60975) and complied with Dr. Nielsens
11
recommendation instant to the 9/22/14 Psychological Evaluation done in 60975 that Coughlin
12
obtain psychotherapy/counseling three times a week for several months. Coughlin has been and
13
continues to meet twice a week with Bill Martin, MFT, and once a week with Dr. Charlie Hoar,
14
both of Del Mar, CA, and has met monthly with psychiatrist Scott Bunner, MD, of San Diego.
15
16
Coughlin hereby grants anyone with the State Bar of Nevada, NNDB, and or Nevada Supreme
17
Court the unmitigated right to question the above mentioned treatment providers and go through
18
his prescription and medical records at will. Again, Coughlin has discontinued the use of
19
Adderall, after consulting with his treating provider.
20
Further, the underlying thrust of the Panels 12/14/12 Findings of Fact; Conclusions of
21
22
Law (which, again, is not titled a Recommendation) would appear to be severely undermined
23
by the two orders entered by Reno Municipal Court Judge Nash Holmes (see NVSCT filing 14-
24
12934), dismissing both the criminal trespass conviction and the contempt conviction so
25
integral to the Panels Recommendation. This, combined with the fact that the cough
26
27
medication petty theft conviction was not affirmed on appeal (see NVSCT filing 14-18375), but,
28
- 5/9
431
rather, remanded for a new trial2, and the fact that the Merliss attorney fee award was but a
prevailing party fee award and not a sanction3, and the Joshi NRS 7.085 fee award sanction
was set aside4 by Judge Linda Gardner instant to her 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce would
4
5
seem to indicate that there is very little left to justify the Panels Recommendation.
Thus former Assistant Bar Counsel Kings complete reliance upon offensive
collateral estoppel rather than putting on any actual evidence to meet the clear and
convincing evidence burden of proof would seem to severely undermine the
9
10
Recommendation given the above.

Further, there is much more in the way of mitigating circumstances to consider given that
11
12
Coughlin had discontinued the use of Adderall, realizes now the disservice the use thereof was
13
doing him, recommitted himself to his twelve step program of recovery. Coughlin hereby agrees
14
to any drug or alcohol testing and or required therapy and or attendance at recovery meetings
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(due to the failure of the Reno Municipal Court to file the transcript as required by Nevada
law)a new trial that the Reno City Attorney chose not to pursue
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900173/2JDC-Judge-Polaha-on-NRS-189-030-1-RMC-MustFile-Transcript-Prior-to-Payment-by-Defendant-s)
3
2JDC Judge Flanagans 8/28/12 Order in CV11-03628 (which Coughlin attached to filings that
are not present in the Record on Appeal and which ought be supplemented thereto) makes clear
such 6/25/12 attorney fee award was not a sanction at all...meaning, it was, rather, a simple
application of NRS 69.050, yielding a prevailing party fee award.
4
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228404516/6-19-09-0204-62337-Ocrd-01955-01168FOFCOLDODFinal-Order-or-Decree-of-Divorce-in-Joshi-01168-Overrides-FHE3-4-13-09-Ord
Consistent with the 4/13/09 Order After Trial (Formal Hearing Exhibit (FHE) 3 in 62337)
directing him to prepare a proposed Final Decree consistent with such order in FHE3, opposing
counsel in that Joshi divorce matter even submitted a Proposed Final Decree of Divorce that
included the attorney fee sanction: http://www.scribd.com/doc/228404700/5-21-09-020401168-Springgate-s-Req-for-Submission-and-Proposed-Order-That-Was-Entered-Vitiating-theOrder-of-4-10-09
However, again, the Final Decree of Divorce vacated such sanction, and, instead,
awarded the very alimony Coughlin was allegedly vexatious in pursuing in the first place.
- 6/9
432
such a reinstatement of his law license may require. Additionally, the Merliss prevailing party
fee award has arguably been satisfied at this time given the Settlement entered into.
Coughlin respectfully requests that his Motion for Remand be considered via
4
5
incorporating by reference herein all of his filings and the arguments and documentation in
support thereof found in NVSCT 62337 between 3/10/14 and 6/6/14.
7
8
In particular, please see in NVSCT case 62337 the 04/22/2014 Notice/Incoming Filed
Notice of Dismissal of Cases from Which Alleged Criminal Trespass 'Conviction' and 'Criminal
9
10
11
Contempt' Conviction Stem. 14-12934.

Coughlin has been working construction, as a painters assistant prepping surfaces, etc, for
12
the last several months for $10 an hour in and around North San Diego County and would
13
greatly benefit from the reinstatement of his license to practice law at this time, such allowing
14
him to obtain employment in a law office setting (or, preferably, for a legal aid entity, such as
15
16
17
18
19
with Washoe Legal Services as seen in In Re Briggs) and build a case for having the matter in
62337 remanded.
With its original jurisdiction on attorney disciplinary matters, this Court conducts a de
novo review of the record on appeal and has the authority to remand matter back to the
20
designated disciplinary panel for further consideration. In Re: Discipline off. Michael Schaefer,
21
22
117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204, as modified by 31 P.3d 365 (2001) attempting a motion for
23
relief before the designated underlying hearing Panel Chair to request that he certify to this Court
24
said Chair's inclination, if so inclined, to set aside, vacate, alter and/or amend the default and/or
25
the Panel's decision in light of the above stated new evidence of mitigating factors. This
26
27
28
procedure appears to be uncharted in the context of State Bar disciplinary cases, though other
civil procedural remedies of this nature are nevertheless available in said cases pursuant to SCR
- 7/9
433
119(3)(Other rules of procedure), which states: "Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure apply in
disciplinary cases."
This is not such a novel approach in the context of a disciplinary appeal, (see In Re
5
6
Shreve 59634, and In Re Briggs 61057, is seeking Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure ("NRCP")
60(b) and/or NRCP 59 relief before the designated Chair pursuant to Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94
Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978) and Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 5, 228 P.3d 453
9
10
(2010). In Dingwall, this Court outlined the procedure for a litigant to seek a remand after an
11
appeal to the Supreme Court has been perfected. The question becomes, is a recommendation by
12
a disciplinary panel a "final order" as contemplated by these two Rules of Civil Procedure? It
13
appears that it is not a final order given that the Nevada Supreme Court conducts a de novo
14
review and has the final say.
15
Again, the 12/14/12 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law at issue here was not titled a
16
17
Recommendation, nor was any Notice of Entry of such ever served on Coughlin. Nonetheless,
18
Coughlin filed timely tolling motions before the disciplinary panel, and such were, perhaps,
19
wrongfully refused filing by the State Bar Clerk of Court due to a misunderstanding that
20
Coughlin does not wish to belabor at this point 5. Rather, Coughlin seeks to move forward in his
21
22
career in a spirit of cooperation and atonement for his past bad personality and misdeeds.
23
24
5
25
26
27
28
Given the relief sought herein, Coughlin respectfully requests an order from this Court
extending the time to permit both supplementation of the Record on Appeal with the abovestated mitigating evidence and changed circumstances, as well as those filings and exhibits
submitted by Coughlin to the State Bar Clerk of Court yet not included in the ROA, and
extending the time within which to file an Opening brief Mr. Coughlin makes these requests for
extensions of time pursuant to NRAP 26(b)(1) for good cause. Such includes the fact that the
Merliss prevailing party fee award has now arguably been satisfied, evidence related to
- 8/9
434
Further, Coughlin hereby expresses his profound respect and admiration for the
NNDB, State Bar of Nevada, and Nevada Supreme Court. Being a member of the State
Bar of Nevada truly is one of things Coughlin is proudest of and holds most dear.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Dated this 28th day of May 2015,
11
12
13
14
Defendant
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlins psychiatric care and participation in Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers since 2003, and
the other developments alluded to herein.
- 9/9
435
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I certify that on May 28th, 2015 I mailed a true and correct copy of this MOTION TO
REINSTATE COUGHLINS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW; OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
MOTION TO REMAND TO DISCIPLINARY PANEL TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
MITIGATING FACTORS AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON APPEAL AND TO EXTEND
TIME FILE AN OPENING BRIEF, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD ON APPEAL AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN OPENING BRIEF upon State
Bar Counsel by mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following
addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Dated this 28th day of May 2015,
12
13
14

15
16
Defendant
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10/9
436
1
2
3
Jun 06 2014 08:54 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
4
5
6
7
8
IN RE:
9
11
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case 62337
OPPOSITION TO SBNS RESPONSE TO ORDER OF MAY 16, 2014.
14
15
16
BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby requests permission to file this Opposition to the SBNs
17
6/3/14 Response and apprise this court of his Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10) in
18
65587.
19
20
FACTS:
21
22
trespass. FHE 12 and 13 simply were not admitted and Kings splatter paint shot gun carpet bombing
23
24
25
26
answer or response, and therefore, the SBNs Complaint could be deemed evidence. Indeed, the
27
Panels 12/14/12 Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law points to nothing beyond the Complaint
28
437
hostile/biased witness Richard G. Hill, Esq. that there existed any criminal trespass conviction. So
5
6
7
8
9
convictions exist.
evidence at the formal disciplinary hearing of 11/14/12. And King got 5.5 hours to put on his case
10
Judge Holmes, Richard G. Hill, Esq., etc. in Coughlins case in chief, and denying Coughlin any
11
12
time, much less the purportedly order fifteen minutes per side to conduct a cross-examination of
13
14
Coughlin.
15
So, the SBNs OBC must be held to what it proved, and what it did not prove. As such,
16
17
18
19

It is important to note that Coughlins protected Fourteenth Amendment property right, his
20
21
temporary suspension pursuant to SCR 111(6). To be clear, the disciplinary board never filed an
22
SCR 102 petition to obtain a temporary suspension of Coughlins law license, and, necessarily,
23
24
Coughlin never received any pre-deprivation hearing connected thereto. Further, neither the SBNs
25
26
formal disciplinary hearing ever moved to continue Coughlins temporary suspension (from 60838)
27
28
438
Well, unless one counts Kings writing at page 6:1-3 of his Complaint: 3. That pursuant
Board against Respondent as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, SCR
102 does not allow for a disciplinary board, much less this Panel1, to enter temporary orders of
5
6
suspension. Thats because a law license is importantand not just to the attorneyit (and the
attorneys possessing them) are important to the public. Making law licenses too easily suspended
9
10
NNDB Members Hill, Kandaras, and Hahn2/WLSs Elcano, the well paid Reno City Attorneys
11
12
13
own then you get what we have herethe Reno City Attorneys Office running to the SBN to co-sign
14
15
neglected to even trot out when she viewed Coughlin as opposing counselinterestingly) with
16
17
18
19
20
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900173/2JDC-Judge-Polaha-on-NRS-189-030-1-RMC-MustFile-Transcript-Prior-to-Payment-by-Defendant-s
Coughlin did not steal any candy bar and some cough drops from Walmart (though it would
21
22
23
24
certainly be easier and more convenient for Coughlin to now lie and assert that he did steal such),
25
26
Attorneys Office keep trying to legislate away NRS 189.030(1) (which can not be done given
27
Nevadas Constitution expressly imbued the Legislature with the exclusive authority to enact
28
439
procedural rules for appeals from justice and municipal courts of record to the district courts in
Art 6. Sec. 8.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
AMJUR Courts: However, where the conflict is irresolvable, a procedural rule

generally prevails over a statute on procedure,[FN2] absent a constitutional provision
decisions.[FN7]
783, 875 S.W.2D 492 (1994); Haven Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2D 730
(Miss. 1992); Williams v. Cummings, 191 W. Va. 370, 445 S.E.2D 757 (1994). [FN3] Stokes
(Miss. 1992).
843, Providing for the preparation of transcripts in criminal cases and their filing with the
statute purported to regulate time for filing transcripts and securing trial court's ruling on
their effects, the act of the Legislature prevailed. Supreme Court Rules, rule 48, Code 1940,
Tit. 7Appendix; Code 1940, Tit. 7, 827(1) Et seq., 827(1A), 827(4).
provision respecting time for filing transcript by adoption of inconsistent rule. Const.
110; Ky.St. 949; Cr.Code Prac. 336.
Further, even if NRAP did apply here (it does not), due to the provision N.R.S. Const. Art. 6,
20
8, there is a constitutional provision prohibiting even NRAP from overriding NRS 189.030(1)s
21
22
requirment that the justice file the transcript with the district court:
23
terms of office and jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace; appeals; Courts of Record...The
24
25
8. Number, qualifications,
26
27
28
supreme court cannot contradict the state constitution by court rule.[FN9] The court also
may not promulgate rules in order to diminish constitutional rights,[FN10] A trial court is
4
440
1
2
3
4
5
Constitution or case law. Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4Th 1337, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3D 483,
163 P.3D 160 (2007).
836 P.2D 212 (1992).
6
7
Coughlin filed Motions to Dismiss the SBNs Complaint at issue in 62337 based on lack of
Complaint plainly denying, under oath, each and every allegation in Kings 26 (sicsuch skips
10
11
Validity and construction of procedures to temporarily suspend attorney from practice, or

12
13
14
15
16
A.L.R.4th 136.3
Further, RMC Judge Howard failed to find that Coughlin possessed any intent to commit
17
18
19
requisite specific intent was not proven. Further, SCR 111(6) and Sloan seem to contemplate that the
20
21
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228372827/3-10-14-to-4-22-14-Couglin-s-Handwritten-Filingsin-Jail-in-Disbarment-Appeal-in-62337
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228375119/8-13-13-SCR-102-4-d-and-SCR-111-7-Petition-toDissolve-Temporary-Suspension-61462-in-Re-Coughlin-77-Pages
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228375239/5-7-14-65587-Coughlin-Petition-for-ReinstatementSCR-111-10-Stamped
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228374844/5-22-14-Supplemental-Petition-for-Reinstatement65587-14-16680
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin filed his Brief on 3/14/14. The SBNs Answering Brief was due 4/14/14. The SBN has
441
matter, filed the SBNs Response on 6/3/14, and at many points therein admits he lacks much in the
5
6
8
9
For instance, the SBNs 6/3/14 Response reads: Coughlin's claim that his conviction (as to
10
have known of its falsity when he filed his notice on April 22, 2014.
11
12
Actually, Coughlins Notice of Appeal clearly appealed both the 11/30/11 Judgment of
13
Conviction and Court Order as well as the 11/30/11 Order Punishing Summary Contempt.4 Such
14
15
client. As such, Pengillys mandate that any challenge to such a contempt order by a sanctioned
16
17
18
19
20
21
Machado does not even seem to be aware of the fact that Judge Elliott merely affirmed the
rulingwhich even RCA Sooudi admitted to Coughlin he was unsure whether such was in
22
23
24
25
judge would remand for all further proceedings (plural) if, consistent with Sooudis contention,
26
27
had no answer for the fact that NRAP 1 clearly spells out that NRAP only applies to appeals to the
28
442
Nevada Supreme Courtwhich makes rather puzzlingly the district court judges later 8/27/12 Order
claiming he was divested of jurisdiction to even address Coughlins NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing.
(The SBNs 6/3/14 Response indicates: Further, Coughlin moved for a new trial, but the
5
6
Denying Appellant's Motion for a New Trial are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
Coughlin filed a timely functional equivalent of an NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing5 (arguing
court judge then refused to adjudicate, indicating in his 8/27/12 Order6 denying such that: On March
10
15, 2012, this Court entered an Order denying the Appeal and affirming the decision of the Municipal
11
12
Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case and the Appellant's Motion for New
13
Trial is moot.. However, NRAP 40 provides that Coughlin is to have 18 days to file such after any
14
15
time. Judge Elliott, after all, invoked NRAP 28, 30, and 32 in affirming the ruling of the RMC.7
16
A loose but apt analogy may be found in our criminal practice. A Rule 59(e) motion is the
17
18
19
20
21
functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial or, on appeal, of a petition for rehearing." Bruce
v. 2. Bruce, 587 So. 2d 898, 903 (Miss. 1991)).
A case from Utah, Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097 (Utah 2012)8 is instructive here,
especially where Utahs Rules of Appellate Procedure parallel NRAP 1 in specifying the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
443
5
6
110k1193 k. Jurisdiction and proceedings of appellate court after remand.
10

11
12
13
14
15
is not clear which ruling it was affirming (The Judgment of Conviction? The Order Punishing
16
Summary Contempt?
17
18
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900173/2JDC-Judge-Polaha-on-NRS-189-030-1-RMCMust-File-Transcript-Prior-to-Payment-by-Defendant-s
19
Further, compare Judge Elliotts Order Affirming the Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court
20
21
in Coughlins case in CR11-2064 (where Elliotts Order is not clear as to whether it is affirming the
22
23
some other ruling), to Judge Elliotts standard phraseology in the following, where the term
24
conviction is specified and where there is no remand for all further proceedings as there is in
25
his 3/15/12 Order in Coughlins case, where the RMC failed to file the transcript as required by NRS
26
27
189.030(1), which requires a remand pursuant to NRS 189.035
28
444
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900174/2JDC-Judge-Elliott-Order-Affirming-Appellants-Conviction-Compare-to-CR11-2064-Order-Affirming-Ruling-of-the-RMC
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
It is real clear from the plain text of NRS 189.030(1) that the justice (or municipal court judge
for such up front:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225901665/Legislative-history-NRS-189-030-1-189-050-SB2671979-2064-22176-60838-ocr
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900171/NRS-189-030-1-2JDC-Judge-Flanagan-ApplyingCivil-Rules-of-Procedure-to-Excuse-RMC-s-Failure-to-File-Transcript
Its pretty, uh, interesting to consider that Judge Elliott failed to recuse himself9 (much less
even divulge his being the President of WLSs co-defendant CAAWs Executive Board10) where
presiding over Coughlins wrongful termination suit in CV11-01955 (see 60317), when considering
the view of Elliotts 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC the Reno City Attorney and
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900172/2JDC-Judge-Elliott-Order-Granting-Motion-toDismiss-Without-Prejudice-NRS-189-030-1
The OBCs Machado also writes: The court order relied upon by Coughlin is titled "Order
Affirming Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court." See Exhibit 1. The district court, on page 3 of this
for all further proceedings.
Actually, that is not true. Far from it. Nothing specific to the finding of one being guilty
of Petit Larceny compared to the ruling found in the municipal court judges Order Punishing
Summary Contempt. Here is what page 3 (emphasis added) of such order actually reads in its
entirety (nothing specific to a Judgment of Conviction and Court Order compared to an Order
Punishing Summary Contempt about it):
his burden in providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affirm
the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court. fn1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
proceedings. Dated this 15th day of March, 2012 /s/ Steven P. Elliott District Judge
appellate record is incomplete. )
Interestingly, the OBCs Machado then slips up and adopts the dismissed terminology
himself: In summary, Coughlin's criminal conviction for theft which formed the basis for the SCR
445
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
mislead this Court by claiming otherwise whilst elsewhere claiming ineffectual the 4/8/14 Order
of Dismissal by Judge Holmes in the criminal contempt case (11 TR 26800 from which Machado
attaches the 3/12/12 Order as an exhibit to his 6/3/14 Response) forming the heart of the SBNs SCR
105 Complaint (or, at least, certainly, the heart of the Panels Recommendation, which finds at
most one actual RPC violation (RPC 3.3(a)(1) at R1362:18-23, and, perhaps, a quasi RPC 8.4(c)
violation at R1367:11-12 stemming from the exact same alleged conduct). The entire case was
dismissed on March 29, 2013, as reflected in the Order of Dismissal dated April 7, 2014. See
Exhibit 7.
Machado continues: As noted above, Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 26800 21,
which concerned traffic violations, was dismissed. The matter was also considered by the hearing
panel. However, the panel's findings reflected a concern over Coughlin's behavior11 at the trial for
the matter, not the underlying charges themselves. See Exhibit 10 at 3-5. These concerns included
Coughlin being found in contempt of court and being incarcerated for five (5) days. See id. at 3-4 TT 78; see also Exhibit 11, Order, filed March 12, 2012. The hearing panel also noted that Coughlin filed
bizarre, dishonest, irrational and disruptive . . . ." See Exhibit 10 at 4-5 TT 10-11.
The dismissal of the charges in Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 26800 21 did not
Municipal Court Case No. 11 26800 21.
The OBCs prosecutor appears to want nothing to do with explaining how the dismissal12 of
14
15
the case/conviction at issue in its fellow prosecutor Becketts case is any different than the dismissal
16
of the case/convictions at issue in the two 4/8/14 Orders of Dismissal entered by Judge Holmes
17
attached to Coughlins 4/22/13 Notice (which resulted in this Courts 5/16/14 Order requiring the
18
19
rules for themselves (such as RCA Sooudi et al being permitted to constantly violate RPC 3.1 what
20
21
22
23
of the City of Renos judges on the Reno Municipal Court bench to obey NRS 189.030(1) with
24
respect to the requirement that the justice shall file the transcripts within 10 days of the filing of a
25
notice of appeal.
26
27
28
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=25910 . Mr. Beckett's case/conviction
10
446
was dismissed on 1/21/11. On 2/14/11 Beckett filed Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR
111(10). Mr. Beckett's law license was reinstated six weeks later by an Order Granting Petition for
5
6
under SCR 111(10), as the 4/4/11 Order in such case held:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"SCR 111(10) gives us discretion to reinstate an attorney whose underlying conviction has
Bar No. 3383, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law pending the outcome of his
disciplinary proceedings."
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(The RMC Judges rather consistently ignore notices of appeal toowhich goes against, at least, that
1979 Atty Gen. Adv. Op: www.ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/.../1979_AGO.pdf 13
RCA Sooudi tried to sell to Coughlin (ie, that the case in which Holmes issued a criminal contempt
conviction against Coughlin was dismissed on 3/29/13). A close look at that one sentence Order of
Dismissal of 4/8/14 reveals absolutely no mention of such case having been dismissed on
March 29, 2013. Additionally, a simple look at the docket from such case reveals nothing about
a dismissal on 3/29/13, but, rather, merely notates that the active bond that was the $100.00
Coughlins mother testified to14 the RMC having taken but then having failed to release Coughlin a
day early, as having been exonerated.
Further, not that it has any real relevance here, but the SBN ought be made to have WLSs
Elcano and the Reno City Attorneys Offices Sooudi sign affidavits rather than attach emails that the
28
11
447
1
2

Nevada Bar No 9473
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CERTIFICATE/DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN PURSUANT TO

SCR 111(10)
STATE OF NEVADA)
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHOE)
and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
448
3
4
5
6
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and you get those whom are contracted to provide access to legal tools to those whom are
muchand you get the Sheriff/WCDA/RCA/RJC/RMC ignoring the fact that the Legislature
requires the passing of 24 hours per NRS 40.253 from the tenants receipt of a summary eviction
removal order prior to the Sheriff conducting a lockout, and you get judges like the RMCs Howard
willfully violating ADKT 411 in denying indigent defendants counsel, ruling on such applications
whilst being the presiding judge, refusing to obey the requirement of NRS 189.030(1) that the
justice file the transcript with the district court within 10 days of a notice of appeal being filedand
you get judges like the RMCs Howard and W. Gardner violating NRS 178.415s mandatory stay
(which the SBN laughably interprets to somehow support its contention that the trespass conviction
unclear how Judge W. Gardner could know such was a clerical error? Certainly, the municipal and
justice court judges step in for one another from time to time on each others cases (see RJC Judge
Cliftons having RCR2012-065630 transferred to him from Judge Lynch on 2/27/12, or RMC 12 CR
Final Decree of Divorce) sanction against Coughlin by his sister without telling Judge Holmes that
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228404516/6-19-09-0204-62337-Ocrd-01955-01168-FOFCOLDODFinal-Order-or-Decree-of-Divorce-in-Joshi-01168-Overrides-FHE3-4-13-09-Ord
Proposed Final Decree of Divorce that included the attorney fee sanction:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228404700/5-21-09-0204-01168-Springgate-s-Req-for-Submission-andProposed-Order-That-Was-Entered-Vitiating-the-Order-of-4-10-09
13
449
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
alimony Coughlin was allegedly vexatious in pursuing in the first place.

More likely, Judge Holmes was moved by Coughlins taking responsibility in his filings (a
few weeks prior to Judge Holmes entering the two 4/8/14 Orders vacating the criminal trespass
conviction the Panel was apparently referencing at page 20 of its Recommendation) and all
orders stemming from the traffic citation case that begat a criminal contempt conviction (and,
despite Asst. Bar Counsel Machados contentions (however uninformed and recklessly made), the
Panel refused to admit any evidence with respect to Coughlins conduct at such 2/27/12 trial (which
begat the two orders the SBNs references in its Response), as the Panel applied SCR 111(5) to in
essence, a conviction while insisting that Coughlin would not be permitted to relitigate such
issues)) in both the traffic case from which the two orders the SBNs 6/3/14 Response references and
thus Asst. Bar Counsel Machados apparently caveat).
The price for the SBNs scattershot approach at such formal disciplinary hearing and the Panels
and 13 were not even admitted. The SBNs 6/3/14 Response was forced to
SCR Rule 102. Types of discipline. Misconduct is grounds for: 4. Temporary suspension by the
supreme court. (4)(a) On the petition of a disciplinary board, signed by its chair or vice chair,
may order, with notice as the court may prescribe, the attorneys immediate temporary suspension or
may impose other conditions upon the attorneys practice.
Esq.s five page unsigned, unsworn emailed grievance to the SBN to even put such into evidence as
together) http://www.scribd.com/doc/228396280/1-14-12-62337-is-This-NNDB-MemberRichard-G-Hill-Esq-s-Grievance-Unsigned-Unsworn-the-SBN-Was-Too-Embarassed-by-to-Put-inEvidence ? Who knows?
disciplinary hearing, nor with any respect to 62337. Nonetheless, the Panels Recommendation
(which is not titled a Recommendation and, as such, fails to vest this Court with jurisdiction under
SCR 105(3) even more than the fact that the SBNs Clerk of Court Laura Peters has admitted that she
refused to and failed to file in Coughlins tolling motions, which were timely submitted to the
SBN).
Regardless of the fact that SCR 102 requires the disciplinary board to file a petition and obtain
an order for such from the supreme court, the Panel was undeterred by such due process
annoyances, and in its Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law (which, again, is not titled a
Recommendation) at page 22 recommends (2) That his temporary suspension be continued
pending final resolution of this matter.
ruling that the SCR 111(8) hearing mandated by such rule and this Courts 6/7/12 Order referring
this matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for the institution of a formal hearing before a
14
450
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
imposed was to be consolidated and or combined with the formal disciplinary proceedings
went so far as to order SBN Clerk of Court to vacate the already scheduled, noticed, and on
calendar 9/25/12 formal hearing to be held in response to this Courts 6/7/12 SCR 111(8) mandate in
60838.
The combining of such formal hearing (and, necessarily, the adjudication to follow therefrom)
required by SCR 111(8) in connection with the temporary suspension of Coughlins law license and
Coughlins protected Fourteenth Amendment property right (license to practice law) with no predeprivation hearing.
Simply put, this alleged conviction of petty larceny of a candy bar and cough drops has been given
2
10/08/2013
Notice/Incoming
Filed Notice of Unimaginable Impropriety of WCDA.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13-30110
506 F.2D 527 (8th Cir. 1974). Ind.Matter of Murray, 266 Ind. 221, 362 N.E.2D 128 (1977). Va.
Maddy v. First Dist. Committee of Virginia State Bar, 205 Va. 652, 139 S.E.2D 56 (1964). Kan.
Knutson Mortg. Corp. V. Coleman, 24 Kan. App. 2D 650, 951 P.2D 548 (1997).
Criminal activityTemporary suspension not appropriate
15
451
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
violation of the regulation. Noting that no intent of any kind was required in order to be convicted
components of the definition of a serious crime relevant to this case all involved intentional acts,
such as fraud and deceit, and intent was not a necessary element of the crime for which the
attorney was convicted, his offense could not be deemed a serious crime.[8]
involvement.
Failure to provide presuspension notice and opportunity to be heardRights of
attorney violatedgenerally
not based upon any judgment or finding of the court, and was without trial or notice to the
accused.
of justice, that no man could be condemned or divested of his rights until he had the opportunity of
Failure to provide presuspension notice and opportunity to be heardAs applied
16
452
Laughlin v Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190, 95 F2d 101.

Failure to guarantee prompt final disposition of chargesRights of attorney violated
Gershenfeld v Justices of Supreme Court (1986, ED Pa) 641 F Supp 1419, Finding what
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Coughlins Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Expense, Petition for In Forma Pauperis Status at pages 109-114 clearly indicates he is appealing
both the 11/30/11 Judgment of Conviction and Court Order and the 11/30/11 Order for Summary
Punishment of Contempt. http://www.scribd.com/doc/225490010/12-13-11-Final-0204-60838-RMC11-CR-22176-Notice-of-Appeal-Motion-to-Vacate-Motion-for-Reconsid-and-Motion-for-RecusalStamped-With-Exhbit-and-Pic-o See, also, page 571: The notice of appeal does and should apply
to the Summary Contempt Order as well, http://www.scribd.com/doc/225316199/12-23-11-to-9-813-0204-62337-all-filings-except-RMCROA-from-22176-in-2064-60838-ocr
5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225574773/3-26-12-NRAP-40-Functional-Equivalent-CR11-20642790430 At pages 916 to 993 of combined record.
6
That Judge Elliott 8/27/12 Order reads:
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Presently
Amend filed by Appellant ZACH COUGHLIN ("Appellant'') on March 26, 2012.
Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, Respondent CITY OF RENO ("Respondent'') filed a
Motion to Strike Appellant's Motion for New Trial.
Following, on July 25, 2012, Appellant filed a Motion to Set Aside or Vacate
Supplemental Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Conviction and or Order Affirming it. On that
the decision of the Municipal Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case
and the Appellant's Motion for New Trial is moot.
Trial is DENIED. DATED this 27th day of August, 2012. /S/ Steven P. Elliott District Judge"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
453
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
appeal, cases that had fallen off the docket, and failure to produce transcripts for appellate review
judicial office into disrepute. LSA-Const. Art. 5, 25(C); Code of Jud.Conduct, Canon 3, subd. B(1),
8 LSA-R.S. In re Hunter, 2002-1975 (La. 8/19/02), 823 So. 2d 325
Judge Howard willfully refuses to comply with NRS 189.030(1)'s requirement that he file the
to district court.
copy of the docket.
8
Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097 (Utah 2012): "Having analyzed supreme court
sufficient to resolve appropriate postjudgment1 motions. Because the district court in this
or guilty plea." Bernat v. Allphin, 2005 UT 1, 8, 106 P.3d 707. The hybrid nature of this
appeal, it is still considered an appellate proceeding,2 see id. 25, 30-32, and we therefore
While not applicable to appeals from justice court convictions, rule 23A's criteria justifying
18
454
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
petition.)
8 However, additional case law from our supreme court suggests that there are at least
Co., 942 P.2d 305, 306-07 (Utah 1996) (per curiam) (determining that a remittitur issued
certiorari" and to stay the remittitur if such a petition is filed. See Utah R.App. P. 36(a)(2).
The rules similarly instruct the su-preme court to issue remittitur "15 days after the entry of
order disposing of the petition." Id. R. 36(a)(1). See generally id. R. 35(a) ("A petition for
court, unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order."). If a case is remitted before the time
court).
jurisdiction, despite the low-er court having regained jurisdiction as a result of a re-mand....11
19
455
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
on ? jurisdiction" should not be overinflated. Id. 9. "[T]he appellate court retains [at least]
which "override ? whatever jurisdictional significance might reside within ? jurisprudence
the authority to exercise jurisdiction over an appel-lant's claim that he had not knowingly and
remitted).
the district court.
following a remand for abandonment. Although section 78A-7-118(8) of the Utah Code
Utah Code Ann. 78A-7-118(8) (Supp.2012), the provision in the Utah Rules of Criminal
loses jurisdiction.
within 30 days after the entry of the final decision by the Court of Ap-peals," id. R. 48(a).
Thus, jurisdiction may be appropriate-ly returned to the district court following appeal thirtyone days after the court of appeals makes its final deci-sion. Judge Lindberg asserts that,
decision is made."
20
456
204 P.3d 189 (suggesting that rule 23A of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure might serve
the supreme court is directed to remit a case a mere fifteen days after a final decision,
... IV. The District Court Exceeded Its Discretion When It Denied the Motion to Reinstate
Rule 23A provides that "[a]n appeal dismissed for failure to take a step other than the timely
(2012).
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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228407213/Judge-Steven-Elliott-Bio-0204-0376-Caaw-cv11-0195560317-cr12-1262-cr11-2064-cr12-0376-ie
10

1406/02/2014 Motion Permission to File Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release Under
Y
1767
Seal.
14-17671
Also, Judge Elliott dismissed Coughlins suit on the grounds that Coughlin failed to effect
WLS et al tolling the running of such time period. Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 614 F.
Supp. 87, 92 (S.D. Ohio 1985).
See Geiger v. Allen, 850 F.2d 330, 333 (7th Cir. 1988) ("Of course, the 120-day period was
21
457
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
any number of filings, including WLSs Motion to Quash from 9/2011, as such, Elliotts 12/8/11 and
various 1/13/12 orders are void for lack of jurisdiction: 62B Am. Jur. 2D Process 111 The 120-day
court has taken action on the motion.Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 614 F. Supp. 87
allowed as a matter of course. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2D 1509, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3D 1505 (5th Cir.
1988).
8
11
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(NOTE: actually, no, the Panel did not consider such conduct, but, rather, applied an offensive
drawn from such since vacated 2/28/12 summary contempt order (allegedly a criminal contempt
conviction sufficient to invoke SCR 111(5) despite no SCR 111 Petition ever being filed)and
despite Coughlins notices of appeal of such going stricken and or ignored) and such since vacated
Holmes (and the allegedly troubling filings submitted via facsimile) into evidence at the 11/14/12
(despite the fact the SBN never made such an argument itselfsee Transcript of 11/14/12 formal
going to entertain an inquiry into the conduct of the trial on your traffic citation itself. That issue
has been litigated....
Page 225:2 to 225:9: MR. COUGHLIN: this idea that a conviction is completely dispositive, he
here is the nature and extent of the punishment
Pages 225:20 to 226:16): MR. ECHEVERRIA: The supreme court, as I read its order, tells
22
458
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
ECHEVERRIA: I'm sustaining the objection
COUGHLIN: What's all this living in the basement stuff have to do with that? Jesus. This is Richard
say that. It is relevant. Your conviction is relevant. You're trying to relitigate --..."
Pages 180:13 to 181:9) MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. King, you cited in one of your pleadings a
Page 71:10 to 71:18) MR. ECHEVERRIA: I believe the issue that this panel has to determine
this panel should focus on
23
459
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
that
8
9
10
11
12
13
(Pages 230:13 to 231:5) Q Did my dad say the State Bar of Nevada's Coe Swobe kept
Stanford together, 1966? MR. KING: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: Your father told me -MR. ECHEVERRIA: Sustained. THE WITNESS: -- yes, they wanted you to settle. MR.
sustaining the objection. It's also argumentative.
14
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (C.A.4.S.C.,2010) Under the statute providing the district courts of
3.3(a)(1)/8.4(c) violations) that the State Bar largely basis its attempt to irrevocably disbar Coughlin
upon.
a nolle prosequi without prejudice to a new indictment or information. Ala.Anthony v. City of
Birmingham, 240 Ala. 167, 198 So. 449 (1940). N.H.State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212, 72 A.2d 778
24
460
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
jail. Similar is In Re Beckett (where an attorney (Pahrump DA) convicted of NRS 199.280 was
deemed to have committed a serious crime) (former Pahrump DA failed to turn over receipts to the
Treasuser....such conviction was ultimately dismissed, resulting in Beckett's temporary suspension
(Sup. Ct. 1993).
338 (1974)in Nevada as "a thief cannot receive the fruit of his own larceny from himself".
N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995).
25
461
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

N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995),
26
462
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
Coughlins filings in the two matters in which the two Orders of Dismissal attached to his
void anyways. The RCA may go pursue a Writ of Mandamus against Judge Holmes, perhapsbut
6/3/14 Response.
It would be highly inappropriate for one, Elcano to tell Coughlins father (a Duke trained
Dayton, Ohio (1965-1968) both on the telephone and then again during a visit to Dr. Coughlins
violence attorney at WLS, and how lawyers are very forgiving people and do all it could (a la In Re
11/6/13 to 4/18/14 and in every one of the matters underlying such he was denied counsel in plain
temporarily suspended, and had been ruled indigent by the judges involved, so) only for
Elcano/WLS to back out of such the minute it/he got what he wanted. Whatever. Two, it would be
similarly inappropriate for the 4/8/14 Orders of Dismissal entered to all the sudden be rescinded
once such had the desired effect of getting Coughlin to dismiss Coughlins appeal in
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=33044 in which Coughlin appealed
Hill/Merliss being permitted to substitute in for Coughlin via Judge Stiglichs 1/7/14 Order
(apparently Hill/Merliss, whom committed fraud (apparently WLS had to give them thousands of
dollars though, and Hill/Merliss ought be stuck with any shortfall realized with respect to the $42,000
prevailing party attorney fee award the SBN tried to characterize as a sanction at the disciplinary
27
463
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
hearing (see FHE2) as Hill/Merliss certainly would keep any windfall realized, and further, Coughlin
with Coughlin had expired when, plainly, by its terms (not less than 12 months is not the same as
12 monthsand the lease does not provide the landlord a no cause termination right anyways),
NRS 40.253 was obeyed by theyand an eviction order is not a criminal trespass warning,
regardless)see 61383 and 61901, and Hills lying testimony at issue in 62337 with respect to
criminal trespass conviction considering the rampant violations of NRS 178.415 committed by W.
13
OPINION NO. 79-4 Criminal Appeals From Municipal CourtNRS 189.010 and 189.020
However, regardless of the nontimeliness of filing an appeal, NRS 189.030 Provides that, The
all papers relating to the case and a certified copy of his docket. This action is not tied to the
in time. But subparagraph 2 of NRS 189.060 Provides: If the appeal is dismissed, a copy of the order
timeliness. The district court could then reach its decision pursuant to NRS 189.060.
14
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Mom, did you have to buy an audio of the trial
with that Judge Nash Holmes? A Did I have to buy an audio? Q Yeah. Did you buy a copy of the
switcheroo, right?"
28
464
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
29
465
1
2
3
Jun 08 2015 11:39 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
4
5
6
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 62337
)
)
)
13
Defendant
14
15
16
17
18
19
REQUEST TO SUBMIT THE BRIEF IN THIS MATTER AND ALL

OUTSTANDING MOTIONS TO THE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION
Defendant ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully
moves, on his own behalf, for an Order from this Honorable Court reinstating his
20
21
22
license to practice law given the State Bar of Nevadas chose not to oppose
Coughlins Brief or any of his Motions, and, thus, all of Coughlins positions
23
24
25
(especially that calling for the immediate reinstatement of his license to practice
law) ought be deemed admitted given such magnanimous confession of error.
26
27
28
NRAP 31(3)(d) Consequences of Failure to File Briefs or Appendix.

The failure of respondent to file a brief may be treated by the court as a
- 1
466
confession of error and appropriate disposition of the appeal thereafter

made.1
2
3
The State Bars Answering Brief was due well over 15 months ago.
No
4
5
6
motion for extension of time was sought by the State Bar to file any such brief. In
the interim, the prosecutor whom handled this matter at the disciplinary panel
7
8
level, Patrick O. King, is no longer employed by the State Bar of Nevada.
The undersigned has been informed by both Bar Counsel David Clark and
10
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Mitch Cobeaga that the State Bar of Nevada
11
12
13
does not wish to see a disbarment issue in this matter and that Coughlins law
license should be reinstated in the very near future. Bar Counsel David Clark
14
15
16
has been particularly diligent in getting a strong grasp of this matter in the
aftermath of former Assistant Bar Counsel Kings departure, and has, thankfully,
17
18
19
20
chosen not to oppose Coughlins Motions, nor file an Answering Brief, in light the
undersigneds growth in maturity and accountability, and the changed
circumstances that arose here. Such include the convictions at issue here being
21
22
23
overturned, and the sanctions underlying various alleged RPC violations being
shown to have been set aside, in one instance (Joshi) or merely a prevailing party
24
See County Commirs v. Las Vegas Discount, 110 Nev. 567, 875 P.2d 1045
(Nev. 6/14/1994); see also Summa Corp. v. Brooks Rent-A-Car, 95 Nev. 779, 602
P.2d 192 (1979) (treating failure to file an answering brief as a confession of
error); Melvin L. Lukins & Sons v. Kast, 91 Nev. 116, 532 P.2d 602 (1975)
(reversing judgment without considering the merits because respondent failed to
file an answering brief).
1
25
26
27
28
- 2
467
fee award (Merliss) rather than sanctions, thus precluding any application of the
2
3
4
5
offensive collateral estoppel former Assistant Bar Counsel King relied exclusively
upon. Further, formal hearing exhibit 14 itself in this matter (baring a file stamp
from Clerk of Court Peters of 10/31/12, which filing is still missing from the
6
7
8
Record on Appeal as filed on 2/13/13) establishes that Coughlin did indeed file a
Verified Answer or Response to the
Complaint, which was never actually
9
10
11
personally served.
The undersigned owes a huge debt of gratitude to both Bar Counsel David
12
13
14
15
Clark and Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Mitch Cobeaga for helping him to see
the errors in his previous approach to these matters. 15-16370.2
The undersigned respectfully seeks to have his law license reinstated
16
17
18
immediately via, if necessary, a ruling that the length of suspension ordered

pursuant to case 60838 (resulting in the current indefinite temporary suspension in
19
20
21
22
place) and the referral to the disciplinary panel, be deemed less than six months (if
any at all given such such conviction was remanded for a new trial that was not
pursued), and, thus, no hearing or reinstatement petition would be required under
23
24
SCR 116. Respectfully Submitted,
25
26
27
28
In particular, please see in NVSCT case 62337 the 04/22/2014 Notice/Incoming Filed
Notice of Dismissal of Cases from Which Alleged Criminal Trespass 'Conviction' and 'Criminal
Contempt' Conviction Stem. 14-12934.
- 3
468
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Comes Now, Declarant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, being first
duly sworn, deposes and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following
is true and correct:
1. I am subject attorney in the above-referenced matter, have personal
of my knowledge. Everything I have linked to herein or within the filings herein
incorporated by reference directs to a true and complete copy of the document it
purports to be.
Respectfully Submitted; Dated this 6th
day of June, 2015,
9
10
11

NV Bar No. 9473
945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro se Defendant
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4
469
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I certify that on this 6th day of June, 2015, I served a copy REQUEST TO
SUBMIT THIS MATTER AND ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS TO THE
COURT FOR CONSIDERATION upon State Bar Counsel by having such
electronically filed and served upon electronic filer bar counsel, and by mailing a
true and correct copy thereof by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to
the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
Las Vegas, NV 89102
and,
PATRICK O. KING (still listed as attorney of record on case despite no longer
being employed by State Bar of Nevada)
9456 Double R Blvd, Suite B
Reno, NV 89521
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5
470
1
2
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF Electronically

NEVADA
Filed
Jun 16 2015 08:59 a.m.

Tracie K. Lindeman
5
6
STATE BAR OF NEVADA;

Petitioner,
8
vs.
7
SUPREME COURT CASE NO 62337

NV BAR NO. 9473
11
Respondent.
10
12
13
14
15
16
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO REINSTATE LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW

I, Zachary Barker Coughlin, hereby consent to anyone with the Nevada Supreme Court, the
State Bar of Nevada, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, and the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
17
discussing my case, recovery, and associated circumstances with the following, outside my presence,
18
and without any knowledge of such communications and the substance thereof being communicated
19
or noticed to me whatsoever (an I absolve of any liability whatsoever anyone taking part in such
20
communications):
21
22
23
24
Senior Judge Charles McGee

Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers' Mitch Cobeaga, Esq., Coe Swobe, Esq.,
DATE JUNE 10TH, 2015,
25
26
27
___/s/ Zach Coughlin_______

Zach Coughlin, Pro Se
28
- 1 -
471
EXHIBIT 18
EXHIBIT 18
472
%& $!"& $"#& #&#&

&

&& &
&
,1] 8+(]0$88(6] 2)]>&+$6<] %]&29*+/-1](75] %$6]12] ]
<
9,/)<
+90<+<

&POWPKIB?XCB][IXG!]
+9*2$<
7X?XC] %?S]PD]1CZ?B?.?W]:CF?W]/?W] :CF?W]1:] '?ZIB] $] &L?TJ]?W] APYOWCM]DPS] 3CXIXIPOCT]7X?XC] %?S] PD]1CZ?B?]
8GPN?W]7YWIAG]7Q?TJW]1:]?W] APYOWCK] DPT] 4CXIXIPOCT]7X?XC] %?S]PD]1CZ?B?]

=?AG?V] %] &PYFGKIO] 6COP] 1:] ?W]APYOWCL]EPU]6CWQPOBCOX]=?AG?T\] &PYFGKIO]
2< *+/)4 +*<
*$< (O] %?OA]
*$< ).2<
)YKK] &PYTX]
2-9$! 3 +*2<
2< 5392<
3+1<
3CXIXIPO] )IKCB]
%?S]0?XXCS]
;,< 2XGCU]
9) 7<
98,<
3CXIXIPO]
3<9)!33<
.$</9)*3<
6< +3 < 229<
$3<9,/)<
+90<
22<
&'<9<
&(< 3392<
]
]
23/ 3<
+90<
2< *+/)3 +*<
2< 9).<
2< "3$<
9 %< 23/ 3<
+9*3;<
: 2 +*<
6 *<9<
,$< ;<
9)*3<,,%< /+)< %<
+3 < +<,,$< $<

+#3< *3. 2<
3<
+#3< *3/ 2<
]
)IKIOF] )CC];?IZCB"] %?T] N?XXCT]
]
)IMCB] 3CXHXIPO] 7CCJIOF] ?] 'CXCTNIO?XIPO]PD] XGC] $XXPSOC\W] &PNQCXCOA\] RYTWY?OX]XP]7YQTCNC]
]
&PYTX]6YMC]]
]
)IKCB] 0PXIPO] DPT] /C?ZC]XP])IKC] 2QRPWIXIPO]XP] 7&6] ] 3CXIXIPO] 1PW] ] ?OB] ]

]
)TIB?\])C@SY?T\] ] #] 30]
473
5
0%0#& !0 &!%0 0%0 #%%0 0 (

0
5

5
5
5
5
6G A1,G 'AA,=G 9.G
G
5
5
&!%G G $G "

,C'*'G '=G8 G

5

G
$0,-.1(/5/)5
5
# !0 5
G
0
!,@:86*,6A G
5
5
G
'@,G 8 G
G
5
%%0#0 0
%!%0 0%0%%!)#0
% )0 '!#'%0%0 #' !0 '!%0!'0 117(2)
5
5
0"#.5+ /#/#)(5.")2%5 5'-$ 5)(!# (/#&5*1-.1(/5/)5

# !05(5#(5)-( 53#/"5# !0 5
5
#1,G "A'A,G '=G 8.G ,C'*'G "A'A,G '=G (EG '6*G A1=8B/1G 0 #185'@G
5
"B@2)1G @; G 1'2=G 8.G A1,G 8=A1,>G ,C'+'G 2@)2:426'=FG 8'=*G G :,A2A286@G
5
A12@G868='(4,G8B=AG'@G.8448D@G
5
5
#1,G G 1'2=G 1'@G (,,6G 26.8=5,*G A1'AG A1,G "A'A,G '=G 8.G
5
,C'*'G 1'@G =,),2C,*G 6B5,=8B@G )85:4'26A@G '6*8=G /=2,C'6),@G =,/'=*26/G A1,G
5
(,1'C28=G 8.G&')1'=EG G8B/1426G @<

G'=G 5 !,@:86*,6A G
5
5
"A'A,G '=G *,@2/6'A,*G 'G ")=,,626/G '6,4G A8G =,C2,DG A1,G
5
)86),?26/G !,@:86*,6AG 8B01437G #1-G " -- ,0G *+.0

TAhC.IE t<.. L.l'\.t:r. :,t,~.;
5
COURT
! ! !
! CLClK
474

met on or about April 16, 2012, and made various findings and recommendations,
including the following:

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 117(2) the
Screening Panel believes that Respondent is incapable of
continuing the practice of law because of mental
infinnity, illness or addiction. The Panel recommends
the filing of a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a
determination of the atto1ney's competency. Respondent
has been asked if he wishes to stipulate to the filing of a
joint petition and he does not.
3
4
5
7
3.
8
9
The NNDB Chair has reviewed various materials to evaluate
the recommendation of the Screening Panel to file a petition with the Supreme
1O Court regarding a mental evaluation of the Respondent under SCR 117.
4.
11
The State Bar Office has informed the NNDB Chair that the
12
Respondent may have a history of mental illness. The NNDB Chair has been
13
informed that the Supreme Court issued an order on December 18, 2002, deferring
14
the admission of Zachary B. Coughlin as an attorney at law in this state. The
15
NNDB Chair has been informed that said deferral was at least partially based upon
16
a condition that Mr. Coughlin receive psychological counseling. The NNDB Chair
17
has been informed that Zachary B. Coughlin was finally admitted to practice law
18
on October 1, 2004.
19
///
20
Ill
21
II I
475
5.
The NNDB Chair has received and reviewed the multiple
grievances refetTed to above.
6.
The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has been
notified of the grievances and complaints; but, Respondent has refused to
cooperate with Bar Counsel regarding the investigation and resolution of same.
7.
The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has not
requested to be placed on disability status and refuses to acknowledge that he has
any mental infirmity, illness or addiction.
8.
Bar Counsel has reported to the NNDB Chair that the
10
investigation of the grievances against Respondent show a serious pattern of
11
misconduct and bizarre behavior.
12
9.
Bar Counsel reports that on November 30, 2011, Respondent
13
was found guilty, after a trial, of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC
14
8.10.040, in the Municipal Court for the City of Reno. Said conviction was based
15
on an incident occurring on September 9, 2011. Respondent shoplifted a candy bar
16
and cough drops with a value of approximately fourteen dollars ($14.00) from
17
Wal-Mart. Respondent appealed the judgment of conviction. The judgment of
18
conviction was affirmed on appeal.
19
10.
On November 30, 2011, Respondent was found to be in
20
contempt of the Reno Municipal Court, Department 4, for "disorderly,
21
contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge... "
The Respondent was
476
found to have disregarded the directives of the judge and of making demeaning
statements such as stating "WOW)' when the court made rulings. The Respondent
was also cited for "laughing during testimonyn and questioning the judge's
authority.
incorporated herein by this reference.
A copy of the contempt citation is attached as Exhibit 1 and
11.
On August 20, 2011, Respondent was a1Tested and charged with
Petit Larceny and Possession of Stolen Property, misdemeanors, for stealing a cell
phone. Respondent recorded his arrest and has posted the video on You-Tube.
The video was publicly posted by Respondent and may be viewed at the following
10
11
internet address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PR7q4015b0

12.
On January 14, 2012, Respondent was arrested and charged
12
with Abusing 911 Emergency Services, a gross misdemeanor.
13
recorded his arrest and posted the video on You-Tube. The video is posted at the
14
following inten1et address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvK6kvJrwFA
15
13.
Respondent
Concerning the criminal proceedings involving the charge
16
referenced in paragraph 12, above, Respondent filed a document in the Reno
17
Justice Court, Case No. RCR2012-065630, entitled, "Notice of Appearance, Entry
18
of Plea of Not Guilty, Waiver of Right to Arraigmnent; Motion to Dismiss.'' This
19
document is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference. The
20
document commences with the following statement:
21
Washoe Cotmty, and beyond who want to perpetuate this chicanery: 'Okay, you 're
"To all those in Reno,
477
a goon, but what)s a goon to a goblin?'" The document contains a rambling and
essentially incoherent recitation of arguments and alleged facts. It also contains

14.
On November 13, 2011, Respondent was anested by Reno
Po]ice Department and charged with Trespassing, a misdemeanor.
recorded his arrest and has posted the arrest video on You-Tube. The internet
address of the video is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssEOFWHFNEY

15.
8
9
Respondent
Respondent's trespass arrest arose after an eviction hearing
before Justice of the Peace Peter Sferrazza.
Respondent was evicted from his
10
residence per order of the court effective November 1, 2011. After being evicted,
11
Respondent was later found living in the basement of the residence. The locks on
12
the residence had been broken. The Reno Police tried to convince Respondent to
13
leave the premises; but he would not voluntarily leave. The owner kicked a door
14
open and Respondent was arrested thereafter.
15
Respondent fiJed a 36-page "Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel and
16
Motion to Dismiss" the trespass charge on March 5, 2012, in the Second Judicial
17
District Court, bearing Case No. 11 CR 26405. A copy of the "motion>' is attached
18
as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by this reference.

19
20
III
21
///
10
478
16.
On February 27, 2012, in the case of City of Reno vs. Zachary
Barker Coughlin, Reno Municipal Comt Case No. 11 TR 26800 21, a trial was
held on a traffic citation issued to Respondent Coughlin. The matter was called at
approximately 3 :00 p.m. and concluded without a verdict at about 4:30 p.m. after
the Court held Respondent in criminal contempt of court for his behavior and
activities committed in the direct presence of the Court during trial. Respondent's
behavior is chronicled in the court>s contempt order which is attached as Exhibit 4
and incorporated by this reference.
17.
On March 12, 2012, The Honorable Dorothy Nash Holmes
1O found by 11 clear and convincing evidence" that Respondent Coughlin committed

11
numerous acts of attorney misconduct. Judge Holmes explains in her Order that
12
Respondent served a five-day Contempt of Court Sanction imposed by the Com1
13
on February 27, 2012. Thereafter, Respondent fax-filed to the Reno Municipal
14
Court a 224-page document. Judge Holmes found that the document contained
15
rambling references to his persona] life and was incoherent.
16
Holmes' Order is attached as Exhibit 5 and is incorporated herein by this reference.
17
18.
A copy of Judge
On December 14, 2011, Respondent filed an Affidavit of
18
19
Respondent alleges that he has almost no income and refers to himself as being
20
employed as a "Jack of All Trades."
21
11
See, Exhibit 6 attached hereto and
479
19.
On March 22, 2012, Respondent arrived at the Reno Municipal
Court. He spoke with a clerk of the court and with the clerk's supervisor. His
conduct became so disruptive that security had to be called to remove him from the
courthouse. The claimant was wearing smiley face flannel pajama bottoms and a
white tee shirt.
and a tie. See, Affidavit of Officer Scott Coppa, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
20.
Underneath the tee shirt, the claimant was wearing a dress shirt
Respondent has posted on You-Tube and on his law practice
webpage, under the moniker, 25TeddyJames, several videos.
Respondent is seen driving in his car or sitting in pajamas discussing both the court
In the videos,
1O and its staff. In the videos, he states that a named police detective admitted taking
11
bribes from a named local attorney. He also discusses court staff and states how
12
much income they make.

21.
13
Respondent exhibited disturbing behavior in a prior case where
14
he was representing a client. On April 10, 2009, District Judge Linda Gardner of
15
the Second Judicial District Court executed an "Order After Trial, in Case No.
16
DV08-01168. Judge Gardner stated in her order that the most troubling aspect of
17
the case was Respondent's rude, sarcastic and disrespectful presentation at trial;
18
Respondent's inability to understand a balance sheet; his failure to conduct
19
discovery; and his lack of knowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial
20
procedure.
11
All of this was compounded with a continuously antagonistic
21
12
480
presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce case to
a contentious divorce trial lasting an excessive amount of time.
22.
During the course of the Respondent's various criminal
proceedings before the lower courts, a case was referred to District Judge Steven P.
Elliott of the Second Judicial District Comt for evaluation regarding Respondent's
mental competency to stand trial.
completed by two doctors, Judge Elliott entered an order finding that the
Respondent was competent to stand trial under NRS 178.425. A copy of Judge
Elliott's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
10
23.
After examination of the Respondent was
Judge Elliott's decision is not dispositive of the issue of
11
whether the Respondent is "competent" to practice law. The issue before Judge
12
Elliott focused only on the ability of the Respondent to stand trial.
13
Bar Counsel has provided the NNDB Chair with numerous additional
14
docrnnents regarding the Respondent's behavior and conduct. In order to avoid
15
overburdening this Court with repetitive documents, those additional items have
16
not been attached to this Petition. lf, however, the Court deems all evidence to be
17
necessary for the Court to make a decision, the additional documentation will be
18
immediately provided.
19
Based upon the above information received by the Chair of the
20
Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board, the Chair hereby asserts pursuant to Supreme
21
Court Rule 117(2) that he believes the Respondent is incapable of continuing the
13
481
practice of law at this time due to mental infirmity, illness or addiction; and the
NNDB Chair hereby seeks a determination by this Honorable Court of the
Respondent's competency and an order transfen-ing the Respondent to disability
inactive status, thereby preventing the Respondent from practicing law in the State
of Nevada until such time as this Honorable Comt detennines that the Respondent,
Zachary B. Coughlin, may resume his practice of law under SCR 117(4).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23'd day ofMay, 2012.
8
9
~rthem Nevada Disciplinary Board
evada State Bar No. 898
1675 East Prater Way, Suite 103
Sparks, NV 89434
(775) 284-9533
(775) 284-9513 - Fax
10
11
12
13
14
Respectfully prepared by:
15
16
17
18
PATRICK 0. KING
Reno, NV 89521
19
20
21
14
482
ERT I FI CATE OF . E RV I CE
I he under, igncu hereby certifies that a true and concct copy of the foregoing PETIT ION
6
7
8
9
10
11
.'EEKI NG A DETE RMI NATI ON OF T H E .-\TTOR.i~EY' . COMPETEN Y PU R UA1 T TO

UPREME
O RT R LE 11 7(2) ,,as c.lcpo ited in the United late ~fail at Reno. Ne,aJa.
postage fully pre-paid thereon tor certified anJ fir t class mail adc.lressed to the follo,, ing:
lachary B. Co ughlin. E q.
Po I Office Box "'961
Reno.
89:oDA fED this 301h c.la)
or
fay, 20 12.
~
~ ~/~
-La_u_ra- Pet~rs, an employee of'
the ' tate Bar of cvac.la
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
483
EXHIBIT
1
484
RE;-10 :11 U1'1C!PAL
co
RTF I L E O
WA HOE CO U~TY, ~EV ADA
NOV 3 0 2011
3
CITY OF RE~O,
Plaintiff,
5
vs.
6
7
ZACHARY COuGHLIN,
8
9
10
11
12
13
1-i
Defendant.
Dept. 4
ORDER FOR smtM ARY

P U~I ID1Ei'iT OF COi'iTEMPT
COMMITTED fN Tl IE IM:\1EDlATE
VTE\V AND PRESENCE
OF THE COURT
I
---=-=--,,,...--.-"""'""=--"="--:--C""""7'.::-=--:---:-- -,\ HEREAS NR 266.570 t.lcclares that municipal judge may punish for contempt for
the same acts or omissions, in the same manner and with the same effects as provided fo r
judges in Chapter 22 of Nevada Revised Statute, and
~ --
WHEREAS NRS 22.030 decl ares that, hen a contempt is committed in the immediate
view and presence of the Court or judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily, fo r
which an order shall be made, reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and
presence. adjudging that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of a contempt and that
he/she be punished as therein prescribed, and
\\ 'HEREA , on the 30 1h day of 1ovember, _QI I , the above named defendant appeared
before this court.

NAYIE: ZACHERY COUGH LI~. who is a DEFENDA~T
______ Party;
Witnes ;
18
19
Spectator, and
\VHEREA such individual commined the following act(s) in the immediate view and
presence of the Court:
Disorc.lcrly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge ""'hile he is
holding court, or engaged in his judicial duties at chambers,
20
-'
22
,\ brcnch of the peace, boisterous conduct or\ iolcnt disturbance in the presence of rhe
Court, or 1n its 1mmcdi;ite \.ICtnity, tending to 1ntem1pt due to the course vf the tnaJ or other
juJ1c1al proceeding,
., _ )
Refu ing to be sworn or ans\,cr as a \\itness,
27
- - - - - D1sobt!)ing a lawful wri tlordenrule/pr ~ # ~..) kl &~i

F,i.i~iat !ijpv ol the or! lnaJ I
harnbers, and \VHEREA such condu~ rec.crds of th Reno 1,Aunlcipal Coun . Pano, Washoe 6oun ,
d i C
' lavada, and thai Iha Clat1t cf na Court
.n cw;todlan ol lh
- - - - - D t:mt!ane I tlC OU l1
:;rlg1nal rooord and !h!ll I 'lm autt'Ofizad to mau lhi.c c..rtiflca
28
___
.,,,,.,_ _ O\!rog:ih:<l the authont~ o f the Cm,rt
>
~MUNICI
.. .... ., ......
,,_., .., .,
RT
485
Based upon the above finding ZACHARY COUGHLIN is Guilty of Direct
2
3
Contempt.
The Conternnor, when asked if~she had anything to say as to why sentence should
not be pronounced, replied :

S.c~ Co.. rq-- ~
6
7
8
9
10
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, AD,Jl;DGED, and DECREED th3t the

contemnor is hereby sentenced to the following punishment:
A fine in the amount of ($500 or less).
Imprisonment for (25 days or less), NO AL T ERNA TIYE SENTENCfNG .
.J- B f ,.,,.. .
11
DEFE DANT TO BE RELEASED on
I)__-
;J_ -//
, 20 11.
12
13
A fine in the amount of _ _ _ _ (S500 or less) and impri sonment for _ _
14
DAYS WASHOE COUNTY JAIL - No altemati\'e sentencing.
15
Release o n Own Recognizance revoked, bail set at: _ _
16
17
Defendant is hereby remanded into the custody and wil l be seen in video
arraignments on
18
19
20
- - - -, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.
, 0 BAJL HOLD PE;'\DfNG
SE TE1 CfNG.
DA TED !.his JO'hday of November, _o11 .
21
, J UDGE
22
23
24
25
_6
27
... _
..... .,
l' 'll.
.... '
' '-"
,.-..
_8
lT
n .. "
486
EXHIBIT
2
487
H <"
"98""BDHG7B8HE G84B@

EB@M46;6BH:;?<A
C
D CA<
PP -R>

PPG
Document Code:
iach Coughlin. Esq.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
1422 E. 9th St..
Reno. NV 89512
Tele: 775 338 8118
Fax: 949 667 7402
Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin
IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
STATE OF NEVADA;
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
13 ZACHARY COUGIILIN;
14
15
.7

??
Defendant.
)
)
)
) CASE NO: RCR2012-065630
)
) DEPT. NO: 2
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. ENTRY OF PLEA OF NOT GUILTY. WAIVER OF RIGHT

TO ARRAIGNMENT; MOTION TO DISMISS
To all those in Reno, Washoe County, and beyond who want to perpetuate this
chicanery: "Okay, your're a goon, but what's a goon to a goblin?"
19
20
21

COMES NOW, ZACII COUGHLIN, ESQ., and files the above titled document on his own behalf
and it is based on the argument and authorities herein, and the attachments. Coughlins asks this court
to order the WCPD to just give him some money and let him spend it as he sees fit to fulfill the
requirement that Couglin, who is indigent, be provided. counsel under
Sixth Amendment
FACTS
26
Please incorporate by reference the materials attached herein. But in short, the arraignment in

this matter was set for February 14th, at 9:30 am. The undersigned was of the understanding that

Q R
$%*%&($$*(/%&"%$%** "*/-,(%(**%(($#$*
488
4
5 5 < > < ? >
. =< ? . . > > >

> 9< 5 =. . )=< !, !
> < * <
> ?? > =. )
> . < = >
6 7 ? > ??*< )=< !, !

5
) < > D
( < .
< ? D =. = > >
> 6 7 < ? > = ?

53/(" 6 62(03$/(/"

6 . ? > . =

=. ? E; ? $" , ' ( ?< ?? .
. . . # 6B . F $"
,!' *? > . .. # / C
? . =. . ( . =
?< . . =. F ? # /. . . F

6 . < = . . F =

< . ? /. . > =

> . < /. ?=< . C

8 . = .. < /. . > ? .F.

489
? ? . ? #/. . >
?? . ?? B > ? < <

E ; ( . < < . ?
? =< = ? < =< . < ! < ?
$" ,'E; # /. . . ? G ? . <H
$" ,'E';

( =<
> . < . ? .
9< > < . F
.
> . . 6?? .
> > < ?? .
. J ,,, = > . *?

?? . ? > < . ?? .

E> ?? > . >; = ? =<

= . . .> > = DD
?? ? . =< 4

5 < . . C
. . ? > .. ? . . > ?< @
> ? >

. > $5 " ". < ? . E < > = ?

$5; " ". = = . =< < ? >B

> .. ?? . @(% < >

K1< "K > E > ? >F; "

490
".D K> ? ? $5 ? E
. KC<>BK ? . =. K.K $ 9 0

> 5 3 ? =< $1

1 " > ,
. . F F ! 1 " F F !
0 * (?< 5 3 K < > CLK >
? 0 ?? ??< >> ? (53 ?? = ?
? . < > 0 = = ? . ?=

?? < ? 0 > > ?

.
> ? . ?=< . ?= ? F F ! .
0D D .<
D > ?<> = ?
D .
> .. E . = > *= $1

$!, -,, ,& .
KK ? >. = > =< $"

&6'!, $"
&6+, > . KK *? E?< > J,, > < =
. . ??< D . . > ? > 0 .

= . $5 $1

$L /. / <
L 7 ? ?* ?. 0 > = . ? . ??
D < >. ;;

6 . E < > < .< .
 * > ? = . =;

M EB<;
<
- 5? @.. !, M3' 7:1 !,!'

N E
M/ 3= ! !, ;- > . ?. ??<
E ; . . 5 :< E> 7B 5 :> ''!';

491
5 . " 5?< ). E> 7B 5 :> +',; ( .< ?
7 5: ''!' ? < . 5 :< > ??< E< ??<;

> . 6< ? 7 5: +', ?
< .
5 . " 5?< ). > B><
? ??< > =. .
" = < D . . D
? > .< < * D

?. ? ' ? =
? .. < = > D .
6 7 . .< .>

?
K 6
0 7329 .
< . 4 " . .
? . =. ?< . ?C< 6
06$7
6$M$
3290:/ . =- .
E K . K $" ; .> > (
. = 1< !, ! $ (>? >
< . 4 " . >.< >.< E

$" ; E !! " #! $ &' ! ;
$ 4
< > E ?=
;
32( // 53""""/3 3) "(3: 5$35$(7 . $"

!,'!' .> > ( .
= !, < . 6 !, $ (>? >
<
. 4 " . >.< >.< ? >
(> 0 ).< EJ!', ,,;
> 5
" $ 4
<
??< = > =<
3$7 93: . > ?
> . ? ?? ??< >
= =< . <
= B> > =K
6 D ( 3 > = / ?< .
? =

73 . =-? * . . K .
< K ( < ?< . < .

492
? . ..
> ? . ? . 4

6 3.. > 7 /

> < < ? J ,,M < =. > ? >
> > ? D < > = ? .
?< . < ? 6D > < K 7 0K ?-
> B . < < > . < =
?< == ?OO > 5D B 9 > <

$
$!, -,+ D B . 5 >D
B $" &, , = > KK
; 1 ".OO > EB > $ 0 > "<
3 . B > , . ( ; >< @ 9
< > > > B< <

? . . = )2$(0$ >

5 . > B

?< > >

? =< ? < E. 5P
? P < ? ?< P; = = . J ,
$1
> 1 ".OO >< . ?? ? ?C =B @
1 ".OO D < > = <
5 D B < = > J,, / < D = . J',

@ !, ! ?= D ?< EC< 9 7 "? L;

?< ! .

: / E M F. BB . /

; / =< 5D C= ?? . > > = ?=

6= 9= < K K =< ( 9 ? 4
<

493

E/ B . ?? $5 . "
(> > / < / > >

. + . > " ". B< = $
<
6< . ( $ 4
< =< > >
?? < K3B< <D = >D =PK

!"#"!$$%&'()% "#!$*+#","* "$-!.+$-$!$
+/! !$-!$$-+"0101$"! ""$! $-!$$-1 2$ $$!1!*
1!"1$*23"#"!$$&456'(4(!!++1"2!$1$$-!$++$$-1-"3*1'

6( . )=< !, !

QFF

.F
-
9

494
5$33) 3) "$%/

3 / ?< . . = ? .> =<
.* = . >>>= <
? . B =< ? ?< . .
2"
< 7
4
< 6
" " 53 * ,,&
$ % &'!,
5 = '-!&-!,, )* = '-!'-+,
O<R><
<
4
< 5= .D 3..
53 * ,,& $ % &',
5 = '--&+& )* = '--&'+
=R><

1$@7 ( 3":$

!'
3
. 6
$ % &',
E'; -&,,
6< . .
6( . )=< !, !

QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

)6(

495
EXHIBIT
3
496
2012HAR-5 AHI I
Documl!nt C ode: :
Z.u:h C o u ghlin
N~vada Oar No : 9-HJ

l-n2 E. 'J'* S t. i: 2
R1.:no, ~V 89 .S 12
r.:t .:. 77 .S- 33 8-81 18
Fdx: 949-667-7 402

A tto rney for Pro S c Atto rn ey Pl:iintitT Dcn i.:d Si xth Ame n dment R ig ht to C ounse l
..,
IN THE SECOND JU DI CIAL D ISTRICT COU RT O F TH E STA TE O F :'-iE V ,\ 0 ,\

1:,./ A N D FO R THE CO :,J1Y O F \V /\SHOE
a
9
:] '( __ el-=
u,
CI TY O F RE~ O :
)
)
l )
1l
l2
)
)
)
P LJ\ l1 TIFF.
\ 'S .
) Dept No: 2
Z AC II COCGHLI~;
)
)
14
D EFE. DANT.
lS
C:tSe No : 1 1 C R 2640 .S
)
)
~<>TICE <>F .\PPE.\(L\~CE ,\$ CO-CO U.'lSEL .\,'\'.D ;\lOTIO~
ro Pl. >IISS
CO\ I ES . OW, Defend:int. L 1c h C oughlin, by .md thro11 gh h11nsc.:lf as co -co un,;e l to
..: o
Def.:nd.tnl .ind filc'I lhe 1b ove
111le
document o n hi 'I o,,., n bch:i lf .
2t
LEG.\L .\RGL>IE:'iT
22
Memorandum or Law lo Sugport or Motion to Dismiss the Cornflli!in1

. 3
In t ro du c tion
r e ~ ~r o ',1unrr: p al Cori e (R .1C)
'\ ( ) l I(
I:, t I
Th e (Jc Ul l 3l'ega io n s
t \ ,l' ,. \ lt \.: (. I:. \ i l. I) l
I I
1n hP. compla in t J r e o
L> l: L . \ ' I) \ 11 ) l l ( )" I I ) f l I ' '
tr.~ ~ f(e c t
I , ....
497

!"

#$% & '

$%( ! )
$%) %

!
#$%
(' * !
&

+
)
, &
'
!%)(
- . ,
%! ) "
(
)
/* %% (
' * !
0!
" !

"
/*

!" "##!!# "$!!#"%$&!$'!
"" %" (!"( ( "(!& '#' !'##"
')% !!"'#!!" "" *+,,+,
, < 0 <>> 0 @0 . <0 A0

" 80 " " % 8 *" B$+; , < 0 0.'
0 0 . .0 ? 0 . 0 0.." 00
? 0> .0 ." ? 0> <0
?0 <>>- . 0 <>>- <> " % 80
" " 8 " B; 1. < .0 0>0 <>> 0"
0 > <0 A0" 0 > 000 &
<" ?" 0 > -< 00 >" " 0 > ?
0> >00 <<- - 00
" 80 " "
8 +" +% B$; &." .0 .0 - > ? .
0 > 0.. 0>0 00 ?- 0 <>> 0 >
. ..0

2" < <<0
!=
C0 0<00 0 $+++ &
0 . ..0 "#! "
&

' '

498

!! '"!*+,,+,%&!'"!& -&."$

$!#." !" . '! .(!'! # &!($ '(.
$ #" ""!"!.# !"'

!! " "" !# !"" (!"( ( "( "!# !""$
.!"&!#$!'# .&!!$ "''! $#
'" '"&!'
( 0 00" < 0 > 000
1 D - ? E- . 0 & 0 1 0<.- @0
- . ? <- = " ." F<0- 0F -
3 ! !E " ! $%+ > " + + <" ?

<. E 1 0 - <0 1 ?0 F<0- 0F 1 - .
? <- = 0 - ? <0 F<0- 0F 0 0
? 1 > 0" " 1 << - 0

1 ? @ > < ? ,.. . . >- . 8
3 <- =

? 0< 0 . 3 : - 0 B - ? .. ? '<- .
?0 " 00 . ! +% ? G"% 0? <0 ?0 .0 <
. +%B*;" 0<- ? 0- . ?0 ? !4
0 -
-;

=- 00 ? 8

3 0 =C0 ,.. . 0 F<0- 0F " ? E .
0 . >'0 =! . 1 00 - - A> B - ? ? -

-0 .0 .0 1 0 ? ? ? ?00 < !1
3

0 0 ? 0H;" ? 0 > .0 .0 - ? 0 H =

F<0- 0F - 3H ! : 2" 0@ E0 1 ?0 F0F

< ? 0 >0 ?0 F0 0 < . 8
3 8" )-"
' '

499
0 F0 0 < . 8

3H 1 > 0 F? 0F 0.. " 1 . 0
>E ? 0<< ? 0 !4

00 - B? . 0
6 0 80 6 0" << - -0 0 > - 0 ?00 1 ."
? - - < < 00 0 -" . - ? 000
0..- . 0 . <00" ? 1(/ @ 8

3 0 .0; ,-?-" >E
F? 0F <0- F

&0 ? >000 > I& - < 00 0.. 0> . -
? 0 . < . J 0 <<> 0 0" ? 3 :
- ?0 0 >- 3> " + & 0 - . 00 <<>
! +%B;B>;B;" ! +%B%;B; - 00 . ! + ? 0 I? 0J
0" 0 00 - <<- ?"

+%B;B>;B; I , 0 <0 0>0 0 B>; ,0 L B; & .

0 0 - . ?. " - 00 0- . .

< . . " 0.. 0> . -

? 0 . < . J

"
+%B%;B; I% 5< < ? B; & M0 - <<- >- .. .
< . A0 . ?0< ? ?" <" >
<00 0 . - ? ?" <" >
<00 " ? 0 A0 & - < 00

0.. 0> . - ? 0 . < . J & ?- 0 0-

<0 > ! 40

<0- 0E0 0 0

? & 0 >00 . .. E ?- 8

3C0 <- = 0 0 & > ?

00 I? 0 . <J <<>" 0 0 00 E
' '

500
<0 00" ? & . ,.. 0 0 . 0 &
@ C0 0 < I? 0J . I< . J B? 0 H &
0 . 0 E IJ" IJ" I . -J" I<J" 0 >0 " 0 I< . J
0 0 - . 0? ?'0 =# 0- 0" <-
? 0 ? 0 .

< ? + -0 . I<J . ! & 6" 0 ?
.?0 !
/ %B>;" !
/ *B; < < . 0 " ? < 0 0?" >- <<-
I0 J 0 0 < -0 . )0 . . 0 0 "
; 1 ,> 80 2 3< 10" %% ( B0
++;" . ?
<.. 0 ''0 & ?0 00 > " ++* & +'
- < > +" ++*" >0 -0 . . ) -0 -0
1 > & #11 ,," <.. 0 )0 0 0 0
? + -0 . < . 0 5

N +++'%B.;B; ?
- 8

?" ** 5 " $ " +

" $+ 6 * B$;B <.. -0 .
<0 ! *;J

80
- ..C0 3.."

<OO?E<O?EOP.P<00

F>0 0

8 <- > 0 0 > . <0 0" - A00 ? . 0>0 0

>0 0 ?0 <00 0 0 0 ? 0<0> "
' % '

501
<0 . 0> 0" 0 0 > 5 ( !0" 0>0
0 - - > > ? . .QR
." ? 7E"Q%R 10" -
5 0 A00 @ 0>0 0" 0 > <Q%R
>0 0 . @0 0 <- 0? - 0 0 <>" 0 >
< E <0 0 >- -" 0>0 0 ? <- ..
Q%RF

1 <- 0 F<0- 0F 0 - 0 <0 <0" <0 = ?
<0 " <0- 0. " 1 E - -0 E . F<0F ? <0- 0
<<- 0" ? 00 1 0 0 ?" F<0F < . F<0-F <<0
<0 > 0 2< " =-

<0OO0E-O0<)HS+$*$..%.$T0S+$*$((%($U$T<S

,0" 0 8

3 <0 ? -< . 0 0 @ . 0 < 8
3
? 0 " > > EH

<OO???00O0O<

!
/ !56 *+ !61( (!3= 45:=& 3! 3!! B; . 40 . /0-

8 . A 0 > E 0 - <- ? ?0 <0- 0 ? 00

<" . - A0" ? 0 <<

" " . 0 <-" < ? * 0 . . 0 . ?
' * '

502
. - . 0 A" - 0 A ? <- <-M0 <00
0? 0 . 8" ?" <- 0 > <0- 0 ? 00
<" . - A0" <- 0 E << > .
." A" " < E 0 <-" . <00 . 0?"
? <00 . 0>0 B>; . 0

3E-" 0" -" - -0 0 . " - 0 << 0 0 ,..0 <- .
<A- 0.." - - > F<0- 0F 00 ? <0 ?0
H 3E-7 E? " E" 0

< > F<0- 0F 00 " 0-
=" ? 0 <0 0 B1 C E - E <<" - C
< 0" > = 0 0 <0" <0" <0- ? 0 0?
<- . <A- F<0- 0F 0>- 50- F<0- 0F 0 - 0 . .0

. B00 0 1(/; 0" 0

< &." -<-" << A0 ..

F0>0 0F >0 0 <" 00 . 00" F<0 0F 0 - @ . 0 <0

0 0" 0

< 8?3E-" 0 0 0 - ? <" 0 0 0<0 E0

. 0 ? 0 > > 0 .0" 00 - -0 F<0- 0F " 1 . ? 0
@ " - .. F0>0 0F ?" !

/ *B; !
/ *B; !
/ %B>;B; B
!
/" 4
!
/ 0 <<> 0 ! $,; >
0- 3 -0 . 0 <00

/0 0 >- <00 0

' '

503
/0 0 0 0 . <00 - B ; <- 00" < < 1 0
?00 5 0" <0 0 0 @ < 0 =0 00 ? 0>0 0 0
?00 00 - 0 <" 66

" 66/" >000 -9 0 00" <0 0 0
> >- 0 B ; 0 F!0 ,F . >000 - 00 B(;
@ 0 - > 1
. 0 00" 0
0 > 0> <0 > 0" " 0 < 1. .00 < 0" .0"
00 " " 0 > <0- . 0 <0 > 0" 0 - >
F<F 0" 0 0 0 /0 0 . <00 0 > E .
. - ++ -0" <- >0 0 . . 0
/0 0 . <00 0 0 > ..0 ?- > 0 < ?
0- <0 <00 @0 . . <<- > QRV &
6? !? &

! . /0 . /00

, . 0 0

FE?F > 3" E 0 .
C0 ?0

000 ? 80

- ..C0 C F<0 0F . 0
<

" F0..-F" <<0 0 - F F 0 0>0 .
< ? 0 @0

8 0 >0 .E0 E ! : 2" 0@ 00 . <<- 0-0 0?< ?
E 00 > . - > ! $,*+ F0> 0" " - )<00F

0>A C0 <0 <<- ! : 2 00 ? ?- 0 - >

>. 0 -0 ? < 2 0 > 0 - 0"

. - 0 - ? <-? > < >E < . <<-" 0> >

)> . G"+*+ . F0F <<- B? 0C - <<- ! $,*+C0
' $ '

504
F0> 0 - )<00F E 0 @ ." G++ .
0 0 > . 0 < - 0 . 0<00 ! !E "? . -
G++ ? .. " ? 0 0 > 0<00 . - > .
. F0 <- . <00FH (" . ?0 0 00" 00 .
! $, 0 . 0 .-" 0 . 0<00" -
0 0 ? !/ 3..

6<D - 00 ? 0E
< 0 0 B? @ G$++ . >" U" -0 A" 00; &0 0
0<- < . ? 3..

E0 >>0 . ! 2 2-" . 3..

0- " 0 " - 1C ?C0 ? 1

2 0- ?0 AE ?0" > C AE 00 0 ? - 0 0
0 0 . - 0? 0C0 - 1 . - B-

<.00 < ; 1 C 0 < ? - < ..0" > , 3..

6<D .0 <<- @- 2 0 ? 0 " < 0<00 0" > .

F. F . <<-" " G++" ?0 0 . . F0 <-F .

<00 , ! : 21" 0@ ?0 >0- .

< > 0
0" 0< - 0" 1 00

?" .0 . 4 .DD

0- E" 0@ << 3" ? 0
..- < ? ? 4 " < 0 G"% . -
. - 20 2

0 >- 0<< 0 A 0" " 0 0 E<

G"% 4 .DD <- ! 40
0 F 0?F <0 @

<0 >>- 000 ?" . 4 .DD -

A0 @ B 0 4

!6# !" C0 #0 " . ! ?0 E . 0
' '

505
? 4
!
/ $ @0 !4
<>0 << >- <
.0<; 3E-" 0"
E 0< ." EC0 0 0- F> G"% ?C > 0 0 -"
F0 0 0 0 0 0- .

C0 0 <<" <0 4
!
/ F ?" 0C

0 - . <- . ,<<H 10C ?0 0-
0 > .H 0 F,<< F 0 0 >- 0 - G%+0 + 0 .
C0 0 0 > . F<00 F - - . ! +$+
+$%

1 E?" 1 E?" 0 .0 >0 - 0 00 . " 0 -0 !4
0
>? ?
0 0 ?0 0 00 G"+++" ? . 0 - @
<0 0- 0<00 > . G%+ B >" 0<00 > @0 0- . @0
0<00; 0 ?

0 " ? ? ?

0<00 > B)< . <0E- < > 0 > G"+++ @ >- 0 0" 0

> - G++;" )<" " ! : 2" 0@
0- E" 0@ <0 0 0-

<

0 " ? 0 ? 0 B" - C

0 0- <0 0 . ! +% 00 - <-
. 0 + - /- . ! & W" ? - C >0 - F A0 E <
. 0 00 " 7 2 B0 0 E >)0O<0 F - > 0 -HF
0E;

! +$+ /00 <<0 <- -" ? + -0" << . A
<< >- . 0 0- ) . A" 00" ? + -0" . 0

) . ? A0 .M0 E <.." ? ? 00"

> .) >- A0" > ? 0 > 00 ? . A 00"

.. " . A << . > .. << > 000" << ? <- A

0 . <<" . 0 < . <<-" 0 A0- <..
' + '

506
<- . << 5< E << . E" . <0 0
0 > 0-
" ?- 0

- ,-C0 3.. 0 - -
0<00 . ?
0 0 . ? ! 2 0 0 . =C0 ?
0 << . 0-

#'+*$H 8-" ?-H 0 !
- ,-C0 3.. 0 0 . 0 0
E<
?" >0-" >0" >" ?0H 1" ?-" C > >0
0 -
?. 0 0 . 0 ! / <" H <OO???->O?H
S%/!@31%>+
," ?" - 80

- ..C0 3.. C @ 0 0
<0 0
0
?0 0 0 . <- " ?
?0 3 / 1 (
/<0" ? @ 80

- ..C0 3.. 0 0
<0 ? 0
? * -0

0< A 0 0? -> >H 10 E 80
- A < 0 ? - ? .

E < 00 8C0 H 1
0H &- H !-H 8H &- 0 . 0 0) ? <0" 0 .

0 0 F<F 00- 0 <- 0.-H 3" ?? , - 0 . .

0? 0 <. @00 >- < - . 0 " .0

0< 0 < 0 . <" ? ? '0H 8? &- C A 0

0 0< . ) <0 . " " -H 7 EU 80 )" - . .
! / 0 0

. FA-?EF ?
?0 <.- ." .
<> 0<" ! : 2C0 . / 2? 0- E ? < 0 .
0 0

?0 < . . <<- 0
?0 ? B. < G$+ ? . . ? E? " >0" 0<" C
/C0 .
G"+*+ > . F0F >E < B? 0?0 . 0" )<>-" ?? O .
?? . 0?E 6E 6" 0 >- > <

1 0 E . > 0 0-0 FD 0 /" ->-UF;"
C0 . ? .. ?0

>D > " + ? ! : 2 ?0 0 0 B" E-"
C0 C0

.0" E 0 . .0 .0 0" ;" 00 0 FF , . F0F ? .

0" G++" ?0 0 0 . F. 0 <-F ?0 2?" G++ . F0F 0
' '

507
G"+*+ . F0F B > - 0 F.) E >0 .
? 0 ? F0> 0" " -F )<00 0 0 <
. ! $,*+; 4D" - <>>- . 0 0
A0 ? -0 . A-?E 0" . 0 . < =0 0
C0
<<0 . /0 30 0 >0 < >- 000 0 . 00
0" . E0 0 F00 . F .

? 0 0 0
-00- 0<<" 0 00 E - > -"
" . 0
- ? <. .C0 )< < F >0 0
0 F B ! ++" ; 0" " F . F
. ?0 F- <F

>- 0 " " 00 G"%++ > 00 ? 00
0 " F=00 . F >0" 0 .

F- E< < -0. 00
? - DF 0 ?0 00- 0

-" 0 # - 0C .0

- 0 . <0 ?E 0 0
? / 30 0 0 # - 0 .." ? < -

" > 0- ? # - 0 . <?
C0 ? ..

3> " +" A0 0 < > . F0<F ? < .
C 0 ? ..

0- E" 0@ 0 - 00- - >.

C0 & ,0? ?0 0- # -

>E

C0 ? .. < 0< .."
C0 > >E 0-
00 B <0 . 0 . . % -0 ;H 8" # - 0 <>>- 0
. < > >- .0 0 . <0 0 -0" - ? 00
! +$% - . ) < <<9 - . ? 0 <0000 . <00 <- 0-
5< << . <0 ! +%
)< 0 ?0 < 0 0>0" 0- . ) - > > >- . ?
> . G%+ )< 00 << , 0- < > 0>0

A0 . << >- <<0 E . 0 0-M0 < ? <<0

.. 0-M0 >- < > - > 0 6>- . 0- - > ." > - >

0" << ? < , . <<- - > 0-

' '

508
. ) - < 00 . 0- <0 ! $ . !0 . ,<< /
<0 . 0<00 > . ++ < . < .
, ? 0 <0000 . <00 0>A . << <- . <<
0 <- < - >? 0
>0 1. .0 <- 0 " - ? <0 . 0- >-
0 ? ? <0 ! +%
! ++ ,<< 000 @0 <0 . ? . . 1 00 . << !
++ ++" 0" << 0 000 @0 <0 . ? . ." <
<0 > 0>0- <00 . ! ++ ++" 09
0 <" 0? 00" 0 . . -" - > ? >- -
>. . A < 0 0 0 - > A09 0 . )0" A0. .
0 < - > 0?
! +++ !0 . < & <00 . !" !0 .

/ !0 . ,<<
/ 0" <<0 ? 0" 0 . 0 - 00 ? <00 . !

++ ++" 0" <<- <0 0 00

" >E ..C0 3.. ," 1 - >- - -0 C E? !
/ * E

>E . - " >" -> - C " - ! + > ? .. -

F . <<- ? 0 . < . 3F <<- ? & . &C0
,0? 0? < 2 0<- ?" 0 0 " >-
0 0" > ?0 ? &0 0 <- ? ! $, <0 0 C0
0 . - 0- <<0
!
/ FB; 0 /0 & 00 < 0 > 0 & <..
0 .0 <0 E 0 ? 0 <0 0 00- 0 > >- <- .
00 <- . < 0 .?0B*; 5< 10 1 00

. <0-" >- <0 . .M0 ? 0 0 < . > ? 0

<0 . 0> 0 0 " >- <- . 00 <

D >- << >- ? 0 . <00 Q,0 9 .. 4- " ++%R B;

3 B; >- /> B; : 1 0 . <0 0" ? <0
' '

509
? 0 0 > 00 . 0" 0 < . 0" " . " >
. ? 0" >- 0E0 0 . 00" . 0 <<" >- .."
00. . A ." 0 <<" >- .. >- . < ."
0 . )00 0 . 0< ? 0 0 > " . 0
00- << <- " 0 A - 0 > >- <>
. 00 /" ? 0 .. 0 >0 . <- ? 0 0 > 00 .
0" <0 00 . <- 0 E?" 0 > 0.. 0? . 0 . . .. 0
0 - 0 .. <0 0 <0 0 . 0 0 .9 .. 0 E?
0 > . 0 0 > 0 <- ? 00 0 09 " 0 0" 0
> <0 0 <- 0 00 0 . 0" 0 .. 0 > > 0..
0? . . . &0 0 <<- . 0" 0 .

F

>A ! 8
3 <- =C0 F<0- 0F ,.. . OO+

&" (> + + '+$++

( 6X?0-0
& DX
E0X?0-0
=
"
3 0 - ?0 <0- 0 >- <- = >- <0 <-
. 3 0 & 0 ?0 <
6D " <0

8
3

(
QDXR

=-" (>- +*" + %$ ,=

' '

510
& " 6D9 Y0" =-9 <X<9 " !)9 EAX9
.0X9 A0>0X0
>A 8
3 <- =C0 F<0- 0F ,.. . OO+
1, <0 , Y0"
1 D - ? E- . 0 & 0 1 0<.- @0 - . ? <-
= " ." F<0- 0F - 3 ! !E " ! $%+
> " + + <" ? <. E 1 0 - <0 1 ?0 F<0-
0F 1 - . ? <- = 0 - ? <0 F<0- 0F 0
0 ? 1 > 0" " 1 << - 0
1 ? @ > < ? ,.. . . >- . 8
3 <- =
? 0< 0 . 3 : - 0 B - ? .. ? '<- .
?0 " 00 . ! +% ? G"% 0? <0 ?0 .0 <
. +%B*;" 0<- ? 0- . ?0 ? !4
0 -
-;

=- 00 ? 8

3 0 =C0 ,.. . 0 F<0- 0F " ? E .

0 . >'0 =! . 1 00 - - A> B - ? ? -

-0 .0 .0 1 0 ? ? ? ?00 < !1
3

0 0 ? 0H;" ? 0 > .0 .0 - ? 0 H =
F<0- 0F - 3H ! : 2" 0@ E0 1 ?0 F0F
< ? 0 >0 ?0 F0 0 < . 8
3 8" )-"
0 F0 0 < . 8

3H 1 > 0 F? 0F 0.. " 1 . 0
>E ? 0<< ? 0 !4

00 - B? . 0
6 0 80 6 0" << - -0 0 > - 0 ?00 1 ."
? - - < < 00 0 -" . - ? 000

0..- . 0 . <00" ? 1(/ @ 8

3 0 .0; ,-?-" >E

F? 0F <0- F

' % '

511
&0 ? >000 > I& - < 00 0.. 0> . -
? 0 . < . J 0 <<> 0 0" ? 3 :
- ?0 0 >- 3> " + & 0 - . 00 <<>
! +%B;B>;B;" ! +%B%;B; - 00 . ! + ? 0 I? 0J
0" 0 00 - <<- ?"
+%B;B>;B; I , 0 <0 0>0 0 B>; ,0 L B; & .
0 0 - . ?. " - 00 0- . .
< . . " 0.. 0> . -
? 0 . < . J
"
+%B%;B; I% 5< < ? B; & M0 - <<- >- .. .
< . A0 . ?0< ? ?" <" >
<00 0 . - ? ?" <" >
<00 " ? 0 A0 & - < 00

0.. 0> . - ? 0 . < . J & ?- 0 0-

<0 > ! 40

<0- 0E0 0 0

? & 0 >00 . .. E ?- 8

3C0 <- = 0 0 & > ?

00 I? 0 . <J <<>" 0 0 00 E
<0 00" ? & . ,.. 0 0 . 0 &
@ C0 0 < I? 0J . I< . J B? 0 H &
0 . 0 E IJ" IJ" I . -J" I<J" 0 >0 " 0 I< . J
0 0 - . 0? ?'0 =# 0- 0" <-
? 0 ? 0 .

< ? + -0 . I<J . ! & 6" 0 ?
.?0 !
/ %B>;" !
/ *B; < < . 0 " ? < 0 0?" >- <<-

I0 J 0 0 < -0 . )0 . . 0 0 "

; 1 ,> 80 2 3< 10" %% ( B0
++;" . ?

<.. 0 ''0 & ?0 00 > " ++* & +'

- < > +" ++*" >0 -0 . . ) -0 -0
' * '

512
1 > & #11 ,," <.. 0 )0 0 0 0
? + -0 . < . 0 5

N +++'%B.;B; ?
- 8

?" ** 5 " $ " +

" $+ 6 * B$;B <.. -0 .
<0 ! *;

(" 0< ? 0 . 6 0 - 0- > 0 I 0J

<<>- . 4
!
/ 00 E 0" ! +++ !0 . <" 0 J& <00 . !"
!0 .
/ !0 . ,<< / 0" <<0 ? 0" 0 .
0 - 00 ? <00 . ! ++ ++" 0" <<- <0
0 00 ,0 0 !

/ *B;"B; <<0 3 . - 8
3 <- = "
<- . <A-" F<0- 0F < > " + & 0 >- = =" 00
F<0- 0F 0 . <0 ?- = 1 - .. 0 .
. . F<0- 0F" ? - > 0 3" <<0 ..C0 3.. 0 >0- 0C ? ?
F<0- 0F - ?00 (" A0 0 F ? -0F
!
/ *B; C0 E " > - 0 .0 0 A< -

0 > >>- >0 7 - D ? 0 0 C0 1

- 0" 1 .. .) >0 0 - < >>- 0 ! $,+
.

0" - 2 2 >E < - . -0

0< ? < 0 0 <0 <0 < ?- . 0
000" <- ? <<0 0 0 0- 0 < .. <0
0 B?- ? 0 >0 0 H; 1 A0 C E ..C0 3.. 0 0- 0
D 0 . 80

- . <0 << E = =00 ! : 2"
0@
1 ,= !W5&1:" 1 8!1&1:" &2,& 3&2 3( 735! 3((1

1#&1:,& &21 ,
/!3#1 , 83! ,((1,#1& (!3= =! =,

2= &2,& ,=1& &2,& 1 8, 3& /!3,667

/!& 82 2 !# &2 3!! (3! 5==,!7 #1

&13 1 !4
!#+'+++$ 3 OO

,& + /= B,
3!1: &3 21 ,((1,#1& 3( !#1

; 735 #! Y38" 1 =1:2& 2,#

1!!(5&,6 /!33( &2,& 1 8, 3=82! 6 ,& &2,& &1=" 3"
,!(56 & 0<- 0

' '

513
- 0<. ? 00 ? 0 - 30 > 0 &
00 ?
! +% 5?. << - . 0- )0 . . .
<- .
* 5< . >- . .. < 0>0 " 00 . .
.." . >- . .. < >- 0>0 %" A0 0
0 " . 0 . . < <0" .00 0..- .
- .. < . 0 0 1. 0 0 .0 0
?. 0 - . ?. " - 00 0- . .
< . .
& -" < <- . <<< .0 . 0 . " . ?
" . < >- E . " 0< . 00" . -" >-
<0 ! $,*+ $

+ . -" 0 . <0 <<- . <00
& 0 > . ? + -0 . 0- . . > .

<00 >- " ? + -0 .

B; & 0 > . <009

B>; , <- . 0 0 0 > @0 >- < "

Z ? 0
$ 5< . . <0 0>0 " 0 0 &
0 > ? + -0 . . . & 0 ..) .
<- 0 < >- 0.." 0> <00 0 , " -
B; 00" . -" >- <0 ! $,*+ $
+ -
- 009
B>; 3 0 . M0 <<- < <- . 0 > . 0

> F

1 0 ? E? ?- ! + %B$; ?0 .? ? 0< - > " + . .

=
0 /0 /<- 6 8- C 8
3 0 " 0 @ >- ! +%B$; <

C0 - ! 2H 8- C 1 ? + -0 . >- 0 B
' $ '

514
>E - C0 .0 00;" > " 1 ? . -0 " 0 . .
?0 .." 0 @ >- ! +%B$;" >- 8
3 8-H
/0 < " ?" . 0 0 >0 . 0 + 0 ?
8
3 0 0 . 0 <0 ! +%B$; 8C0 H & 8
3 0 #! 0 0
H 7 8

3 0 ? >0 B = 0; ,..0 . E D 0
. 80
- <00>- - 0 0 !
/ %B>;B; !
/ *B;H 8- 0 H 10 0<-H 0
- EH 8 1 ?0 0 . 0<00 > " + >- !/ 3..
0

6<D"
F! 2 <-0 . - . 00 ? ! 2 0-0
0 ? ! 2 0-0 F

6<D .0 0" 0< <<"
? ! 2 0 0 O0 > > . . . <<-"
G++ < " 0 < . F0> 0" " - )<00F > >-
<0 <<- 0 . ! $,*+ B 0 < 0 > 0 2C0
?? 3 . - 0." ? ?0 F<0- 0F >- 80
- .. B0< ? ,.. . 0-01 ?0C - E0

0 - 3 ?0 <<- 0 !

/ *" 0< ! 40

<00>- G++ . - - F 0?F 3 0 @ 1 <- ?

>>- 000 0- < ! +%" 0< ! +%B*;C0 )<00 0

0 3 B00" <0 4

!
/ $" A0 0 0 " E 40
! . 60 #0
B4
!6#; ! " <>0 << >- <
" ? !4
0 " " !4
<<0
0 00 0 F0 0F BE . 0 00 . .. 0> <0
0 . 0- ?" E" 0 . & . &C0 ,0? ,..
0<0 " 0 @0 . 0 .? !
/ * B-0 . "
" " ?0" !4

- 0 0< < <00>- < C0 " #

:D 6<<0 - < <0 >- 0

40 00 . 0 ;,

W & 0 =0C0

-" 1 >"
." ? > - 0

C - . ! / > 0 <0 1 . ? ?

?. 00" )00 . 0 0 " - 0 - .

0 0 . ? 1 ?0 ) / 30 0 - .
' '

515
00 . 0" 0 ? -0 < ? 0 0 . .
FA-?EF
(- " 1 - >E . !/ > <0 E .?

I(
!/X<

8 O+O +% /=
& DX
\\\\3 3& !/3 &3 &21 '=,16\\\\
8C 0- .? <> ?0 . ?
. - 0> < &++%%*
&21 1 3& &2 (3!5= (3! &21 &7/ 3(

3=/6,1& 238#! &21 !/3!& 8, /!1& ,
/, 3 &3 &2 3((1

!C 5/!#13! , 1& 8166 ,!
&E -"

3.. 83 1,Y"

! / <J

8 0 0 0 0 1 ?0 < . .." F8DEF B 1 > >

. )0 .
0 !/ 3.. ? F &21 1 3& &2 (3!5= (3! &21 &7/ 3(
3=/6,1& 238#!
&21 !/3!& 8, /!1& , /, 3 &3 &2 3((1

!C 5/!#13! , 1& 8166
,!F
8 0 0 0 1 0> 0 < <0 ! / B < . ? 00
<0 0 0 ! / ..0" 0E ?- !/ 3..

" ? E >>0 .
! : 2" 0@ . - 0 0 . 0<00 B ? ! 2 0

< . 0<00" 3..

6<D .0 .? < - < 0E 2

? 0 - 0 > . F. F . <<-" 0 >

. F0 A-F . <00" G++" <0 ? ! $,*+ - F0>

0F )<00 . ? 0 > " ! $,%+ 0 ? 00 <
' + '

516
C0 <0 <<-!00" >? 4- $ ' " +" ?0 0 ? >- ! / 0-
. 0> 0 ? <0 ! /
,-" < > 0 . A > %" +" 0 0<00 0" 1 ?
! 21C0 .. - ? C0 0 2 .0 < > "
+ 2 ! / % B -> 1 >0 ?0 ? - 0 00 1" 1
? " - " - ?" ? 0 E . 0. 0 00; ,-?-0"
& . ! / 0? <" ? 0 2C0 .. ? 2 . @ 0 0 ?0 &
1 " > ? ? 6 ?0 # B2C0 .. 0 *% (0
$%+ ? @ ? ? ?- . ?- 0" (0" >E 2C0 3.. B0
- 1 ?0 2C0 ..; & > " < "
E" . - 0E . < !/ 3..

E0 >>0 . 2
& 0 5" ?" -?-0" 0 " E F <F <
. . ? !/ 3..

> 2 <- - 0 << OO
0<00 0" - . " 0< 0 > .0 . " ?0 0

?0 <<1 00 !/ 3..

0 - )< ?- 0 0 > ! 2 <-

- 0 << >- 000 0 00" AE" 0 A0" ?> 1 C 0 ? 0 B

0 - 0 . " . ? ? 0 - > @ <

0 .

! " " <00>- 0 00<0 . -C0
0 < ?" ?0; 0 A . 0

> ? @E 000 - <0
. >>- >- ! 2 ..

!/ ? O%O >-
& 1 < ." 1 C E 0 0> . - E !/ 3..

0 ? ! : 2" 0@ <- - 0 ? 2 0-0 0 ,
. - 0 . A-?E B>- !/ 3..; 4- " + B0 0" > . G*+
< - >E " <- 0 ; ? 1 ?0 <.- . . <> 0< ! : 2"

0@C0 / 2?" ? 0> >0 0 0 .0 . F0>

0 -F . ! $,*+" ? / 0 - ? <-? <<-

> < >E < B0- 0?0 < <-? )<0 ) . <<- ?

- 0- 0? " 0 ?? 0 - >- < ?? .
' '

517
0?E >- 6E= 6? 0 G$"+++ 0 . - <0 <<- > >D . -
. ? .. > " + ? 2 ?0 00 - <0 <<- .
B - C0 .0" ? >- - <<-" > " C0 <<-; 2 ? <
? >0 > - 0 0- > 0" <<0" 0< 0 0 ,..
<0 ! ++ ?0 0 B ? < < !/ 0 )>; & 2
0 / 2? > <A- ? 0 0 0 1 >
0 E 2 2 0 0-" ? <- . <A- ?" 0 1 C
> - E0 B E0 0 00 0 70 . > 0
.0 ? 0>0 ;
(" ?- 1 0 . 0<00 0 .

0 ? - ? >
0 >E- . - ? .. > ?? )- - . + 0
0 -" - >" - 00 . <<- > ??0"
< 0 >0" .. <- F . ?F " 0>" > 0"
0- - ? F

0" ?UF" ? < .. .0" >

@< 0 >0 B .0" 1 >" 0;" "

<OO???->O?HSAW@37

,

0 4..
0 >- 0 =0 &E > 0 <0D F
F

0 < ? 1 !/ 0@ " .." 0 - . ? .. ! !E" .
OO A-?E 0 <<0 > ?" 6? &" 0@ ?0 -
<< <> . ! =<

0<00 0" 4 : .0
< 0 . <0< << .0 0 B1 ? .0 E; -
B? =0 =D >E " 0 ;" ?< & ?0 <<
0 - .0 - . . <<" - . ." < 0" 0 <0" 00"
- 0 0 & 00 .. <0 ?
0 - 0

0 < ?>0 0 F00 ?F /00 <" 0< <> ?-0 .

0 . 0 ? '?-0 &" & 0? 0 . . - 0 ? .

= 8? 0

0" 0< > @ >- ! =<
! B;

' '

518

!=
! ! B; ,D !<0 B; , - 0 ?? . 0 0 .
? 0
- ,- ? 0 & - 0
" <<0 0 > . 0 < !
- ,-C0 3.." ? .0 0
0
- . ! / < 0 3..0" 0 0 0 0 .
?. 0 ?0 !

- ,-C0 .. E? ?0 . . > 0"
.? ,0 +" + ?. 0 >- !/ 3..C0 !0
<OO???->O?HS%/!@31%>+ " C0 ? < 00<C0 0
<00> 0 00 EH , 0<00 0 0 >. 4 :" ? 0 - ?0
<- ? !

- ,-C0 3..
," - E? ? 0 .-H 3.. # .. < 0 0@ 0 0 .
. ? >-0 2 00 0 0 0@ "
A< " 0 0.." - 1 ?- C E "
C E ? &0 . . - ? .. 0 .
+ 2 .. 1 ?0 A . 0 > . . - >- B #

- E- 0 ? 0 .. - <?" " 3> " +; 0< - >E - 0

> #C0 < 0 E 0 00 " 1 > < .

# ? > " 1 C A5 # ?0 <0 0<0 0 3..C0

0 . - 0 B ; A-?E 0; OO #" 1 00 C ?
?0C > E 0 00 . . B 0< 0 E- ..; 0
? 00 0" F=00 . F A0 ? -0 " 4- " + ? 1
< - 0 ? - ? 1 0E ?- - ?0 00 B1 0 >
0 < - 0 0 0 ? 0 <<" 0 1 >0 0 . -
- > E < ? > 0 0 0 ?. 00 >0 . <000
>0 0 00 0 ? > E." ? . - 0 ? 00" 1 ?0 E

? 70 ? 0 E0 " - . ? 0"

<<- 0" .. ? " 0- - 0 < <00" " , 0< 0

0 0 ?" >0 > 0 0 0 . 0 "

. ?0 0 >0 1 FE< < -0. 0 00F" E" ? 1 "
' '

519
?0 F- < -F" 0 ? 0E 0 .? !/ 3..0" ? <
0 )00 . 0 1 00 ?0 < >- 0 ? 00 0 ? G"%++ >"
0<- ? 0 > .

0" <'& 0 . - 3!" 0< -
.0 . 0 0 . 0 B+ - 0" .- 0 " 0 <
? " " ;1 00 0 > . 0<0 !
- ,- / !>0
. 00 <A- . . ?000 .? !
- ,-
0< 2D'
0 > ? !

- ,-C0 3.. - - 0
? ? >. - " 0< . 0>0@ <0 . 0-
!

- ,-C0 3.. 0 0 1 > ? > 0 .

0 ? @ ?. . 0
(" ? 0 0 )<- ? 0
<00 @0 0" . ? 0< F<F .
6E 30 & ,.. . >- = 00 F<0- 0 0>
0 <F -"
2?" 1 0 >- ,.. 1 ?0 F<0-
0F ) F<0- 0F 0 <0 1 ?0 " = 0?

. " - . 0 . 0" 0 0

<" > F<0-

0F 0 0 1 0 <0 !

/ %B>;B;B,;B'; (" 0 E 2

0 . < " 1 " " - -C0 . ? . <<
0 < 0 -" 0 0" !
/ %B>;B;B,;B';" 0 <<- - 0 <-" 0

<-C0 -" " ." !

/ %" FB; 0 0
>- B,; <- - <- >- B; - <-9
B; -M0 <-M0 .. ? E <0 " . 0

" 0<0 < ..9 B; . .. 0 0

<0 > 0 0 .." "/"'$!"" # ('

$!""#"! ( ''!"!"!'!F " ?0 - .."

' '

520
? 0
0 E0 <00> - /
! +%" ." 3 . - 0 . E . A0" "

,.. . ?0 - " ?0 FF " F<0- 0F B0<
,.. 0 F<0- 0F ;" ?0 3 . -
0 ? !
/ %B>;B;B,;B;" ? @0 F. .. 0 0 <0
> 0 0 .." "/"'$!"" # ('$!
""#"! ( ''!"!"!'!F

(" 1 > <0 3 C0 0 " <- ) . 0
0 . 5?. " 0 - . > 0 0 0
< A -0 . 0 > < !
/ *B; 1
> - < " 0 !
/ <<0 -
,0" .?

F! +$+ /00 <<0 <- -" ? + -0" << .

A << >- . 0 0- ) . A"

00" ? + -0" . 0 ) . ? A0
.M0 E <.." ? ? 00" > .) >-
A0" > ? 0 > 00 ? . A 00"
.. " . A << . > .. << > 000" << ?
<- A 0 . <<" . 0 < . <<-"

0 A0- <.. <- . << 5< E <<
. E" . <0 0 0 > 0-J

,-" . << 0 .0 I 0J E & - << !
$, ! +" <00 <<> - /0 . - I 0J 0
' % '

521
! +%B%;" ? - 0<E0 0 ? & 0 . &C0 ,0? &C0 ,.."
? 0 - <<> " 0 & . 0 3<<0
0 I% 5<
< ?
B; & M0 - <<- >- .. . < . A0 .
?0< ? ?" <" > <00 0 .
- ? ?" <" > <00 " ? 0 A0
.!"" ''!!"!##" (#.&
$!!01" #!#' & .. 0 0 J

" >0 0 0- <0 ? 3 . - 0 E >- 80
- ..C0 3.. < -0 . ? <0 0 . 3 . - ?0
.." 0< ? 8
3 <- - - B .0-; 00 8
3C0 4 =C0
,.. . ." . 0< > " + B0<- ? 0 0< + <" > "
+" 0<- ? 3 . - )<- 0 0 E 0 < %++ <
> " +; " !
/ %B>;B;B,;B';" !
/ *B;
"!.%! ')!2$"!" "!" "'

34(54054 54! !!!5%

645%! ''!!
++ !"$.!! ')!7"&(0+%0,++!#
'$ "% 0%)!"""! . "! " $"%! !!
$ 8 ".!##7"##!" !.'"!""$ ! .'!#!'
! ' .'( 2 $$!%! ')!$!!"!'
$ " -9 )8
6:);+$ "
"&'!&(<0,++(.8 ".!##" %(.
"!" #'#.! " .#&!!"!
8 ".2"!""$ ' !%(.=! '
'!"""""!!#""""!#
.>%!! ')! '!"
2' 1-?,% "!'! '!$!!!87" 7"
##!' &!#&!% ' #@'# AA 7"'# .&!!
B!! .2

3-,,%&(+%0,++

1,?*3 .#C! D'.# $ !"""""!#
!"" .'!" . # ''"

1,03?-
+C "$!"&!''!!""("!% " .#C! .(( !'(.
#!!$!! ('! #E03,&C'""
!! "#! . ..#$!
.C'"E+%,,,% .%!"$! # .% '
' * '

522

"$!#' "%' ''!! ('("'&C'""

".('"(!"=!"'!!# '
!& (. !"2# ""./" $ " ##!
"./"! (!!.(' .("&'! (!!.# ". .(#'%
(' .( "'%!! $!!'' !
, ? 0 <0000 . <00 0>A . <<
<- . << 0 <- < -
>? 0 >0 1. .0 <- 0 "
- ? <0 . 0- >- 0 ? ?
<0 ! +%
! ++ ,<< 000 @0 <0 . ? . . 1 00
. << ! ++ ++" 0" << 0 000 @0
<0 . ? . ." < <0 > 0>0-
<00 . ! ++ ++" 09 0 <" 0?
00" 0 . . -" - > ? >- - >. . A
< 0 0 0 - > A09 0 . )0" A0. . 0
< - > 0?
1,1,,

"# !&!"!"#%& ' "#!&!
'
'& ' "#
' !&!&! !"% " '$! "%"#
". !"!"$!&!"!"#1,00,

1,10,

%!"!&%

.
'!"!'!""!">
" 0 ! +++ @0 !
/ <<- - /0
! +%" 0" <00" 0 . 0 0 < ? 0 .
!
/ %'* F !56 % !#1
, (161: 3( /6,1: , 3&2! /,/!
4 5&!-8B!' )< 0 ?0 < 0 0" - @
>- 0 0 > 0" - < 0>0@ < 00
?0 0 >0 . 0 .0" - << 0- @ >
0 < <- 00 ?0 0" - ? ? -
> ) <" - ? " <<" " .. . A" 0 .
<<" 0 << 0 > 0 < . <0 0 >
<0 . . . << )< <0 00 ? 0 .
. 0 0 > 0 < < . 0 . 00 !

4(5 -)$ '
B; 8 0 0 0 0 @ < > < <-
<0 >- -" 0 0 > < - 00 0
0 > < <-

B; 0 0 >-

B,; <- - <- >-

B; - <-9

B; -M0 <-M0 .. ? E <0
" . 0 " 0<0 < ..9
' '

523

B; . .. 0 0 <0 > 0 0 .."
<0M0 ? 0 0 < . > ? 0 <0 . 0> 0
0
4;5 !! . . . !" "2$ ''""
&!(. !!" !!D&!''%$&% !% "$
'"!!!!! # ." "%!#"&'(. !%(#!'
$!!! $'#"&!D '&!''#% #"!!! %
"&!(. !( '.(. !!# !$!! #& '
B
; 1. - <- 0 E? 00" <- ? E .

45!&! .(.! "!# . ."&' "
"'"&!(.! "&!(.! "!"
"!""!&!''%$&% !% "$'"!!!!!
# ." "%!#"&'(.! "%(#!'$!!! $'
#"&!"&' ./" ./"""&!(.! "" (
C""." ' '#!'!$!!$!2# '"&' !"
!$!"" !'!#.-
4!5""$"&!"( 'D
4!!5 ! ''"" !#""&!%" "

! ! ''""# "!!(D

4!!!5# ("'# "D '

4!&5 .!!""' !#"
./" ./""" !##!&!C"".&2'!

" !# . ".%$!' $ %"("!!#" ,
- <- ? 0 0 0 >- 0 0" ? + -0 . -
. ' 00 .0 >" 0 . . ? '
00 .0 >
4?5&!(.! "'34(540545!"##!&!# .
2!"&! " '"&!'!' "("&'
B; /. . 0 - > >- . . - . -M0 <-"
>- ? 00" >- .." <. 00.- ( E <.
. 0 0 .. - . 0
69

4 5 ! 1 < - < . <0> ? >- 0 0" >-
0 . - 0 " >- . " >- - <<> 0" - . "
" . . ? 0 < . >0 0 > &
0 - . < 0 < 0 > " 00 0 -" -"
A -" ? < 0 . ) - ? 0 -"
-" A -" " ? > 0 . . << " -
? ? 0 .. . E . 0 00>"
? < 0 . ) - ? 0 . .
' $ '

524

-0 8 < . <0> ? 0 00 -0" -0"
-0" A -0 0 > ) < )< . 0 <0
. &0 . !0 0
45 ''!!

! #&!(. !! "8& . "
!!"B!''" 2"'!"$!! "!('!' #
"&!# ! % ""% . '!
!""&' .(. !(.! "%?' ."" ( '''
"!('!'
>0 B; 0 0 ) )0 . -0" -0"
A -0 < . <0 00 -0 00 ? $%
0 . ,-" ]]00>- . MM <0 .
0>0 B; . . 0 ! *B; >0 B; 0 . " >-
. ]]<0 . &0 . !0 0"MM
- 0 <0 <>" 0< 0 <0
>0 B; 0 < -0 0<0 << 0
0 >- 0 ? << B;B; ! %B>;F
! +% 5?. << - . 0- )0 .
. . <- .
)< 0 ?0 < 0>0 +" - < ! +%
++ ++" 0" ? # .'$!% %(!% !
&!! !""$!!'!"&'(. ."!'
!"!'# ! .#" M0 " 00 ?0
?" - 0 0 ?" @ <- .
0 . <00

1. .0 0 .. >. 0 "
M0 " . < . .'0< <- . .. ? ?0 ." 0
< . . <00 >- E ?0
% 5< < ?

B; & M0 - <<- >- .. . < .
A0 . ?0< ? ?" <" > <00
0 . - ? ?" <" >
<00 " ? 0 A0 & -
< 00 0.. 0> . - ?
0 . < .
* 5< . >- . .. < 0>0 " 00 .
. .." . >- . .. < >-
0>0 %" A0 0 0 " . 0 . .
< <0" .00 0..- . - ..
< . 0 0#'!" !" '#" " '
$#' ! ' !"!.# $#' !% .!""
" .'#& # '&!'!# '! #
#'!" !" '#" " ' $#' !%
" #" ! . .!#% '%C "$!"&!''!!"
' '

525

"("!%" B! .#'!"(''"

1,0F,

1,10,%!"!&!""

# " .'#& # '"'

!(. # .' "!#$! .(!'
& -" < <- . <<< .0 . 0 .
" . ? " . < >- E . " 0<
. 00" . -" >- <0 ! $+ $,*+ .
-" 0 . <0 <<- . <00 & 0 > .
? + -0 . 0- . . > . <00
>- " ? + -0 .
B; & 0 > . <009

B>; , <- . 0 0 0 > @0 >- < "
Z ? 0
$ 5#!!# !" "("!G%" "' !
! !"('$!!+,' ." ##!!#!
" ##!C' # !! '' ."&' ''(.
"!##%" ("""& !% .
B; 00" . -" >- <0 ! $+ $,*+
- - 009
B>; 3 0 . M0 <<- < <- . 0 >
. 0 > J
6 =00 . -
0 . !#+'+++$

&
" 0@C0 ? .. ,0 0" - / 0 <00>
@ . ! +% '<- . ?
< - / 0" ! +% (" 4
.DD ?0 < . - <0000 . <00 <0
! +%B*;" ," :D (" - 60
," ?0 ?
! +% 5?. << - . 0- )0 .
. -<0 . <<- )< 0 ?0 < >- 0<. 0"
- < ! +% ! ++ ++" 0" ? .
? ? 0 0>A <00 . < $, . !" < . ?' 0
< < >- <> 0 -" > 0 - .
?. " 0 0- <0 < ! +%
)<
8 0 <00 045 " !#!#$ "
!A'(. $

,0 0" - E >0 <- .?

I! $,+ 5?. )0 . ?. < . 00

009 < . )< .

1. $#.&" #!""C'" (.

(2! !(2 /".!""$!#.!"
' + '

526

""!"!!# .""! "&!B!'(.

!" % .&!'! """"!" "("!1%'
'++* ?*,! '%! ''!! .'.%
& /" ' "%!& E+%,,,(#!C'(.
%(
1 " . -" > ? 0>0 " 0 0
B; 8 .9
B>; & 0 . >? 9

B; & . 0 >- M0
1. 0 <0 0>0 " 0
<< 0- > 0 <
)< 0 ?0 < 0>0 %" - <0000 .
<00 . >- . . < . )< . . ?.
)0 . . <00 ?. < . 00 00
% , . < . )< .
B; =0 > . ? ? % A -0 . . ?. >-
" . < 0 > 000 . 0 - . 1. .
< . )< . 0 000 <0 0 <<" 0
<0 > 0 0

B>; =- > . ? . . 0- ?. 0
- < >? " > - 0E 0 . >.
A <0 <
* & 0 . < . )< . ?
A -0 . . . . < . )< . . 0
" 0 < <. 0 > <<- 0 ? <- .
. < . )< . 5< " . 0 0
- . <00 . 0>0 " -
B; 3 0 <00 00 00" >9

B>; ,? 0 <0 0>0 9

B; A . <00 . 0>0 " . 00 0
?" < .
& <- . 00 .. .0 0 > . . - ? .0 .
< . )< . ,. - . 0<0 . .
" 0 0000 00 .0 0 <- 0 <" )<
- ? " 0 A0 - @J
I! $,++ I)J . I)J 0 <> - >- E 0 >- ?0
>E < >E -" E ? >> >- < 0 <
. " 0" ? 00 00J

' '

527

,66 /,/! , /6,1: ,

3!!/3
/!#13567 5=1&& &3 &2 !3
45&1

35!& , 3! 1& =/637 1 2!7 1
3!/3!,& 7 !(!
1&3 &21
(161:
! $,+ I .9 0
, <0 0 . . .
B; & <0 0 E? . 9
B>; & <0 0 . . 9

B; ( .0 00 <0 0>- 0 E? )00
08!!" "!('(.!" " ("&'! &!''(.
1,0*,
8 0 <0> >- 0 < - > < . >000 .
0 - < >- 0 < . < .
<-0 . .. . . - J
I1,0*, . 0 @9 <. @ >. 00 .
)< 0 ?0 < ! +%" 0 @ >- ! +% +*+" 0" - >
0
B; - <- <0-" <0 . ?009
B>; 1. 0 >0 . M0 < . 0 . M0 0 < . >000" >-
<- ? <0 . 0> 0 < <- M0 < .
0 < . >0009
B; 1. < . 0 >000 > 0" <0 . 0> 0 >
. " >- <0 <- 0<0 < 0 <<-" <- <0 0"
. <0 > ." <- < ? 0 <<- 0 0J
1 - . 0 - 0 - . ! 2C0 00" X?
>? ,0 $" + > " +" - . X? <
>? E + < > " + 0<00 0 . > " + ? -
0<E - > < 00 <<- . <<0 . - - >0" 0< - 0
0 ? @00" ? )0 - > < 00 - .0
?. <<- - E >- 8
3 1 - >000 >
- >- 0 0 (" 1 <- 0 > E 2 " ?" 1 0
0 . - 0 ( ! $,+ 0 0<E I .J
." > I . .J ,0 0" 1 ?0 <<<- 0 . 3 . - "
E " 0 0 0<00 0
I! $,*+ 00 . 0 000 . 0 ?09 - < >9 0 .
<00
& " - <0 D 0 >." 0 00
? >. . -
B; & 00 .

B; & <00 D <009

B; , <0 ? 0 D . >. . . <<0 . 0 .
<00 0 09
B; & << < ?
B>; , < > ? 0<0> <0 ? 00 - ? *+ 0 . ?
<00 - > 0 . -
' '

528
& . @ > .0 >- 0 0 0 > E< " 0 0 0 .>
0 - 000 . <00
, <- ? 0 >. . .0 <- ? 0 0 0
. . <<00 .
B; . <00 0 09
B>; /. >0 . ?
1 - 0 ? 0 0 <<-" 0 . <00 < .
<<- <0 0> << B; . 0>0 0 > > 0 < &
>0 . < <00 D 0 >.

% &0 0 0 >- . 00 J
! ++ 100 . . > >- A- . << 8 00 . . 0 <0 >-
<0" 0 > >- A-" . << 0 <0 !0 .
/
40
!0 .
/

,-" . << 0 .0 I 0J E & - << !
$, ! +" <00 <<> - /0 . - I 0J 0
! +%B%;" ? - 0<E0 0 ? & 0 . &C0 ,0? &C0 ,.."
? 0 - <<> " 0 & . 0 3<<0
0 I% 5<
< ?
B; & M0 - <<- >- .. . < . A0 .
?0< ? ?" <" > <00 0 .
- ? ?" <" > <00 " ? 0 A0
.!"" ''!!"!##" (#.&
$!!01" #!#' & .. 0 0 J
% (""" .&!"! $!'# .&!!"!

2(.8 ".!##7"##!!?' ."# !!$"
"&!#'# .&!!$ "## '%'"!$ 8.
. &!.4# ".5 ""'!87"@ 7" ##!' &!#&!
#%#!" '&(G%0,++ ' "C!(!+ )> $ "## '%
'"!$ 8. . &!.4# ".5 ""'!87"@
7" ##!' &!#&!#%#!" '&(G%0,++ $!$!
'!""!#8!&!&!!&!"!&!"!A ."'
'# .&!!'## $##!%
<" ."&'<! '! ')!"B7"$
##&!#!#.#
'# .&!!"$! !'' #&(+%0,++4 '@
& !' .# ' '!' !H++ ,?60*5-
4?5 "

0?F;,?,
& 0 0 >- .. < 0 0

0- > . - <0

!" " 0 - . =" +"
' '

529

6,8 3((1
3( - E

'0 . .

-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

" 0@

' '

530

H

/0 !
/ %B>;" 1 .- 1 0 <- . . <
.? <- >- .)" " << .. .." < <-
. . 0 00
4 E" 0@
!
- ,-C0 3.. '
0
/3 ) ++
! " # $%+%
/ > %''+%+ () > %''+
E4X
,- .
- . !
Y 6- 60" 0@
*$ > ! ,
!" # $%
/ > %'$%' () > %'$%'+$*+
E0XE
!=
( 3.. () = () B%; '$

0 = " +

OO

" .
'
0 . .

' % '

531
::);

)> $ "## '%'"!$ 8. . &!.4

# ".5 ""'!87"@ 7" ##!' &!#&!#%#!" '
&(G%0,++ $!$! '!""!#8!&!&!!&!"!&!"
!A ."''# .&!!'#
# $##!% <" ."&'<! '! ')!"B7"$
##
&!#!#.#'# .&!!"$! !'' #
&(+%0,++4 '@& !' .# ' '!'
!H++ ,?60*5-4?5 "

' * '

532

533
1
2
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of RICHARD G.
\S-~ day of
~w
HILL, CHARTERED, and that on the
eeteb@i:., 2011, I deposited in the
appropriate place for pick-up and hand-delivery by Reno-Carson Messenger Service, a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Entry of Order and a true and correct copy
of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Summary Eviction,
file-stamped October 27, 2011, addressed to:
8
9
10
Zach Coughlin, Esq.

121 River Rock Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAWOFFiCE
RtCHARD G, HILL
PoSI Office Boll 2551
Rana, NevGsia 89505
(775) 348-0888
27
28
Fax(775J 348-0858
534

F\LED
\1 NOV-7 AHIO: 52
IN THE RENO JUSTICE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
RENO JU,"1:t'; ifmt,,v,.,
STE\fu.\.gp.Js..t~x., .
BY
-----
Civil File Number: 1101;;;-m:'.Pllf'!
Matt Merliss
PLAINTIFF
CASE No. REV2011001708

Vs

DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEVAl>A
ss:
COUNTY OF WASHOE
John Machen, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That affiant 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 the described documents upon:
Posted:
Location:
121 River Rock Street Reno, NV 89501
Date:
11111201 I
Time:
4:30PM
The document(s) served were: EVICTION ORDER: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
ORDER FOR SUMMARY EVICTION; ORDER REQUIRING INSPECTION OF REAL PROPERTY
MICHAEL HALEY, SHERIFF

Richard G Hill Esq
PO Box 2551
652 Forest Street
Reno, NV 89505
By:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me before me this
ll
~f1;~-
Sheriff
uthori
Agent
(l (\.__\,\.. (
NOTARY PUBLIC in and forsaid State of Nevada,

County of Washoe
it'i.-
ROXANNA
L: si';::;; 1
Notary Public State ot Nevada I

: \' \~.~ Appcmtment Aaoorded In Washoe County j
i
Ne, OMI 11-1' lilljllrH D,-"'17 !014 i
{ ..;.,.~;
''"'t1111,1,,111111r111111mu1111m 111 mu,,, 111
"',mmonrnnuu1<m\u,,u.,,l
911 PARR BOULEVARD
RENO, NV 89512-1000 (775) 328-3310535
EXHIBIT
4
536
FILED
Case No. I I TR 26800 21

DEPT. NO. 3
Dept. No. 3
FEB 2 8 2012
TIME +
BY
~ '. :'7
4
5
6
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RE1 0
COUNTY OF WASHOE STATE OF NEVA DA
8
9
10
CITY OF RENO,
Plaintiff,
1l
12
13
ORDER FIN DING THE DEFENDANT

IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND
Il\'lPOSING SANCTIONS
vs.
Defendant.
14
15
A trial was held in Reno Municipal Court on February 27, 2012 on a traffic citation
16
issued to the defendant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN. He was initially charged with
17
three offenses alleged to have occurred on November 15, 20 11 in the City of Reno. At the
18
onset of the trial it was determined that Failure to Provide Evidence of Security or Insurance
19
(a violation of R.iv1C 6.06.555(a) and Failure to Provide Vehicle Registration (a violation of
20
R.ivtC 6.06.560(a) were both dismissed at arraignment after the defendant established that he
21
22
had compl ied with both code sections but simply had not carried the documentation with him
23
in the vehicle on that <lay. 1 The remaining charge, a Right of Way Stop Sign v10lalion at .m
24
intersection, known as a 'Boulevard Stop" (rol li ng through a Stop Sign and not stopping
?_)-
26
completely), a violat ion of R.\tfC 6.06. I 70(a), was the subject of the trial.
The City of Reno was represented by Deputy City t\uo rney ,\ lison Om1aas. rhc
27
..._....... ,.......,,..
...
'I>
28
1 0\Jri:'g 1~:11 '1c o t1c,r .,,,.,
.:,,f d 1" 11 " c oul.l haH " 1cd he .::~Ja:11 ., 11h

1 hrc:a k b'V ~01 lllln j h,m ( r 1'JI. .s
, I
f11lt.rc o
.irr,,
s '.\c, 1l!J Dn . r , 1 ,..:nc
n hi~ i,,~se, ~1 ,n "ul i;.n c: !'11"11
.-g
..
537
defendant, a licensed attorney, represented himself. Reno Police Sergeant John Tarter was che
2
3
sole witness. The court had the defendant sworn at the beginning of the trial, slating that the
court has found that most self-represented defendants tend to testify a great deal as they cross-
5
6
7
8
9
10
examine opposing witnesses, so the defendant \VOuld be under oath from the start, too. No
exhibits were marked or admitted.
The matter was called at approximately 3 :00 p.m. and concluded without a verdict about
-l:30 p.m. after the court held the defendant
in criminal contempt of court fo r his behavior and
activities committed in the direct presence of this court during the trial.
The court finds that defendant's contemptuous conduct consisted of his rude, sarcastic,
11
12
inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectful, antagonistic, deceitful, disruptive, argwnentative
13
and childish behavior during trial, all of which appeared to be done to vex and annoy the
14
court, the witness, and the opposing party, and to disrupt the trial process. The court finds
15
that rhe following occurred, and constitute contempt: I) defendant ' s mime-like, clownish
16
antics of making faces at the court; sagging down into his seat and hanging his head; looking
17
18
behind himself and inside his coat as if searching for a better way to ask a question; rolling
19
his eyes; and mimicking others words; 2) defendant's incessant arguing with the coun,
20
talking over Lhe court, and interrupting the court; 3) defendant's repeatedly restating matters
21
afier being told by the court
22
to
"move on" or "ask the next question;" 4) defendant'
repeatedly injecti ng allegati ons of bri bery, perjury, and police retaliation in to the matter after
23
'.24
25
O
.........
]
,, h
,-1
..()
facts of the ''Boulevard Stop;" 5) defendant's repeatedly trying to insert "Richard I lilr' 111to
26
his questi ons and statements \11 hen such perso n was not relevant to the proceedings anJ the
27
Jcfcndam bJd been ordered to stop discussing that; 6) defendant s Jbreg:uding th~ rules of
28
~,
....
the coun instructed him not to, and directed him to limit himself to issues pertaining to the
e"i .km:e Jnd court r r"c.:dure !Jy continually posing 1m~rnJ;er 4u~stions :1lte1 be111g J1rcct,.:d
538
by the court to properly phrase his questions; i) defendant's continually accusing the court
2
3
of denying him the right or ability to ask questions and telling the court to "give me a list of
questions you want me to ask;" 8) defendant's suggesting that the court 'tell me what
4
would make you happy;" 9) defendant's lying to the coun in response
to
direct questions
5
6
posed by the court with regard to his recording the proceedings; and I 0) defendant's failing
and refusing to propei:_ly examine the witness, despite numerous admonitions by the court to
stop repeating questions, misstating answers, injecting irrelevant material, arguing with the
witness and mischaracterizing the testimony.
10
The court finds that the defendant's actions were intentional and done in utter disregard
11
12
13
and contempt fo r the court, and in the presence of the court, for purposes of disrupting and
delaying the proceedings and dishonoring the rule of law and this court, and constitute the
14
misdemeanor of criminal contempt, a violation of Rs 22.0 I 0. Good cause appearing
15
therefore, the following sanctions are imposed:
16
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to NRS 22.100, that the defendant be incarcerated at the
17
Washoe County Regional Detention Facility for the term of five (5) days, from the time he
18
19
was taken into custody on this court's order on Febniary 27, 20 12, and that sentence shall not
20
be reduced fo r any reason. In the alternative, the defendant may pay a fine of $500 to 1he
21
Reno Municipal Court.
22
Dated this 28th day of February, 20 12.
23
24
25
4/A#C::~
The Hon. D thy Nash Holmes
Reno Municipal Judge
26
27
4)
t
.,.
T "ll
~.
..... 1..1,
) O
...,
28
"O
"" '
: IC
539
1
CERT IFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the Reno Municipal

Court, Reno, Nevada, th at I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above
action, and that on this date, served a true and correct copy of the attached document
to the following as set forth below:
Allison Ormaas
Deputy City Attorney
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
Zac hary Barker Coughl in, Esq.
121 River Rock
Reno NV 89509
_ L P1acing said document in a sealed envelope and placed for collecting and
mailing by Unites States mail in Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid following ordinary
business practices.
Washoe County Jail
Court Services
_L Facsimile (FFAX)
Electronic Mail (E-mail)
16
17
Personal Delivery.
18
19
DATED: February 28, 2012.
20
21
rtment Three
22
23
l~f'IO \ lun,c ca 1 Co1.in

C'orolt-y Nasn Hc'rrc, .
J ~g o
" ) ~c . 100
el'O ,.,V ~$C S
"Sl l .)A 92 2
540
EXHIBIT
5
541
Case No. 11
rR 26800 21
Dept. No. 3
3
4
5
fN TI IE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF RENO
COUNTY OF WAS HOE STATE OF NEV ADA
8
9
10
11
CITY OF RENO,
O RD ER
Plaintiff,
vs.
12
13
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLN,

Defendant.
14
March 12, ~O 12 was the time set for the resumption of the traffic citation trial of
15
16
Defendant ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN ,vho, as member No. 94 73 of the Nevaua Oar.
17
is an attorney representing himself, the defendant. The trial was continued on Febniary 27.
18
2012, when. afta approximately an hour and a half. the defendant was held in criminal
19
contempt by the court fo r his antics and misconduct during that trial. I !is behavior is noted in
20
21
<lctail in the court' s Order entered on February 27, 20 I 0.

fod ay, Mr. C oughl in foi led to appear to complete this tria l. He has not contacted thi s
22
court to e.,plain or c.:xi.:u~e his .1bseni.:e. Deputy City Auoml.!y .\11s,)n Ormaas ,1ppcar~d .rnJ
\\aS
25
prepared to proceed. ')h1.: informed the court that shl! had no
\.:Oll l~H.:t with \Ir.
C1H1ghl 111
,,thc.:r th:.111 receiving .,.oJwni no us fa.xccl Jocumcn (s fro m hi m at the Reno L'1 1y .-\ Homey"~
26
Or"ti(..:. ! lie ddi.:nd., nt",; f 1ilurc In .1ppear ' " :lS not..:J on the n:\.'.orJ.
27
542
.-\ ttcr he sc:rved his ti vc-day Contempt of Court san1.:ti on imposl.!d by this court on
Fcbruary 27, 20 12, :\!tr. Coughlin fax-filed to this court 1 a 224-page <locument entitlcu 'Notict!
of Appeal of Summary Contempt Order; Motion to Return Personal Property Conrisca!cd by
Reno Municipnl Court and fts \tfarshals; \foti on fo r New Trial and to Aller or :\mend
Summary Con!cmpt Order." The document purported to 3ppeal this court's Order holJing
him in direct criminal contempt. It contained a portion of one sentence on page 4 seeking a
continu3nce of today's ht.!aring, but no furthe r discussion ofthut topic. It also ml!nliom:d
being a " tolling'' motion in an apparent anerthought. It di d not address most of the ocher
10
topics lisccd in the caption. Instead, the document contained rambling references 10 his
11
12
personal life and this court 's; his fathe r's football career in college; tlozens of pnges of string
13
cit3tions taken off the internet; documents from a prisoner online site; an artide about a
14
"policl! state;" nn articl e about Discovery; a website princout hawing a police officer's salnry:
15
and copy of court documents from a District of Columbia case.
16
It w:is a disjointed regurgitation of case lnw citations from a legal research onlinc si1e
17
with little reference to, or argument about, the tacts of his instant .. f3oult.!vartl Stop" tra ffic
IS
19
case. The document was an incoherent and pathetic Jcmons1ra1i on of what might once have
20
been legal and academic prowess that appears to now be greally damaged. \rtr. Cou ghlin 1bx-
21
lilcd another document in which he apparently took a ~fotion to Proceed lnfom,a P:lllperis
22
[sic I in arnHher case
111<l t 1ped O \
a it "Request fo r ,\ udiu Recording of fcbmiry 2lh. 211 I!
..,
_J
~
had tha1 tikJ
26
111
th~ in:-t,m t case on ,\.1 Jrch 7, 201 2, C\c n thl1ugh it
w 1s
dated \ o, .:mba 22,
21) I l.
I \ '1. I ~ \
.J
, ,! ,
e, ~ . . , , ,,
~ (
11
543
f'ebnmry 27. ~O 12 disrupted Department J nf this court and caused distress to this court and
i
its staff and marshals, as well as the prosecutor :lnd the witness, and resulced in ~ fr. Coughlin
bei ng hdd in contempt of cou rt, his faxing and tiling 0f these Jocumcn ts greatly Jisrnptcd the
4
operation of the entire Reno ~unicipaJ Court system. including the ckrk ' s 0(1ict: and thc
other departments, and necessitated that action be taken by the Court Administrator ,.ind
t\dministrative Judge.
,\pparently beginning on \,farch 9, 2012 at 12:38 p.m., Mr. Coughlin again underto,>k
another massive fax-filing to Reno ~ unicipal Court. This time it was a document that ,,.as
10
tile-stamped by the clerk on March 12, 2012 at 8: 12 a.m. This second 218-pagc document
II
purported to be yet nnother motion in this case entitlc<l Motion to Return Cell Phones:
12
13
~1otion 10 Set Aside Summary Contempt Order; and Notice of t\ppc:al of Summary Contcmpc
1-l
Order.'' With scant discussion of, or relevance to, the above-captioned matter. said document
15
mostly argues against Judge I !award in a Department 4 case and again contains more than
16
:oo pages of string legal citations; lyrics to rocks songs: .\fr. Coughlin's
personal family
17
history; discussion of an C::\.iction case and anoiht:r contempt case: disjointed leg.ii citations,
18
and other nonsl!nsicul matters that have no apparent relevance to his traffic citation case.
19
noth documents \,ae massive and took up a great deal o f time because the coun h,1<l to
20
:! I
re \
22
mai ntain respec t, nr~kr and di..:corum in the cou rt,
23
~
icw them to look fo r some connection lo the case. fhis court has the inherent authority
.t'i , . chide,;
,mu to refu~e 10 al low the c,>urt 10 he 1hcJ
for ,he ,I rangcJ rnntmgs of a !ill_; me.
i
I ht!
,-
,~,
26
l.'.11nJu~1 1>1 \
Ir C1rnghl in ha,; hcc.!n in:ippropri He, h11.1rrc. J1shnnc,1. irr,lli un,11 ind
d1,rnr11 , c. in .. :1y the k,tst. I le: has no t pract icl!tl IJw 111 1his case in a manner that
- I
2~
...
10
'
......
'
"'
.
'
'\
... ,"
....
.. -: la
i
544
:1rpear or cxpbin his absence 10 lhe court. Inasmuch as lhe cou11 has at least four different
2
aJJrcsses fo r him, it is unable to ascertain his t:xact whereabouts. I le shows signs of mcnt.il
instability, if not serious mental illness.
-l
5
6
[3used upon the tO!al circumstances of this case, the in-court performance of the
defendant, :is observed by this court, the written documents faxed
10
the court fo r riling by
this defendnnt, the st:itements and behav ior of this defendant and his overall conduct herein,
this court finds. by clear and convincing evidence, that Zachary 8:irka Coughlin, an altornt:y
9
10
licensed to practice law in the State of ~cvada, has commiucd numerous acts of auorney
misconduct, including, but not limited to, violating the following Rules of Professional
11
12
Contluct:
13
8.4(c) -cngaging in tlishonesty, fraud, ch::ceit or mi srepresentation;
14
8.4 (J)--cngaging in contluct that is prejudicial to the administration ofj u-tice;
IS
3.J (a)- lack of cando r to the court by kno\vingly making false statements to
16
17
18
19
~o
tribun=il;
J . 1-<kfending in a proceed ing by asserting or controverting nn issue without a basis in

fac t :1nd with matters that are known to be frivolous;
J .2-foilure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, and, in fac1, tak ing
l.'Xtreme measures to delay litigation;
J. i(c)- hcing unfai r to opposing counsel by continually alluding to matters the lnwyer
dot:s not reaso nably belie ve are relevant or supported by ndmissible evitlence;
21
22
13
I ] -foilin g to act with n:asonahl<:: dil igence :111d promptness; :ind

I I
lac k l> f compelerice in his pracuce mt.I 1ppeurances befo re th 1<; cnurL
In 11.!J1t1011, I
')
Jt..i'J l)I
B,trkc r Coughlin , likely 11 , o ~11.>l,Jh.:J :-...i~\,1J.1 Supreme Colli t !{111..:
2:9, --e1..ti0n ~(b), .1s aml.'ndcd by A DKT ..J-+9 on :\ u_;;ust I,
rhc lratfo.: cit.Hio n trial nf fcbruary 27, 20 I:! \'- ilhnut the
:o 11, by ,um:ptitt\Jll:>I~ rl.'<.:1m!1nt.!
1J\
10ce rcnnis-;inn ,>f :hi,; rnu1 t lllJ
545
\Vht:ther or not there are medical reasons to i:xp lain
;vrr. Coughlin's actions is not fo r
this court to decide. 1-fe has become nothing less than a vexatious litigant to Reno :vtunicipa l
Court due to his unonhodox, disruptive, bizarre and irrational methods and practices that go
beyond th<! pale of anything that is civil, ethical. profrssional or competent. Go~)d cause
appe:iring therefore, the court orders as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is continued, and all proceedings relatin g thereto are
tolled, unti l fur1hcr order of chis court, -while the matter of attorney Zachary Barker Cou ghlin
is referred to the State Bar of Nevada;
10
IT IS ORDERED that no further action shall be taken by the Reno City Attorney's
Il
12
13
14
15
16
Office, or the clerks or staff of Reno Municipal Cou rt, in the above-entitled case, penJing
fu rther order of this court;
IT IS ORDERED that Zachary Darker Coughlin is barred and forbidden from foxing,
emailing, delivering, having delivered, serving, presenting fo r filing, pc:rsonally or otherwise,

any motion or document to Reno Municipal Court, in the above-entitled case, p!.!nding furthe r
17
18
19
20
21
order of this court.

Outed this 12th day of March, 2012.
;#tYtd,4 l~M#z~,0
The I lon. Do~y \lush I lolml!s
Reno Munici pal Judge
23
25
26
.
546
3
4
Pursuant to NRC P S(b ), I certify that I am an employee of th e Reno Municipa l

Court, Reno . Nevada, th at I am over th s age of 18 years and not a party to the above
action, and that on th is date, served
to the fo llowing as set forth below:
Allison Ormaas
Deputy City Attorney
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
8
9
10
11
12
13
a true and correct copy
of the attached document
Zac hary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

1422 E. 91h Street #2
Reno NV 89512
X Placing said document in a sea led envelope and placed for co llecting and
mailing by Unites States m ail in Reno , Nevada, postage prepaid following ordin ary
busin ess practices.
Washoe County Jail
Court Services
14
Facsimile (FFAX)
15
Electronic Mail (E-mail)
16
17
Personal Delivery.
18
19
DATED: March 12, 2012.
20
21
22
23
'""o ' '
.. '"1
,, C
}fl:
1,t1
-
... ,
.t
)
..
' I
4. }
547
EXHIBIT
6
548
- - - '
2011DEC 11. AH 8: 55
..
2
3'
St.ta of Nr.'lda
. County of Washoe.
..
[;
~ ~ ~ ~ L+t)
) s.i.. .
z~i:..y a'. c~~.';,J
.!hat tho ~ O D S of thii ..affidavit~.~
L,Jhrma Pmpeni::.
..
9
. .
..
(Full Name). do hereby Jwctr umJier pcru.lty of petj\Jl')'

to .law. in JUpport qt:my ~~on to Proceed
1~
f am~~~ .( c~c ODC mat you m) ha the above- em.itlod case;
2.
I am unabl~ boeauu of. any fmmclll povort)'. to pay the costs and feea of thls
10: cue. and ram unab~ to aiv. NWrity tbr th, commd fc,q in this matter.
t I"
3.
I caunot ~1 tiw. ftJma (-. bocau. I lack sufflclc:zit UUX>ttte. assets. or otliei
u . reiourcci'to pay tbe amount noca,izy,
11
,,
IS
16
17,
18
4.
I wf ah tho Court.to couidcr this Atlldir..tt ol Poverty in Support ot my Modoc to
Proceed lnf'cxina Paupeoa.

S.
ll
22
n
24
2S
. are / , (mim~) adults' and. ~
tnclndin~my,el(. ~
(number)
y,4 \J>../Luc
. . \ ot:-. 3,.- ~tl'~1I ~!f~1~6-/(5)::,4c~,1

chfld(~) f~my liouaebo d. tr..'c:Juld(roaJago(t) 1sl1i_ta
. a.ad
.
.
.
Ml: total mwrtbJv income be~ ~.. r.: . .
_ ..- ---+-:-- .
felffTMid:?$~~\ I ft'~ s_ _
.~Gk. ;!. di.[Ya.~\~..:> s l11c~ Jl'8a,;~
~Joymet:11
(J'riMN~i~
i9
20
Selt-Employmcrit'
0,mRJWMI).
Cblld Support
Alimony
Statdeotlllty Benefits. etc.
s.
tJ
f)
Social So:urity'
All otlw: lxnaebold ~ &om

A.nod> member of the ltoo.schold;
..
26
21
549
2
l
20 11 DEC I!~ Mi 8: 55
Dl1J2Uowina mresnii, un otmi ud wt theirvaluu;;
Automobile
~~ Loan Balance urw}
11 f~ad~~kfil
._11 ,, "::'<
4
$
Bank A:coounts
g~
~cl~J~e'\:;i,
.
Other Property (Real or PCt30nal}
10
11
12
13
vs+"
ov~{
~'<:.\.4-A--~
,ti
s-~ - .
Uk.JS
fv~1J., .
6~. ~
~~,.-,hoJ
M~ S,vfC-~
L}.
,, ~ ~'t ~\ ..i.v~fSk>v-S
,+&
My total monthlyc,rnen.g~~':f IJ):f:;v";f_
=
~
~ A 1'
Rem or Mortpge
Phone. Gas, Elocuicity, and o ~ Utili~es
SS
14
lS
food
~d
16
Clilld Can,
17
.(>/
18
Y ..
sz:::
t9'
TransJ)011.ation
20
Child Support and Child Cart r,cptnses peid tn someono else,
2l
OthCI'
22
2)
14
-~v-)"._ ~ ~.Lcllo_s
,,J)
. I( v-k ,:..!:)f
>.; '?":>'Qt~~ t
Lill Olflw ciq,awe
TOTAL MO'NTI-lL Y f!XP8NSBS

DATED lbiA 'L
d1.y o (
fLv:1'"".\ be,../' .20 !/.
25
26
27
before me
~
SIG N ~
PRJNTED NAME: .Zti1 C 1
-~~....._~li::;2_
........._ _
(?
Jc.--;,<> ;j"'
'_ /
c. uv&tf L- IIV.
2l
I
[
550
EXHIBIT
7
551
II ON. JA \' O. DIL\\'Olffll
Department I
110~. WI LLIAM L CARO~ ER
Ocpnnmcnt 2
I ION. DOROTII Y \',\ Stl II OL,\ I ES
Department )
IION. KE~ :O.ETII R. IIOW,\ RD

Dc:par1mcn t 4
Wll1N
C.\ SSA;\"l)R,\ J \ Ck.SOi'l
Coun ;\Jmm1su;i1or
Jl'STl"I ROPER
1nrshnJ - Depa.nmcnt
or. \ hcma!I H .Semcnc ing
(.'hid
A ffidavit

Re: Zach Coughlin
I, Scott Coppa
, Marshal
of Reno Municipal Court, a court of law o rgan ized,
incorporated o r existing under the laws of the City of Re no,
and wit h its principal business located at: 1 South Sierra Street. Reno. NV 89501.
Being duly S\..1orn, do depose and say:
On March 22, 2012, approximately 1055 hrs . I ( Marshal Scott Coppa) was notified
by central control to respond to Donna Ballard desk in reference to a Defendant
Zachary Cough lin.
Both Marshal Thompson and I met with Miss Bal lard at her desk. She informed us
Coughlin has been at Daniel Casillas w indow # 8 for a pproxim ately 15 minu t es and
was becom in g argumentativ e w ith court staff. Miss Ballard further stated the Staff
ha s answered all his questions as he was now becom ing repe t it ive w ith h is
questions . At one point Coughlin demanded to have Casill as read the docket to him
word for word and that he was going to "d epose " Miss Ballard.
Marshal Thompson an d I approached Coughl in in the publ ic ha llway. As I
approached Coughlin I noticed that he was wearin g red sm ile y fa ce flanne l pajama
bottoms and a white te e shirt. Underneath t he tee sh irt Coughlin also ha d on a
dress tie and a dress shirt. I infor med Coughlin all hi s questions have bee n
answered b y court staff and 1t was time for him to leave. Coughlin asked me "di d
the y tel l you to rell me to leave." Coughlin then turned to Castllas and asked 1f he
could talk to him . Both Marshal Thompson an d I again asked Coughlin to leave .
Coughlin asked for our names, gathered hi s items from the counter and left the
Court.
Both Ma rshal Thompson and I mad e a recordin g of thi s event.
P () . 1111 , I JOO, Reno.',\ 'i'lo;()'\. f'lllO I ,ouch ')it'rra ,1rt'cl , Rrnt1. ',\ 111)<1) 1
fdrphon c: .,-~JJ~2 21)0 f 1n1m1lc: 7-5-JJ4-.liS~ -'
552
7"'-/1-/<.Signature
Subscri bed and sworn to before me chis
//
Dnte
'J0/ 2, .
.\1 y commission ex pi res: ....;J:::..u:.:..,...n.:..,e,,::.._..;:.

e _,,.....:io
_ t_1_ __
N~~B~~~IC~&/J2~~~~~~~-
(, otary stamp. if applicable)
P 0 . 11,n I IJOO, l~~no, ., \' 81J 50 5 l '>UO I :'.>ou 1h Sier r a Stree t. Rr"nf>, ', \. ')\1~0 1
T ~ltph,mc: r'i . ) .H -2 :!1)0 f',H ,imile: ~-c;.JJ4- '1!2 4
">\ "' rrn9 nu 11r1p.. lu,ur1.cnm
553
EXHIBIT
8
554
05/23/2012
10: 22
CLERKS OFFICE ~JDC
7753~5 1~i:,58
PAGE
FI LE D
Electronically
05-09-2012.05'17 16 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
C'erk of the Court
Transac!lon # 2943750
CJDE 2968
IN 1'HE: SSCOND JvDIC: AL DISTRICT co::; ~T Of THE STATE 0: NEVADA,

IN AND FO~ THE COUNTY OE' lvAS~OE
8
9
THS STATS Of t-iEVADA ,
10
11
12
Case No .
P l3.intiff ,
CR12-0376
Oe!)t. Mo .
'I.
:.o
ZACHAR~ 3ARK8R ~OUGHLIN,
13
Def e nda~t.
14
15
ORDER OF COMPETENCY AND RETURNI NG MATTER TO JUSTICE COURT
16
The CcJrt, having revie~ed che =eports of Dr . Richard T.
17
5issett and Dr . Mar y R . Vi et:h who ex anined the Oe f endant , a:"ld
18
a ::~r ~aving pe r rr itted couns~ : for bo th s ides ~o present
)9
ev i dence on : h e issue o f : h e Defendan ts compe tence pu r suan t to
~n
L...,
d RS 178 . 425 :
2 i.
T~e Cour~ heceby e ~ ters a f : nding : hac DEFENDANT IS

CCM?ETENT TO PROC EE D, and
23
IT r; ~ERP.BY CRC~?EO trat this ~a::er ~a =~turnd tc t~e
25
D.:l..'iEC this
<]___ d a:,, of
__/I}~
, 20 : 2 .
LJ
:? 6
~~
555
01/01
EXHIBIT 19
EXHIBIT 19
556
EXHIBIT 20
EXHIBIT 20
557
8/23/2015
Print
Close
RE:disabilityorder
From: DavidClark(davidc@nvbar.org)
Sent: Fri6/19/157:35AM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)mitchcobeagaattylv
(mcobeaga@cotomlaw.com)
Thecourtisnotgivinguponyou.Infact,thisistheonlyavenueforyoutoreturnto
thepracticeoflawandtheCourtchoseit.Onceondisability,alldiscipline
proceedingsarestayed.Inyourcase,theCourtdismissedallfilingsthatwere
pendinganddirectedtheBartorevisitthemwhenyouapplyforreinstatement
fromdisabilityinactivestatus.Nothingiscurrentlypendingregardingdisbarment
orothersanction.
IamintrialtodaybutwillstillreviewyourfilesinRenoonMondayandemailor
callyou.
DavidA.Clark
BarCounsel
StateBarofNevada
3100W.CharlestonBlvd.,Suite100
LasVegas,NV89102
(702)3171444direct
(800)2542797
(702)3828747fax
558
1/2
8/23/2015
From:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com[mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday,June19,20156:57AM
To:DavidClarkmitchcobeagaattylv
Subject:disabilityorder
Iapologizeformylackofpatienceandprudenceinmyrecentfilingsandactions.Ihaveworkedso
hardonmyrecoverythattonowbedeclareddisabledfeelslikeaknifeinmygut.IsowishtheCourt
couldbepersuadedtoallowMr.ClarktoconductthereviewofthefilesthisMondayandrevisitthis
disabilityorder.Pleasedonotgiveuponme.Pleasetrytodosomethingtogetthisdisabilityorder
reconsidered.GodBless,ZachCoughlin
559
2/2
EXHIBIT 21
EXHIBIT 21
560
2 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
OF BAR COUNSEL,
3 IN RE: ZACHARY COUGHLIN
)
)
)
)
)
BARNO. 9473
4
Case No. 60975
5
6
1.
In April 2014, this Court entered its Order of Referral For
7 Examination By Qualified Medical Expert in connection with the above-referenced

8 matter, which originated with a Petition of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary
9 Board requesting that attorney Zachary Coughlin ("Coughlin"), Bar No. 9473, be
10 transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117
11 (Proceedings when an attorney is declared to be incompetent or is alleged to be
12 incapacitated).
13
2.
The Office of Bar Counsel ("OBC"), in prior status reports, informed
14 this Court that a Reno psychologist, Earl Nielsen, Ph.D. ("Dr. Nielsen"), had
15 agreed to perform a psychological evaluation upon Coughlin and provide a written
16 report to the State Bar of Nevada.
17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
1
561
3.
Dr. Nielsen's report was received this week by the OBC, which is
2 attached hereto and hereby submitted to this Court for its consideration.
3
4
DATED this 25 th day of September, 2014.
5
6
7
8
9
10
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

Jllli::
Phillip J. Pattee, Assistant Bar Counsel

BarNo. 4021
Reno,NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
562
2
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF BAR COUNSEL was deposited in the United State's Mail
at Reno, Nevada, postage fully pre-paid thereon for first class mail, to the following:
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street

Reno, NV 89505
DATED this 25 th day of September, 2014
8
9
aura eters, an employee of

the State Bar of Nevada
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
563
r----------------------
EARL S. NIELSEN, PHD.

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
September 22, 2014
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
NAME:
DATE OF BIRTH:
9/2711976
CASE NAME:
In the Matter of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Nevada Bar #9473,

Respondent
Supreme Court of the State of Nevada
60975
COURT:
CASE NUMBER:
AGE:
37
DATES OF EVALUATION: 7125/2014; 8116/2014; 9/20/2014

METHODS:
1. Review of records supplied by the Nevada State Bar Association and

Mr. Coughlin
2. Interview (seven hours)
3. Mental Status Examination
4. Wechsler Abbreviated Scales ofIntelligence - II
5. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - II
6. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory - III
7. Hare PCL-R (2 nd Ed.)
PROBLEM HISTORY: In April, 2012 the Nevada State Bar Association designated a Screening
Panel to review complaints against Mr. Coughlin. The panel issued findings including, " ... the
Screening Panel believes that the Respondent is incapable of continuing the practice of law
because of mental infirmity, illness, or addiction." The issue was reviewed by the Nevada
Supreme Court, and a Psychological Evaluation was ordered for the purpose of determining the
mental fitness ofMr. Coughlin and his competency to practice law.
SOCIAL HISTORY: Mr. Coughlin was born in Bellevue, Washington on September 27,1976.
His birth was normal but he was jaundiced. He met developmental milestones within normal
limits. He had seizures during infancy, but no other serious illnesses, high fevers, or head trauma
during early childhood.
Mr. Coughlin's parents divorced when he was age two. His mother is age 66, a college graduate
who taught English in high school. She was a "great mother" with whom he has maintained a
good relationship. She was not abusive or hostile, but was hurt by his decision to live with his
father at age 10. She remains in good health and remains supportive and in close contact. She
did not use alcohol or drugs, and did not suffer mental or emotional difficulties.
834 WILLOW ST.

.........._ - -
NV 89502
323-6766
FAX
323-2716
NEVADA LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST PY099

NATIONAL REGISTER HEALTH SERVICE PROVIDERS IN PSYCHOLOGY #30627
564
Psychological Evaluation
September 27,2014
His father is age 67, a Reno physician who graduated from Tulane University. Mr. Coughlin was
clearly proud of his father, but also conflicted. He likes and respects his father, but is largely
estranged. His father was dependable and their relationship was good in many ways. He also
describes his father as emotionally detached, conceited, arrogant, and says he saddled Mr.
Coughlin with high expectations. He was also hypercritical ofMr. Coughlin's mother. He
developed problems with alcohol but has been sober and active in Alcoholics Anonymous for 35
years. He was an athlete in college, modeled for an ad in Seventeen Magazine, and remains in
good health. He does not use alcohol or drugs.
Mr. Coughlin's parents divorced in Texas. Mr. Coughlin began kindergarten in Gardnerville,
Nevada while living with his mother, and remained there through fourth grade. He was a good
student, not a behavior problem, and had no difficulty adjusting socially. His mother remarried
when Mr. Coughlin was to begin fifth grade, and moved with him to Dayton, Ohio. His
stepfather was a high school graduate, an alcoholic who worked for the county. Mr. Coughlin
was emolled in gifted and talented programs but his grades slipped to C's. He wore his hair in an
odd fashion and was heavily teased. He played Little League and Babe Ruth Baseball where he
pitched and played second base.
For sixth grade, Mr. Coughlin returned to Reno and lived with his father and stepmother in
Caughlin Ranch. He attended Swope Middle School. His grades and achievement improved, he
participated in athletics and music, and played competitive tennis. Socially, however, he
floundered and had few friends. He attended Reno High School. He maintained a 4.0 grade
point average through high school and was named a National Merit Scholar. He played
basketball where he was named to the All-State roster twice. He says he likes the intensity and
"rush" of competition. He was disciplined once for talking back to an English teacher, but had
no suspensions or juvenile arrests. He did not use drugs or alcohol during high school. He
graduated with honors in 1995.
He then went to the University of Washington for three semesters, then transferred to UNR. He
did well in school, although began using alcohol and some marijuana with friends. He didn't
have problems at UNR and graduated without difficulty.
He emolled at Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas. He liked school, but had conflicts with some
teachers. He got into a conflict with an adjunct professor who accused him of academic fraud,
but it was cleared by investigation. He was confronted in a movie theater for entering without
paying, ran, and was arrested for Resisting a Public Officer. He used some alcohol and was
sarcastic when drinking. He took the Nevada State Bar examination in May, 2001 and was
informed of his passing score in August. He graduated from law school in December, 2001.
565
September 27,2014
After graduation, he sold suits at Macy's. He moved to Sacramento and worked for a law firm
while waiting for his licensure, but was dismissed when his license was delayed. He was arrested
for DUI in California and returned to Reno.
In December, 2002 the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order deferring Mr. Coughlin's
admission to the Nevada State Bar, "partially based upon a condition that Mr. Coughlin receive
psychological counseling."
In 2003 Mr. Coughlin was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed Adderall. He was also
diagnosed with major depression and was prescribed Welbutrin by Dr. Stepinova at Northern
Nevada Mental Health Services. He attended counseling once per month and said it helped. He
did not taking Adderall and discontinued. He was admitted to the Nevada State Bar Association
on October 1,2004, but was not formally notified until May, 2005 according to Mr. Coughlin.
He did some piecework for Barber and Klearman and Associates, then went to work for the Hale
Lane Law Firm where he stayed five months. He left there due to severe gastroenteritis which
left him unable to work and lead to an addiction to Oxycontin and opioid medications. When he
recovered, he went to work for Nevada Legal Aid.
He lived with a woman from 2007 to 2011, but she left him following her college graduation. He
resented the fact that he had helped put her through college and felt used, but his family sided
with her.
In 2009 Mr. Coughlin accepted a divorce case in Family Court, the 2nd Judicial District Court,
Department 11, with Judge Linda Gardner presiding. In her order after trial, Judge Gardner
described Mr. Coughlin's behavior as "rude, sarcastic, and disrespectful at trial". She also cited
his failure to conduct discovery, difficulties understanding a balance sheet, and lack of
knowledge with respect to rules of evidence and trail procedure. According to Mr. Coughlin, she
later rescinded her complaint.
In August, 2011 Mr. Coughlin was arrested for the theft of an iPhone. He served seven days in
jail. Nine days later he was arrested for shoplifting at Walmart for consuming a candy bar and
throat lozenges.
In November, 2011 Mr. Coughlin was evicted from his horne/office in Reno and was locked out.
He was arrested for trespassing and spent three days in jail. On November 30 his trial for the
candy bar theft came before the Reno Justice Court in front of Judge Howard. The trial was
delayed, but Mr. Coughlin was held in Contempt of Court and served three days in j ail. Judge
Howard issued the order for "Refusing to obey the directives of the Judge, continuing lines of
inquiry after being advised by the Court to refrain form doing so, demeaning the Court with
566
September 27,2014
statements such as 'Wow' in response to Court rulings, laughing during testimony and further
questioning the Court and its authority."
On December 20,2011 a six-hour hearing was conducted for a contested lien on his property.
He was ordered to pay $400.00 for 17 days storage, then was given December 22 and 23 to
remove his final belongings. He was unable to remove all of his possessions during the alloted
time.
On January 12,2012 Mr. Coughlin saw his belongings were being loaded into a truck belonging
to a contractor for his landlord. He confronted, then followed the truck to the trash dump. He
believed that having filed for a Summary Judgement would have preserved his property until a
ruling was made, but when he filed for a Temporary Restraining Order, he was denied. He
returned to his home/office and filmed the removal of his property. He was confronted by a
police officer who told him to stop. When Mr. Coughlin resisted, he was arrested for jay
walking, then posted bail and was released.
After his eviction, Mr. Coughlin had rented a room in essentially a "flop house". He agreed to
pay $200.00 per month, but when he had moved in the landlord then demanded $50.00 for
utilities. The tenants threatened him and slashed the tires on his car. He called 911 for police
assistance. The same officer who arrested him two days before arrested him for Misuse of 911.
He was convicted in April, 2013 and was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended.
In February, 2012 Mr. Coughlin filed a "Notice of Appearance, Entry a Plea of Not Guilt, Waiver
of Right to Arraignment, and Motion to Dismiss" in the Reno Municipal Court case. On
February 28, 2012 he was in Reno Municipal Court to contest traffic citations. He was found in
Contempt of Court by Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes, and served five days in jail. The traffic
citations were dismissed. On March 5, 2012 he filed a "Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel
and Motion to Dismiss" in a case in Department 11 of the 2nd Judicial District Court. On March
12,2012 Judge Holmes issued an order prohibiting Mr. Coughlin's contact with the Reno
Municipal Court, continued the criminal case, and referred Mr. Coughlin to the Nevada State
Bar.
On March 15,2012 Mr. Coughlin was late for an eviction hearing and the landlord was granted
the eviction by default. He went to the apartment, gathered personal items and then attended a
hearing in the Bankruptcy Court of Judge Beasley. He wore a tie and jacket, but had only a tee
shirt underneath. Judge Beasley continued the hearing, but complained. Mr. Coughlin was
homeless, and his possessions had again been placed in storage.
A friend assisted Mr. Coughlin and allowed him the use of a fifth-wheel trailer for storage in
567
September 27,2014
trade for legal service. He was sleeping in the office but was asked to leave and was again
homeless, living in his car.
In April, 2012 a petition was filed in District Court for a competency hearing of Mr. Coughlin.
He was sent to Lakes Crossing Center where he was interviewed by Dr. Farmer and Dr. Davis,
but they determined that he was uncooperative and did not complete the evaluation. Judge Elliott
then held Mr. Coughlin in contempt, placed him in jail for eight days, and two other doctors from
Lakes Crossing completed the evaluation. Both Dr. Bisset and Dr. Veith found him to be
competent to stand trial.
On May 7, 2012 Mr. Coughlin went to trial for the iPhone left. Judge Sferraza sent Mr. Coughlin
to Mental Health Court, but Judge Breen refused to permit his continued use of psychotropic
medication and rejected him from Mental Health Court participation. Although that may seem
strange, it is the policy of the Mental Health Court and the Drug Court to insist that participants
be drug free in spite of the fact that the medications are prescribed by physicians specifically to
treat the mental health issues. That hearing was actually before Judge Elliott had found him to be
competent to stand trial in an order on May 9, 2012.
On June 12,2012 Mr. Coughlin received notice from Bar Counsel, Mr. King, ofMr. Coughlin's
suspension while the Disciplinary Board considered the ramifications of his candy bar conviction
(a theft). On the same day he went before Judge Gardner and was convicted on the trespass
charge for which he was fined $300.00.
Another friend offered him the use of three storage units attached to an apartment complex. He
was back on his medications, working out, and getting healthy. The apartment manager
determined he was living there and filed for eviction. When a sheriff's deputy came and banged
on the door, Mr. Coughlin at first refused to respond. The lock was cut away, and Mr. Coughlin
was arrested for Resisting Arrest. His mother bailed him out. He was again homeless.
On July 3, 2012 Mr. Coughlin had returned to the site where his property was being held. He
was rearrested for Disturbing the Peace. He served 18 days in jail. He was then hired by a friend
to hand out visitor guides and was able to rent an apartment.
On August 23,2012 the Nevada State Bar filed a complaint against Mr. Coughlin. When he
arrived for the scheduled hearing, he was informed by Bar Counsel that the hearing had been
cancelled without notice.
In November, 2012 Mr. Coughlin was convicted on the iPhone offense. In December, 2012 the
Nevada State Bar recommended permanent disbarment.
568
September 27,2014
In May, 2013 Mr. Coughlin was arrested for Resisting a Public Officer. He served two weeks in
jail, then met bail conditions and was released. He was convicted in October, 2013 and was
sentenced to six months in jail. His suspended sentence for the use of"911" was revoked, and he
was ordered to serve the sentences consecutively. He was in jail from November, 2013 until
April, 2014 when he was released.
In June, 2014 Justice Pickering rejected the Nevada State Bar's recommendation for permanent
disbarment and ordered a Psychological Evaluation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING: Mr. Coughlin was on time for appointments and cooperative
with all requests and inquiries. He understood directions and materials. Results are valid for
interpretation.
On Mental Status Examination, Mr. Coughlin is alert, responsive, and well-oriented to all
perceptual spheres. His memory is intact for recent and long-past events. He denies
hallucinations and delusions, and does not describe beliefs or perceptions consistent with thought
disorder. He does tend to ramble, is interesting but difficult to interview, but generally recalls
dates, times, and incidents. He reports some depressive symptoms by history and has
intermittently received psychotropic medications and psychological counseling. He is
embarrassed and remorseful about his behavior, and remains mildly depressed. He denies
problems with anxiety, but was diagnosed with ADHD quite late, and may have experienced
some manic agitation rather than hyperactive display. He does not describe significant problems
with substance abuse. He denies significant aggression or violence, and has not been suicidal or
prone to self mutilation.
Cognitively, Mr. Coughlin obtains a Full Scale IQ score of 131, within the gifted range. His
vocabulary and verbal reasoning abilities are very strong. He has good capacity for abstract
reasoning, but impulsivity and inattention to detail interfere with problem solving, practical
solutions, and perceptual reasoning. He does not show evidence of impaired thinking or signs of
brain impairment.
Clinically, Mr. Coughlin does not endorse symptoms of thought disorder or psychosis. He does
not describe any experience with hallucinations or delusions. He is suspicious and mistrustful,
but not at the level of gross confusion necessary for a diagnosis. His reality testing in intact. His
thinking may be judged as odd by some, but he is not bizarre or fully out of touch.
He does acknowledge struggles with chronic depression throughout his adulthood, and has been
medicated, primarily with Welbutrin for most of that time. He has not had major depressive
episodes but rather chronic and insidious symptoms of low self esteem, disinterest in people or
569
September 27,2014
activities, low motivation, and some social avoidance. The condition has persisted for 20 years,
with intermittent relief from prescribed medications. He has low frustration tolerance and some
self defeating patterns. He has never planned or attempted suicide, but has experienced suicidal
thoughts. He is not violent or aggressive, and does not present a danger to others.
Mr. Coughlin has also been diagnosed with ADHD for the past 10 years and medicated with
Adderall. He can describe benefits, including improved concentration, better personal
organization, and better sustained effort, but he doesn't like the perceived side effects.
Psychological test results do not confirm the full array of ADHD symptoms, and instead suggest
underlying anxiety symptoms which may be interpreted as ADHD. Although ADHD is often
missed during childhood and identified only later in early adulthood, Mr. Coughlin does not
report having had the serious attention or concentration problems during school, and was not
described as hyperactive by observing adults.
While some anxiety symptoms are noted in test results, these may be artifacts of his chronic
depression. He is restless and on edge, had difficulty maintaining concentration, can be irritable,
and often worries. The chronic aspect of his anxiety drives him to be somewhat cynical,
expecting disappointment, and to make "mountains out of molehills" (his phrase). He seems to
enjoy argument for argument's sake, and as seen in his own legal responses, tends to ramble and
drift from the point by over-developed but irrelevant details. He doesn't report actual panic
attacks or somatic complaints. He does not openly express manic agitation, hyperactivity, or
hypomanic display. He does not endorse racing thoughts, tremors, or excessive fears. He does
admit to some hoarding behavior, but test results are not elevated on measures for
obsessive/compulsive disorder. He does experience some dysfunctional negative emotions in the
form of negative attitudes in addition to other depressive symptoms.
Mr. Coughlin was raised in a home where alcohol was just not prohibited, but disdained. During
his early adulthood he drank to excess out of spite, and by age 25 described himself as an
alcoholic. He attended AA, but was uncomfortable. Around age 30 he developed an addiction to
opiates prescribed for pain, but stopped using pain pills at least five years ago. Psychological test
results do not reveal an addictive personality, and while substance abuse is possible, addiction is
unlikely.
Broader personality measures suggest a diagnostic profile of Dependent Personality Disorder
with Depressive Features. Mr. Coughlin is a man of very low self esteem and, despite his early
accolades and successes, an inept self image. He is impulsive, moody, and resentful, and can be
rigid, argumentative, suspicious, and brooding. He is largely passive-aggressive, but expresses
hostility as righteous indignation, blames others for his troubles, and resents authority. He is
often bored, feels empty, and is unable to profit form his own experience. He doubts his own
570
September 27,2014
judgement but mistrusts that of others, and rarely takes advice. He feels lonely and alienated
from others, but tends to isolate himself form social opportunity, remaining guarded and
superficial in his relationships. His approaches to self understanding and social awareness are
unconventional and immature. He is overwhelmed at times by his perception of personal faults,
feeling socially awkward, out of place, useless, and rejected. He can be quick-tempered and
impatient, but does not experience actual rage attacks or intense overt hostility. His self esteem
problems lead to some masochistic (not sexual) feelings, and he even questions whether he
provokes the rejection he perceives. Much of his character is supported by paradox and
inconsistency: He feels entitled and unworthy at the same time; he wants understanding,
recognition, and support, but will not reciprocate; he can acknowledge many interpersonal errors
and slights but remains too grounded to apologize.
While Mr. Coughlin has a criminal record of increasingly serious infractions, he is not a
sociopath and does not have an antisocial personality disorder. He can be superficially charming,
but he is not pathologically manipUlative or conning. He has some conscience development,
including capacities for guilt, remorse, and sympathy. His capacity for empathy is less welldeveloped. He is sufficiently defensive to mask his capacity for taking responsibility for personal
actions and behavior. He also knows others find him sarcastic, disrespectful, and annoying, but
lacks the personal insight to change without coercion.
CONCLUSIONS: Zach Coughlin is a 38-year old attorney in Reno who was evaluated at the
request of the Nevada Bar Association at the direction of the Nevada Supreme Court to identify
mental illness or emotional problems which might underlie his erratic behavior which lead to a
petition to disbar him.
Mr. Coughlin was raised in Reno by divorced parents. His father is a well-respected physician in
Reno, a recovering alcoholic from whom Mr. Coughlin feels largely estranged. His mother was
more supportive emotionally, but has set limits regarding financial support.
Mr. Coughlin was a capable student and fine athlete who went on to complete college, then
obtained his law degree at Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas. Although he passed the Nevada
Bar examination before graduation in 2002, his application was delayed until 2004.
In 2011 Mr. Coughlin stole a cell phone, then later a candy bar, both of which lead to criminal
convictions. In 2012 a screening panel was appointed to review and investigate his infractions.
During 2012, he had several more conflicts with law enforcement, but also received complaints
from sitting judges. In 2013 he was convicted of Resisting a Public Officer and was sentenced to
six months in jail. A previously suspended sentence was also revoked. He was injail from
November, 2013 to April, 2014.
571
September 27,2014
The Nevada Bar Association decided Mr. Coughlin should be disbarred, but the Nevada Supreme
Court returned the case to the Nevada Bar Association for further review.
Mr. Coughlin is not thought-disordered, psychotic, or schizophrenic. He has been diagnosed
with mild to moderate depression for 20 years, and has been responsive to medications.
He continues to suffer the symptoms of Persistent Depressive Disorder, mild to moderate, and
continued consultation with his physician is recommended. He was diagnosed with ADHD 10
years ago, but I cannot find diagnostic evidence to support it. The fact that he benefits from the
medication is not surprising, but is more likely treating an anxiety symptoms rather than actual
attention deficit. Diagnostic measures clearly identify symptoms consistent with an anxiety state,
although sorting that out from his depression is complicated.
Additional measures used to identify personality disorders confirm the diagnosis of Dependent
Personality Disorder associated with traits of Depressive and Masochistic Personality Styles.
The combination of social alienation, low self esteem, passive aggressive hostility, and conflict
with authority figures not only supports the behavioral components of depression and anxious
emotion, but also supports the consistently self defeating and cynical nature of an otherwise
capable young man. From a layman's (non-attorney) point of view, his violations seem petty and
innocuous, but he does demonstrate an inability to learn from his mistakes and a consistent
impulse to shoot himself in the foot.
DSM 5 DIAGNOSTIC SUMMARY:
300.4
Persistent Depressive Disorder, moderate
304.00
Opioid Use Disorder, in full remission
305.00
Alcohol Use Dirorder, mild, in full remission
301.6
Dependent Personality Disorder, with Depressive and Masochistic Traits
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Mr. Coughlin is not formally mentally ill, but does suffer emotional disturbance with an
underlying personality disorder. My recommendation for Mr. Coughlin is that he seek
subsistence employment outside the legal profession while he engages in a rehabilitative course
to address his disrupted emotional state and his longer-term deficiencies in personality
functioning.
The greatest weakness in that recommendation is that Mr. Coughlin is nearly homeless, has few
resources, and needs intensive out-patient intervention. While he is eligible for services through
the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, I cannot recommend that facility as a
sufficient resource for Mr. Coughlin's needs. He needs ongoing access to a quality psychiatrist
572
10
September 27,2014
for medication management, and opportunity to build a trusting, confidential relationship with an
experienced therapist two or three times per week for 60 days, then one time per week after that.
He would not benefit from group therapy or substance abuse treatment at this time.
2. My recommendation to the Nevada State Bar is not intended to usurp or superceded anyone's
authority. Based upon existing rule and law, the Bar may very well have grounds to pursue
disbarment. On the other hand, if a suspension was effected with a prescribed course for
rehabilitation, Mr. Coughlin most certainly has the potential to serve the Bar and the community.
In my opinion, Mr. Coughlin is not competent to serve as an attorney today due to his
disregulated emotional state and continuing mental health issues, but with adequate treatment
may very well be returned to competence in the future.
Respectfully submitted,

Clinical Psychologist
ESN/pjn
573
2
3
4
5

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
12
13
Case No: RI15-0804
Petitioner
14
15
16
PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN
17

18
19
20

1.
I, have obtained an attorney within the 12-step program to be my
21
22
sobriety mentor. This attorney, Charles M. McGee, has agreed to work with me
23
for a two-year period. This sobriety mentor has agreed to work closely with me
24
25
26
27
and support my success and report to either the Bar, the PanelINNDB, or both, by
letter or email for that two-year period on a quarterly basis, reporting challenges
and successes.
28
574
2.
I have obtained an attorney, Geoffrey Giles, Esq., who will monitor
me in my law practice in Nevada for this same two year period. This Law Practice
2
3
Mentor has agreed to work closely with me and support my success and report to
either the Bar, the PanellNNDB, or both, by letter or email for that two-year period
on a quarterly basis, reporting challenges and successes. This attorney has been
active in the practice of law for not less than 15 years.
3. I will attend three twelve step meetings a week, as well as spend an
10
11
12
13
II
additional three hours a week with a SDonsor (currentlv Miles Warsh. whom
i
, . ,
testified under oath at my Reinstatement Hearing of 8/25/15) that is separate from

my attorney sobriety sponsor working on my recovery.
14
15
16
4. I will continue to obtain independent therapeutic mental health

counseling of not less than twice per month for this two-year period from a
17
18
19
licensed mental health professional (such as an MFT). I agree to pay for this
myself, and in the event I am unable to do so my father, Timothy D. Coughlin,
20
21
22
23
MD, has agreed to loan me the money necessary to meet this requirement.
5. I agree to be subject to random alcohol and drug testing for this same two
year period. I agree to pay for this myself, and in the event I am unable to do so
24
25
my father, Timothy D. Coughlin, MD, has agreed to loan me the money necessary
26
to meet this requirement. I agree to allow the State Bar, the Panel, the Northern
27
28
Nevada and Southern Nevada Disciplinary Boards, my Sobriety Mentor, and my
2
575
Law Practice Mentor to order me to take a random drug or alcohol test at any point
2
for this two year period.
3
4
5
6. I hope to practice in California or Nevada (most likely Las Vegas or

Reno), or somewhere else given my license to practice patent law before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows for doing so in any
7
8
state and there is a relative dearth of patent law practice opportunities in Nevada.
I plan to support myself financially until a practice brings me the financial
10
11
12
compensation required to do so by working subsistence employment types of jobs,

such as the house painter's assistant position I have been employed in of late if I
13
am unable to obtain employment more closely related to the practice of law (such
14
15
16
as being a law clerk, paralegal, legal assistant, etc.).

6. I have identified as triggers in my life that have cause me to experience
17
18
stress or to want to return to alcohol or substance abuse, the following: getting too
19
hungry, angry, lonely, or tired and the end of relationships with a significant other,
20
21
22
23
and status anxiety in general.

7. I have identified as other information that may be critical to the Panel's
determination that this plan is a plan for success the following: I am very
24
25
26
remorseful for the negative attention I have brought to my profession and for
unnecessary expenditure of court time and resources brought about by my behavior
27
28
and actions.
3
576
I agree to abstain from taking, even with a valid prescription, any stimulant
medications, such as Adderall (amphetamine) or narcotics, or other controlled
2
3
substances commonly considered to be addictive. If, in the event I must take some
such medication, be it for surgery or something similar, I will notify my Law
Practice Mentor, my Attorney Sobriety Mentor, and the State Bar of Nevada.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
II
VERIFICATIONIDECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

hereby declare that all assertions I have made herein are true and correct to the bestl
of my knowledge. Everything I have attached hereto is a true and complete copy 0
14
Dated this August 26t h, 2015,
15
16
17
lsi Zachary Coughlin

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
577
2
3
I certify that on August 26 th , 2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct
copy of this PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN upon the following by mailing it
by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

R. KAIT FLOCCIllNI, ESQ.
and to
6
7
10
11
12
13
14

Petitioner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
578
CASE NO.
RI15~0804
2
3
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
In Re ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,

ESQ.
Nevada Bar No 9473,
10
11
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF

LAW AND RECO:tv1MENDATION AFTER
FORMAL HEARING
FOR REINSTATE:MENT TO ACTIVE
STATUS FOLLOWING A PERIOD OF
DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS
Respondent
12
13
14
15
16
This matter involving attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq. ("Respondent"), Bar No.
9473, initially came before a designated Formal Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada
17
Disciplinary Board in the State Bar offices in Reno, Nevada. The Panel consisted of Chair Care
18
Jenkins, Esq., Marilee Breternitz, Esq, Craig Denney, Esq., and Keegan Low, Esq. and lay
19
20
21
22
member Dr. George Furman. Assistant Bar Counsel R. Kait Flocchini, Esq. represented the
State Bar of Nevada. Respondent represented himself.
As the burden of proof rested vvith Respondent, he began the proceedings and presented
23
materials consisting of documents and pleadings offered as Exhibits 1,4,5,6, 7,8, 11, 12, 13,
24
14, 15, and 21 which were admitted into evidence. Respondent offered Exhibits 2, 3, 9, 10, 16,
25
PAGE 1
579
17, 18, and 20 which were not admitted into evidence. The State Bar offered docwnents
2
admitted into evidence as Exhibit A.
The Panel heard statements from both parties and testimony from Senior Nevada District
4
5
Court Judge Charles McGee (a well-known 12-step participant and advocate), Dr. Nielsen (the
independent medical examiner selected by the State Bar), Miles Warsh (Respondent's AA
Sponsor in San Diego CA), Respondent's mother Mary Barker, Respondent's father, Timothy D.
Coughlin, M.D., and Respondent.
Based upon the evidence presented and testimony received, the Panel unanimously issues
10
11
the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation.

FINDINGS OF FACT
12
13
14
1. On June 7, 2012, Respondent Attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin was temporarily

suspended pursuant to SCR 111.
15
2. On June 18,2015 the Supreme Court issued an order transferring Respondent to

16
17
disability inactive status, due to the effect of various addiction- and stress-related factors
18
on his behavior that impeded his ability to engage in the profession in a responsible and
19
appropriate manner.
20
3. On June 23,2015, Respondent submitted an application to the State Bar of Nevada for
21
reinstatement from disability inactive status.

22
23
24
4. On August 25,2015, a Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board heard
evidence on his application.
25
PAGE 2
580
6. He also brought witness testimony in-person and telephonically regarding his current
sobriety, his involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous (hereinafter "AA") and completion
of 11 of the 12 "steps" of the AA program, and his attempts to address his emotional and
physical health, take responsibility for his actions and reduce situational stressors.
7. Almost universally, witnesses offered that Respondent has been sincere in his work with
10
11
AA and has had successes, but that his recovery is in its early stages, and Respondent
12
must be diligent to maintain his sobriety, reduce his compulsive response to stress and
13
curb his tendency toward manic, voluminous and/or hostile oral and written
14
communications.
15
8. In particular, Dr. Nielson's testing revealed Respondent's "dependent personality

16
17
disorder" and addictions; however, the psychiatrist testified that Respondent had made
18
great efforts to take control of his life, and remove the impediments to his practice.
19
However, the doctor emphasized that to re-shape these lifelong patterns, Respondent will
20
require assistance, and that it is early in the process to allow unsupervised practice.
21
9. At the conclusion of its initial deliberations, the panel requested additional information
22
23
24
from Respondent, which Panel Chair Jenkins received via email the next day, on August
26,2015.
25
PAGE 3
581
10. On September 22, 2015, the Panel resumed the hearing, considered the additional
2
information and continued its deliberations.
11. The Panel unanimously found that Respondent's disability has been removed and that he
4
5
should be returned to active status, but must be active and persistent in pursuing and
maintaining his recovery to remove the behaviors that caused his disability.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Panel hereby issues the following
Conclusions of Law:
10
11
12
13
14
1. The Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and the
subject matter of these proceedings pursuant to SCR 99.
2. Venue is proper in Washoe County Nevada.
3. Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the disability that
15
caused him to be placed on disability inactive status has been removed and that he is
16
17
18
19
20
fit to return to the practice oflaw in Nevada. SCR 117(4).

4. The Panel hereby finds that the foregoing Findings of Fact prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Respondent's disability which caused him to be placed on
disability inactive status has been abated, and he currently is fit to return to the
21
practice of law. However, without a comprehensive plan to provide reality checks

22
23
24
and balance in his law practice and without adequate support systems to keep
Respondent in an environment with minimal stress, few personal triggers and with
25
PAGE 4
582
significant structure and support, Respondent could return to the addictions and
2
behaviors that caused him to be placed on disability inactive status.
ORDER
4
5
6
7
8
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Panel hereby
recommends that:
1. Respondent be returned to active status immediately, contingent on his compliance with
the terms and conditions in this Order. Should Respondent substantially fail to meet any
of these conditions, his status will be brought before a Panel of the Northern Nevada
10
11
12
13
14
Disciplinary Board for revocation based a recommendation from and evidence presented
by the State Bar.
2. The attached Mentoring Agreement shall be entered by Respondent and a Bar-approved
attorney "Practice Mentor" with not less than 15 years of practice experience to have a 2-
IS
hour, in-person meeting between Respondent and the Mentor at least once per week to
16
17
discuss Respondent's cases, communications, methods and reasoning for a 2-year
18
period. These meetings shall be held face-to-face not less than 70 % of the time. The
19
remaining weekly meetings may be held via video, telephone or other electronic real-tim
20
means, and supplemented by the exchange of documents regarding Respondent's work
21
and communications. The Practice Mentor shall report quarterly to the State Bar in
22
23
writing regarding the frequency and duration of the weekly meetings, and shall
24
summarize Respondent's challenges and successes to the State Bar over the course of the
25
2-year period.
PAGES
583
3. The attached Mentoring Agreement shall be entered by Respondent and a Bar-approved

2
attorney "Sobriety Mentor" with not less than 15 years of practice experience who is
active in a 12-Step program, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, to have a 2-hour, in4

5
person meeting between Respondent and the Mentor at least once per week to discuss
Respondents cases, cOlmnunications, methods and reasoning in relation to his addictions,
triggers, stressors and addiction-related behaviors for a two-year period. These meetings
shall be held face-to-face not less than 75% of the time. The remaining weekly meetings
may be attended via video, telephone or other electronic real-time means, and
10
11
supplemented as needed by the exchange of documents. The Sobriety Mentor shall
12
report quarterly in writing to the State Bar regarding the frequency and duration of the
13
weekly meetings, and shall summarize Respondent's challenges and successes to the
14
State Bar over the course of the 2-year period.
15
4. In addition to any involvement otherwise ordered herein, Respondent shall actively

16
17
participate in a 12-Step program, and shall provide evidence of his attendance at not less
18
than three 12-Step meetings per week to his "Sponsor", who shall report Respondent's
19
attendance and progress to the State Bar quarterly in writing and provide evidence of
20
Respondent's attendance with that report.
21
5. Respondent shall obtain and participate actively in counseling/therapy with a licensed

22
23
mental health professional. Respondent shall be responsible to pay for or obtain financial
24
assistance for any costs thereof. Respondent must provide evidence of his compliance
25
with this provision to the State Bar quarterly for a 2-year period.
PAGE 6
584
6. Respondent shall submit to and pay for random alcohol and/or drug testing at any time
2
upon the request of the State Bar, his Sobriety Mentor or his Practice Mentor.
Respondent waives his right to the privacy of the results of any such tests in favor of the
4
5
State Bar of Nevada. Respondent affirmatively agrees to timely provide a copy of any
and all alcohol or drug testing he undergoes during the 2-year period to the State Bar of
Nevada.
8
9
Dated this
2Cr,..AA..
of October, 2015.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAGE 7
585
SOBRIETY MENTORING AGREEMENT

THIS MENTORING AGREEMENT (Agreement) is entered into among and between Zachary
B. Coughlin, Esq. (Respondent), the State Bar of Nevada (State Bar) and Charles M. McGee
(Sobriety-Mentor)
pursuant to the
Findings
of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation after Formal Hearing (Panel's Findings) filed October 26, 2015, in the
matter of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., case no. RI15-0804.
Purpose.
It is agreed by and between the parties that Sobriety-Mentor will serve
during Respondent's two-year probationary period to assist Respondent in properly

addressing addiction-related issues that arise in the course of, andlor because of the nature
of, the practice of law and to assist the Office of Bar Counsel in monitoring the conditions set
forth in the Panel's Findings filed with the State Bar.
Duration. The Agreement shall remain in effect for 2 years, from the date of any
Reinstatement Order issued by the Nevada Supreme Court.
1.
Duties of Respondent. Respondent shall meet in person with his Sobriety-
Mentor for at least 2-hours no less than once per week to discuss Respondent's cases,
communications, methods and reasoning in relation to his addictions, triggers, stressors and
addiction-related behaviors for a two-year period. These meetings shall be held face-to-face
not less than 75% of the time. The remaining weekly meetings may be attended via video,
telephone or other electronic real-time means, and supplemented as needed by the exchange
of documents.
III
586
2. Duties of Mentor.
a. The Practice Mentor shall assist Respondent in establishing good case
management, advocacy, and civility practices. The means by which such assistance
shall be provided must include meeting with Respondent as described in paragraph
1, above. report quarterly to the State Bar in writing regarding the frequency and
duration of the weekly meetings, and shall summarize Respondent's challenges and
successes to the State Bar over the course of the two-year period. Meetings should
address Respondent's cases, communications, methods and reasoning for the
duration of the probationary period.
b. Law-Practice-Mentor shall observe the rules of confidentiality in RPC 1.6
(Confidentiality of Information) with respect to Respondent's practice, cases, and
clients, except that Law-Practice-Mentor shall be entitled to reveal such information
as is necessary to communicate with the Office of Bar Counsel under the terms of this
Agreement.
c. Law-Practice-Mentor shall submit quarterly reports to the Office of Bar
Counsel, the first of which will be due three months after any Reinstatement Order
issued by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Quarterly Reports submitted by LawPractice-Mentor shall address the issues set forth in paragraph 1 above, report the
frequency and duration of the weekly meetings, summarize Respondent's challenges
and successes in meeting the goals of this mentoring agreement, and identify any
other issues pertaining to Respondent's practice of law that Law-Practice-Mentor
believes relevant to Bar Counsel's assessment of Respondent's compliance with the
terms of this Agreement and Respondent's probation.
587
3. Compliance. Respondent's compliance with the conditions set forth herein shall be
monitored by and through the Office of Bar Counsel.
4. Failure to Comply with Terms of Agreement. If Bar Counsel determines that
Respondent failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement, Bar Counsel shall notify
Respondent of the alleged breach ofthe contract and provide Respondent fourteen (14) days
after receipt of such notice to submit a written response. Bar Counsel may withdraw the
notice of alleged breach based upon Respondent's written response and related
communications.
a. Hearing. If the notice is not withdrawn, Bar Counsel shall request that the
chair of the disciplinary board assign a Hearing Panel to hear the matter and issue
appropriate findings and an order, pursuant to SCR 10S.5(6)(a) and Rules 9-13,
inclusive, of the Disciplinary Rules of Procedure.
b. Finding that Respondent Breached the Agreement. If a Hearing Panel finds
a breach to be material and without justification, the panel shall terminate the
contract or agreement and issue Findings and a Recommendation that Respondent's
license to practice law be suspended until he can demonstrate, at a reinstatement
hearing, that he is able to meet the terms and conditions in the Panel's Order in RI1S0804. Bar Counsel shall then file the Panel's Findings and Recommendation with the
Nevada Supreme Court.
c. Finding that Respondent did not Breach the Agreement. If the Hearing
Panel finds no breach occurred, or that the breach was immaterial or with
justification, the panel may modify the existing Agreement or direct the parties to
proceed in accordance with it.
588
5. Confidentiality. Pursuant to SCR 105.5 (1) (b), all services provided by Law-PracticeMentor and any related documents andlor communication shall remain confidential, as
provided for in SCR 121. Any information provided to Law-Practice-Mentor and Office of
Bar Counsel will be used solely to assess Respondent's compliance and progress and may be
used in a hearing for that purpose, but will not be released to any other person.
Acknowledgment and Consent:
Respondent has read all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and understand the
Agreement in its entirety.
DATED this
day of
2015.
By:
Nevada Bar No. 9473
Respondent
Approval of Law Practice Mentor:

Law Practice Mentor has read all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and agrees
to act as Law Practice Mentor herein.
DATED this _
day of
2015
By:
Geoffrey Giles, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 959
Law Practice Mentor
III
III
589
LAW PRACTICE MENTORING AGREEMENT

THIS MENTORING AGREEMENT (Agreement) is entered into among and between Zachary
B. Coughlin, Esq. (Respondent), the State Bar of Nevada (State Bar) and Geoffrey Giles, Esq.
(Law-Practice-Mentor) pursuant to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

Recommendation after Formal Hearing (Panel's Findings) filed October 26,2015, in Case No.
RI15-0804, In Re Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.
Purpose. It is agreed by and between the parties that Law-Practice-Mentor will serve
during Respondent's two-year probationary period to assist Respondent in establishing
good case management, advocacy, and civility practices and to assist the Office of Bar
Counsel in monitoring the conditions set forth in the Panel's Findings filed with the State Bar.
Duration. The Agreement shall remain in effect for two years, from the date of any
Reinstatement Order issued by the Nevada Supreme Court.
1. Duties of Respondent. Respondent shall meet with his Law-Practice-Mentor for a
2-hour, in-person meeting at least once per week to discuss Respondent's cases,
communications, methods and reasoning for a two-year period. These meetings shall be
held face-to-face not less than 70 % of the time. The remaining weekly meetings may be held
via video, telephone or other electronic real-time means, and supplemented by the exchange
of documents regarding Respondent's work and communications.
III
III
III
590
2. Duties of Mentor.
a. The Sobriety-Mentor shall meet with Respondent as described in paragraph 1,
above, to assist Respondent in (i) properly managing his cases, communications,
methods and reasoning in light of his additions, triggers and stressor and (ii)
analyzing and minimizing negative behaviors and establishing positive behaviors that
assist Respondent in practice law with integrity and for the benefit of the public.
b. Sobriety-Mentor shall observe the rules of confidentiality in RPC 1.6
(Confidentiality of Information) with respect to Respondent's practice, cases, and
clients, except that Sobriety-Mentor shall be entitled to reveal such information as is
necessary to communicate with the Office of Bar Counsel under the terms of this
Agreement.
c. Sobriety-Mentor shall submit quarterly reports to the Office of Bar Counsel,
the first of which will be due three months after any Reinstatement Order issued by
the Nevada Supreme Court The Quarterly Reports submitted by Sobriety-Mentor
shall (i) address the issues set forth in paragraph 1 above, (ii) report the frequency
and duration of the weekly meetings, summarize Respondent's challenges and
successes and identify any other issues pertaining to Respondent's practice of law
that Sobriety-Mentor believes relevant to Bar Counsel's assessment of Respondent's
compliance with the terms of this Agreement and Respondent's probation.
3. Compliance. Respondent's compliance with the conditions set forth herein shall be
monitored by and through the Office of Bar Counsel.
4. Failure to Comply with Terms of Agreement. If Bar Counsel determines that
Respondent failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement, Bar Counsel shall notify
591
Respondent of the alleged breach of the contract and provide Respondent fourteen (14) days
after receipt of such notice to submit a written response. Bar Counsel may withdraw the
notice of alleged breach based upon Respondent's written response and related
communications.
a. Hearing. If the notice is not withdrawn, Bar Counsel shall request that the
chair of the disciplinary board assign a Hearing Panel to hear the matter and issue
appropriate findings and an order, pursuant to SCR 10S.S(6)(a) and Rules 9-13,
inclusive, of the Disciplinary Rules of Procedure.
b. Finding that Respondent Breached the Agreement. If a Hearing Panel finds
a breach to be material and without justification, the panel shall terminate the
contract or agreement, and issue Findings and recommendation that the
Respondent's license to practice law be suspended pending a formal disciplinary
hearing. Bar Counsel shall then file the Panel's findings and recommendations with
the Supreme Court with a request to impose the suspension.
c. Finding that Respondent did not Breach the Agreement. If the Hearing
Panel finds no breach occurred, or that the breach was immaterial or with
justification, the panel may modify the existing Agreement or direct the parties to
proceed in accordance with it.
5. Confidentiality.
Pursuant to SCR 10S.5(1)(b), all services provided by Sobriety-
Mentor and any related documents and/or communication shall remain confidential, as
provided for in SCR 121. Any information provided to Sobriety-Mentor and Office of Bar
Counsel will be used solely to assess Respondent's compliance and progress and may be used
in a hearing for that purpose, but will not be released to any other person.
------------- - - - - - - -
592
Acknowledgment and Consent:

Respondent has read all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and understand the
Agreement in its entirety.
DATED this
day of _ _ 2015.
DATED this
day of _ _ _ 2015.
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Nevada Bar No. 9473
Respondent
Approval of Sobriety Mentor:

Sobriety Mentor has read all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and agrees to act
as Sobriety Mentor herein.
DATED this _
day of
2015
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Charles M. McGee, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1996_
Sobriety Mentor
III
III
III
Approval of Bar Counsel
Bar Counsel hereby approves of the Sobriety Mentor to this Agreement and the terms and
conditions herein.
593
DATED this _
day of _ _ 2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

BRIAN KUNZI, ACTING BAR COUNSEL
R. Kait Flocchini, Assistant Bar Counsel
Nevada Bar No. 9861

9456 Double R. Blvd, Suite B
Reno, Nevada 89521
594
Approval of Bar Counsel

Bar Counsel hereby approves of the Law Practice Mentor to this Agreement and the terms
and conditions herein.
DATED this _
day of _ _ 2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

STANLEY HUNTERTON, BAR COUNSEL

Nevada Bar No. 9861
Reno, Nevada 89521
595
The undersigned hereby certifies a copies of the foregoing Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendation after Formal Hearing for
Reinstatement to Active Status following a period of Disability Inactive Status
were placed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, in Reno, Nevada, addressed to
Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W 12th Street, Reno NV 89503. The document was
also served in electronic form to zachcoughlin@hotmail.com.
Dated on this
ZG,-ty of October, 2015.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
596
Case No: R115-0804
3
4
5
6
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
IN RE:
)
)

BAR NO. 9473
)
)
)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
) BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
) OBTAINED AFTER PRESENTATION OF
) EVIDENCE CONCLUDED IN HEARING
11
12
13
14
Respondent.
15
16
The State Bar of Nevada, through Assistant Bar Counsel, R. Kait Flocchini, requests
17
that the Hearing Panel reconsider its recommendation that Zachary Coughlin, Esq. 's
18
Nevada law license be reinstated to active status.
19
On August 25, 2015, the Panel concluded the receipt of evidence in this matter,
20
except for receiving Coughlin's proposed Reinstatement Plan. The Panel set a deadline
21
of November 15,2015, for submission of the Plan. The Panel informed Coughlin that upon
22
submission of the Plan it would reconvene at its earliest convenience On August 26,2015,
23
Coughlin submitted a Monitoring Plan to the Panel.
24
25
Thereafter, Coughlin filed multiple documents with the Nevada Supreme Court
attempting to undo its Order placing him on disability inactive status.
1
Coughlin made
597
misrepresentations in those filings. He also failed to properly serve the State Bar with the
documents filed in the Nevada Supreme Court matter and misrepresented his method of
service on the State Bar. Coughlin also misrepresented the Panel's statements in an e-
mail to Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini. Coughlin's actions evidence that he is still
unable to gauge what are the appropriate bounds of advocacy which violates Rule of
Professional Conduct ("RPC") 3.3 (Candor toward the tribunal) and RPC 8.4 (c) and (d)
(Misconduct).
Supreme Court Rule (USCR") 117 requires that the petitioning attorney show by clear
and convincing evidence that he is Ufit to resume the practice of law." Engaging in conduct
10
which violates the Rules of Professional Conduct is evidence that an attorney is not so fit.
11
The Applicable Rules of Professional Conduct
12
RPC 3.3 requires that "ra] lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact
13
or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
14
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
15
RPC 8.4 provides that U[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
16
17
18
(c) Engage
misrepresentation;
in
conduct
involving
dishonesty,
fraud,
deceit
or
(d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
19
Coughlin's Post-Hearing Conduct
20
On August 27, 2015- only two days after the Reinstatement Hearing- Coughlin
21
filed a Petition for Rehearing, or Motion to Set Aside Order Placing on Disability Inactive
22
Status Where no Hearing was Afforded Prior Thereto (Uthe Petition") with the Nevada
23
Supreme Court. 1 See Exhibit 1. Coughlin also e-mailed Assistant Bar Counsel Kait
24
25
1 Coughlin also filed a Personal Statement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office ofEnroIIment
and Discipline on August 27, 2015. The Personal Statement is very similar to the Petition, but it includes an analysis
598
Flocchini after this Panel's Recommendation was entered and misrepresented what
happened in the hearing.
A. The Petition
In the Petition he stated that at the August 25,2015 Hearing, the Panel affirmatively
stated its intent to recommend his reinstatement once he submitted the requested Plan.
See id. at 1:24-28, Exhibit 1. This is a misrepresentation of the Panel Chair's statements.
The Chair stated the Panel required "a bit more information from [Coughlin]" in the form of
a reinstatement plan.
(excerpted only) ("Hearing Transcript"), 182:5-9, Exhibit 3. The Chair set a deadline for
10
consideration of the plan and stated that after its submission "[t]his body will reconvene at
11
its earliest convenience ... and issue its order appropriate based upon the hearing today
12
as well as your proposed plan." Id. at 182:9-14, Exhibit 3; see also Id. at 182:22-24 (" ...
13
we will convene in a conference call, finalize our decision, and issue an appropriate order
14
as quickly as possible."), Exhibit 3.
See Transcript of August 25, 2015 Reinstatement Hearing
15
Coughlin's statement to the Nevada Supreme Court was a mischaracterization of
16
the Panel's intent which violates RPC 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and RPC 8.4(c)
17
(Misconduct: conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
18
Coughlin also affirmed to the Nevada Supreme Court that he had mailed (or e-
19
mailed) the Petition to David Clark at the State Bar's Las Vegas office. See Exhibit 1 at
20
pg.9. First, Coughlin knew on August 27,2015, that Mr. Clark was no longer Bar Counsel.
21
Second, the State Bar never received the Petition in the mail.
22
Sanchez-Gibson,
23
27, 2015. See Declaration of R. Kait Flocchini,
See Affidavit of Millie
3, Exhibit 4. Third, the Petition was not received bye-mail on August

~
3, Exhibit 5. Instead, Assistant Bar
24
25
of the Disability Petition as well. Compare Petition, pgs. 1-2,3-4,5-8, Exhibit 1 and Personal Statement (without
exhibits), pgs. 1-2, 5-6, 7-10, Exhibit 2.
599
Counsel Phillip Pattee received it bye-mail on September 12, 2015. See E-mail String,
dated September 12-14, 2015, Ex.hibit 6. Coughlin e-mailed the Petition to Pattee and
two people that Coughlin knew did not work at the Office of Bar Counsel any longer - Patrick
I
King and David Clark. See id. Coughlin knew that Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini
was handling this matter and he e-l11ailed documents to her on August 26, 2015. Yet, she
did not receive an e-mail from Coughlin regarding the Petition. See Declaration of R. Kait
Flocchini, 113, Exhibit 5.
Coughlin's affirmation of mailing (or e-mailing) was false. This is a violation of RPC
3.3 and RPC 8.4(c). Further, Couflhlin's attempt to e-mail former employees of the Office
I
10
of Bar Counsel and an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel, but not the Assistant Bar Counsel
11
handling his Reinstatement matter, is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Such

I
12
gamesmanship demonstrates that ICoughlin is not yet fit to resume the practice of law.
13
Finally, Coughlin filed a Supplemental Petition for Rehearing with the Nevada
14
Supreme Court on September 21, 4'015. See Supplemental Petition for Rehearing, Ex.hibit
15
7. He served this document on Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee again. See E-mail String,
I
16
dated September 21-22, 2015, I:xhibit 8.
17
rehashed, and elaborated on, the points in the Petition. Compare Exhibit 1, pg. 6, fn. 2
18
and Exhibit 7,4:16-26; compare also Exhibit 1,6:11-18 and Exhibit 7,12:11-14.
19
In the Supplemental Petition, Coughlin
B. Coughlin's E-mail
20
On October 30, 2015, Cou~~hlin e-mailed Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini to
21
request a stipulation to not contest the Panel's Recommendation so as to "make up the 30
22
days just lost to the Panel's taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion to
I
23
issue a Recommendation." See E-mail, dated October 30, 2015, Exhibit 9. Coughlin
I
24
asserted that the Panel Chair "indicated the hearing would conclude when I provided the
25
proposed monitoring plan to the PaneL" This assertion is directly contradicted by the Panel
4
600
Chair's statements that "if your submission is received tomorrow ... the panel will meet at
its earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude this matter." See Hearing Transcript,
189:8-14, Exhibit 3. The misrepresentation is particularly troubling when the Panel Chair
rejected Coughlin's assertion that the Panel's decision must be issued within 30 days of
August 25,2015. See id. at 187:14-191:10, Exhibit 3.
Coughlin's assertion in his October 30,2015 email is a misrepresentation of
what happened at the August 25, 2015 Hearing. This evidences that Coughlin fails to
understand the statements of a tribunal that do not match what he expects to hear or that
he fails to appreciate an attorney's obligation to make truthful statements. Either way, the
10
result is that, at best, his conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice. There is no
11
reason to believe that he will not engage in similar misconduct on behalf of clients if he is
12
allowed to resume practicing law.
13
Conclusion
14
It is easy to appreciate that Coughlin wants to resume practicing law as soon as
15
possible. However, his fitness to do so must be questioned in light of the means by which
16
he is attempting to get there. Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by making
17
overreaching misstatements and failing to serve documents is not the way to show that
18
one is fit to resume practicing law.
19
/II
20
21
/II
22
23
III
24
25
III
5
601
1
2
Based on the foregoing, the State Bar respectfully requests that the Panel
reconsider its recommendation that Coughlin be reinstated pursuant to SCR 117.
q~
DATED this
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

STANLEY
5
6
7
8
day of November, 2015.
c.: ~?~' BAR COUNSEL
BY:~)

Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
602
EXHIBIT LIST
2
3
Title
Exhibit No.
Petition for Rehearing, or Motion to Set Aside Order Placing on

Disability Inactive Status Where no Hearing was Afforded Prior
Thereto
Personal Statement
Transcript of August 25, 2015 Reinstatement Hearing (excerpted)
Affidavit of Millie Sanchez-Gibson
Declaration of R. Kait Flocchini, Esq.
E-mail String, dated September 12-14,2015
10
Supplemental Petition for Rehearing
11
12
E-mail, dated October 30, 2015
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
603
Motion for Reconsideration
Exhibit 1
604
2
3
4
5
6

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se
7
8
9
10
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Case No: 60975
11
12
13
14
15
PETITION FOR REHEARING, OR, MOTION TO SET

ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO
HEARING WAS AFFORDED PRIOR THERETO
16
17
18
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully submits the

above titled document.
19
20
21
22
Coughlin participated in a Disability Reinstatement Hearing before the

Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB) on 8/25/15. An excerpt from the
rough draft transcript provided by the court reporter of the conclusion of the
23
24
Reinstatement Hearing on 8/25/15 is attached as Exhibit 1. Such reveals the intent
25
of the NNDB to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license to practice
26
27
28
law to the Nevada Supreme Court given the Monitoring Plan Coughlin submitted
to the NNDB Panel on 8/26/15, which is attached at Exhibit 2.
MOTION TO SET ASlDE ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
WAS AFFORDED PRIOR THERETO
605
Supreme Court exercises its judgment independently concerning a

2
recommendation by Disciplinary Board with respect to an attorney's petition for
3
4
reinstatement, and Supreme court also independently reviews the entire record, but
it affords great weight to Disciplinary Board's findings of fact. In re Reinstatement
of Wiederholt, 182 P.3d 1047 (Alaska 2008).
8
9
10
11
12
While Court of Appeals must ultimately determine whether an attorney

meets the criteria for reinstatement after disbarment, the recommendations of the
Board on Professional Responsibility and the Hearing Committee are entitled to
great weight. In re Hollis, 968 A.2d 1037 (D.C. 2009).
13
14
15
16
The same qualified medical expert whose psychological evaluation issued

following his examination of Coughlin in July 2014 has now issued a Progress
Report based on his re-evaluating Coughlin in June 2015, which indicates he no
17
18
longer feels Coughlin is disabled, but rather, that Coughlin is now fit to practice
19
law. See Exhibit 3, Progress Report by Dr. Earl S. Nielsen, Ph.D.
20
21
22
23
The undersigned, Coughlin, is currently quite well and stable, and has been
so for an extended period of time. His capacity to practice law is illustrated by the
recent work he did in the attached filing representing himself before the Northern
24
25
Nevada Disciplinary Board. See, Exhibit 5, Coughlin's 8/21/15 Pre-Hearing Brief.
26
Please see, also, Exhibit 5, Letters of Recommendation from fellow attorneys
27
28
2
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
W AS AFFORDED PRIOR THERETO
606
The undersigned submits that it is likely the Nevada Supreme Court will
2
adopt the recommendation of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board and
3
4
5
6
reinstate Coughlin's license to practice law. However, given the extent to which
the Nevada Supreme Court is one of the very busiest state supreme courts in the
country, a final order from such reinstating Coughlin's license to practice law
9
10
11
12
could take quite some time to issue. Such would cause quite an economic and
personal hardship for Coughlin and make it exceedingly difficult for him to present
as a viable applicant for employment with another attorney or a law firm.
The undersigned respectfully requests that the Nevada Supreme Court set
13
aside the Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status or otherwise alter
14
15
16
such such that Coughlin could practice law pending the resolution of his
reinstatement proceeding.
17
18
Coughlin was never provided a hearing before anyone, not even a
19
disciplinary panel, much less the Nevada Supreme Court prior to his law license
20
21
22
23
(which is a property right under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus a hearing is
required prior to taking such from Coughlin) being placed on disability inactive
status, which is not a "temporary" designation in the sense that the failure to
24
25
26
provide a hearing before doing so could be justified.

The power of courts to disbar or otherwise discipline attorneys must be
27
28
exercised consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See
3
607
Schware v. Board of Bar Exam. ofN.M., 353 U.S. 232, 238, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1
2
L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). This means that the attorney must be afforded fair notice of
3
4
5
6
the charge and a meaningful opportunity to respond. See Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550,
88 S.Ct. 1222.
Similarly, see Exhibit 6, 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce showing attorney
7
8
9
fee award in divorce case assessed against attorney Coughlin personally (referred
to in disability petition) was set aside. Regardless, the various orders attached to
10
11
12
the disability petition are not "proof'l or evidence, as they would not be admissible
as such.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Determinations in prior proceedings. In some jurisdictions, a prior conviction of a criminal (NOTE:

most of the orders attached to the disability petition in Coughlin's case were not criminal case orders (ie, such as
the civil contempt order from the traffic citation trial and the attorney fee award in the divorce case), thus
different burdens of proof where utilized therein, as such, no offensive collateral estoppel could apply given the
clear and convicing burden in disciplinary matters ... that is if those orders were not set aside anyways, which they
were) offense may conclusively establish guilt of the offense charged in attorney disciplinary proceedings.[17]
Likewise, a foreign jurisdiction'S adjudication of guilt may be deemed conclusive proof of guilt of the attorney
misconduct charged.[18] The burden then falls upon the attorney to demonstrate why the foreign judgment is not
valid or why the state should not accept it and impose sanctions based thereon. [ 19] While a judgment in a civil
proceeding to which the respondent was a party may be conclusive that he or she performed particular acts
having particular civil consequences,[20] the result in the civil action is not conclusive in a disciplinary
proceeding in establishing that the respondent's conduct was such, under the circumstances, as justifies
disciplinary action.[21] Moreover, the issue of what discipline is appropriate is not concluded by a determination
in a prior proceeding, even when it is conclusive of misconduct on the part of the attorney.[ 22]
[FN17] N.J.-In re Boylan, 162 N.J. 289, 744 A.2d 158 (2000). Mass.-Matter ofConcemi, 422 Mass.
326,662 N.E.2d 1030 (1996). Consideration of underlying conduct not precluded A conviction does not
preclude consideration of the actual conduct itself for the purpose of determining the appropriate discipl ine to be
accorded an attorney. Ill.-In re Ciardelli, 118 Ill. 2d 233, 113 Ill. Dec. 94, 514 N.E.2d 1006 (1987). [FNI8] Fla.
-The Florida Bar v. Mogil, 763 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2000). Unsupported finding disregarded A finding by a board,
in an out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, that the respondent had charged an excessive fee would be
disregarded in a disciplinary proceeding within the state, where no basis for supporting the finding could be
found. Mo.-In re Weiner, 530 S.W.2d 222, 81 A.L.R.3d 1272 (Mo. 1975), supplemented, 547 S.W.2d 459
(Mo. 1977). Burden of showing infirmity of foreign proceeding The burden of showing that the respondent was
denied due process and that there was an infinnity of proof in the foreign disbarment proceeding is on the
accused attorney. Neb.-State ex reI. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Dineen, 235 Neb. 363,455 N.W.2d 178
(1990). [FNI9] 100. [FN20] Tenn.-Berke v. Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436 S.W.2d 296
(1968). [FN21] Iowa-Comrnittee on Professional Ethics v. Wright, 178 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1970). Tenn.Tennessee Bar Ass'n v. Berke, 48 Tenn. App. 140,344 S.W.2d 567 (1960). [FN22) Tenn.-Berke v.
Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436 S.W.2d 296 (1968).
4
608
While such August 2014 filing by Coughlin in 60975 could use a more
2
professional tone, it, and the exhibits attached to it (which include a 6/6/14 filing
3
4
5
6
by Coughlin in the disciplinary case that was dismissed in 62337) establish that
several of the orders referenced in the disability petition have been set aside. See
Coughlin's "additional response" (titled Notice of Non-Service, etc ... ) to the
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
disability petition of August 2014 and the 5/31/ 12 Disability Petition itself.
Because an attorn~ disciplinary proceeding is quasi-criminal in
nature, the Due Process Clause entitles the chargeCl attorney to adequate
advance notice of the charges, and the 0 ortun; to ect;vel res ond to
the char es and con ront and cross-ex mme witnesses. .. .A.
onst. men. . In re eters,.
Ir.
1).
As a general rule, in a proceeding to dIscipline an attorney, he or she
is entitled to a hearing, in connection with the charges filed therein, before
disciplinary action can be taken. Ark.-Ex parte Burton 237 Ark. 441,
373 S.W.2d 409 (1963). Fla.-The Florida Bar v. Fussell, i 79 So. 2d 852
(Fla. 1965).
A fundamental requisite of due process in a disciplinary proceeding
for suspension of an attorney is an opportunity to be heard at a meaningfUl
time and in a meaningful manner, WhICh is satisfied by the Qfovisions for
presuspension notice and a hearing, together with the availabilIty of
postsu~QensIOn reVIew. Mass.-In re Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d
15 (2002).
A license to practice law was a property rightprotected by the due
process clause oftlie Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.CA. Const.Amend. 14.
In re Gargano, 460 Mass. 1022,957 N.E.2d 235 (2011). A law license is a
property nght protected by state and federal constitutional right to
procedural Clue process. Ex parte Case, 2005 WL 2600214 (Ala. 2005).
Due process shown Lawyers received sufficient due process before
temporary suspensions, where each lawyer received notice of the grounds
for seeking his temporary suspension and was a orded both a hear;n
before a smgle justIce ofthe Supreme Judicial ourt, at w IC acts were
presented, and a hearin be ore the ull court prior to effectiveness of an
order directmg IS temporary suspenSIOn. ass.-Matter of Ellis, 425 Mass.
332,680 N.E.2d 11540997).
Appointment Of Counsel For Attorney Facing Disciplinary Charges,
86 A.L.R. 4Th 1071.
Coughlin was not appointed an attorney in the Nevada disability case.
Nevada Supreme Court Rule 117(2):
"PetItion to determine competency; notice ....
Upon the filing of such a petition, the court may take or
direct such action as it deems necessary to determine whether the
attorney is incapacitated, including referral of the matter to the
5
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DlSABlLITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
609
appropriate discip'linary board for hearing and recommendation

by a ,hearing panel or tlie examination of the attorney by qualified
medIcal experts.
If, ullon due consideration, the court concludes that the
attorney is-mcapacitated for the pl~ose of practicing law, it shall
enter an order transferring him or her to disability inactive status. Any
pending disciplinary proceeding or investigation against the attorney
shall be suspended.
The court shall provide for notice to the attorney as it deems
nec~ssary and may appoint counsel. to represent the attorney if he or
she IS wIthout adequafe representatIOn."
2
3
4
Coughlin was not provided with any representation and was not afforded a
7
8
hearing. It does not seem to be a settled point oflaw2 in Nevada whether SCR
10
117(2) requires a hearing prior to placing an attorney on disability inactive status.

Further, the State Bar and or Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board failed to
11
12
ever file a response of any sort to the two filings submitted by Coughlin in
13
14
response to the Disability Petition. Arguably, the failure by both to dispute the
15
contentions Coughlin made in such filings ought be deemed confessions of the
16
17
18
merit of such arguments against declaring him disabled. See DCR 13(3); NRAP
31(3)(d).
19
Validity and Construction of Procedures to Temporarily

Suspend Attorney from Practice, or Place Attorney on Inactive Status,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Nevada, SCR 102(4)(c) and (d), seem to support the position that a hearing is required before placing
Coughlin on disabilty inactive status, or at least an "immediate hearing" after so doing. "The practice of a
profession is, without question, a valuable property right, of which one cannot be arbitrarily deprived. State v.
Medical Examiners, 68 Nev. 455,235 P.2d 327 (1951). A state cannot exclude a person from the practice oflaw
without due process oflaw, as respondent readily concedes. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232,
77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). In this instance, however, the risk of erroneous deprivation is minimized by
the provisions ofSCR 102(4)(c) and (d). Under these rules, a temporarily suspended attorney is entitled to
continue his existing practice for a circumscribed time and may obtain an "immediate hearing" and prompt
resolution of the matter. The government public interest element is evident. The rule on its face only permits this
court to order temporary suspension ifthere are affidavits to support allegations that an attorney is causing "great
harm" by his actions; i.e., temporary suspension prior to a hearing is only warranted if "exigent circumstances"
exist. Cf. State ex reI. Sweikert v. Briare, 94 Nev. 752, 588 P.2d 542 (1978). We therefore conclude that the rule
is not unconstitutional on its face. We also are persuaded that sufficient exigent circumstances existed in this
case to justify dispensing with a pre-suspension hearing." Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 643 P.2d 120 I (Nev.
1982).
6
MOTION TO SET
ORDER
ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO

610
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pending Investigation of, and Action Upon, Disciplinary Charges, 80

A.L.R.4th 136 (1990 & Supp. 1995).
Despite construing a statute which provided that at any time
after charges were filed against an attorney a court had the power,
pending trial of the charges, to suspend the attorney, to include the
right to notice and a presuspension hearing, the court in the following
case nevertheless held that it was invalid as applied to an attorney who
was suspended without such notice and hearing.
The court in Laughlin v Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190,95 F2d
101 (applying District of Columbia law), while construing the statute
to include the right to notice and a presuspension hearing, held that it
was invalid as applied to an attorney who was suspended without
notice and a hearing.
Noting that the rule of general application was that all courts
had the power to punish attorneys as officers of the court for
misbehavior in the practice of the profession, but that in each instance
where an attorney was charged by affidavit with fraud or malpractice,
the court on motion would as a preliminary step order him to appear
and answer, and then deal with him as the facts might appear in the
case, the court said that the question in this case was whether to give
effect to a provision of the statute that would permit suspension
without any notice and hearing. To allow a suspension without notice
or a hearing would be contrary to one of the cardinal principles of the
administration of justice, that no man can be condemned or divested of
his rights until he has had the opportunity of being heard, the court
declared.
An attorney may be temporarily suspended without a presuspension hearing where the risk of erroneous deprivation is
minimized by provisions allowing the attorney to continue his or her
existing practice for a specified time and allow for immediate hearing
and prompt resolution of the matter. In re Lamm, 116 N.C. App. 382,
448 S.E.2d 125 (1994), decision affd, 341 N.C. 196,458 S.E.2d 921
(1995).
The right to practice law, once acquired, is a valuable right, and
an attorney cannot be deprived of that right except by the judgment of
a court of competent jurisdiction, after notice and full opportunity to
be heard in his own defense. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against
Sanai, 167 Wash. 2d 740,225 P.3d 203 (2009).
Failure to provide adequate opportunity to defend
7
611
2
3
4
5
6
Where there may have been a failure to provide a respondent

with an adequate opportunity to defend charges against him or her, in
order to avoid any actual or apparent deprivation of the respondent's
right to be heard, the state supreme court may remand the disciplinary
proceeding to the grievance board with a request that it cause a
hearing panel to conduct a further hearing in the case. Mich.-In re
Albert, 389 Mich. 153,206 N.W.2d 729. (NOTE: this has essentially
been done in Coughlin's case at this point, and the NNDB seems to
indicate it will recommend the reinstatement of Coughlin's law license
in the near future).
Dr. Nielsen's Progress Report based on a June 2015 re-evaluation of

9
10
11
Coughlin states he no longer finds Coughlin to be disabled for the purpose of

practicing iaw, just such newly acquired evidence.
12
13
Newly discovered evidence Ky.-In re Stone, 334 S.W.2d 351 (Ky. 1960).
14
In Conclusion, Coughlin respectfully requests the Nevada Supreme Court
15
16
17
take him off disability inactive status at this time, or at least, temporarily reinstate
him pending the resolution of his recent reinstatement hearing, referenced, supra.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27


Petitioner
28
8
612
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
copy of this PETITION FOR REHEARING. OR. MOTION TO SET ASIDE
ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO
HEARING WAS AFFORDED PRIOR THERETO upon the following by mailing
it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
DA VID CLARK, ESQ.
BAR COUNSEL
3100 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
11
12
13

Petitioner
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DlSABlLlTY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
613
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
3
4
5
6
Exhibit 1: Excerpt from Rough Draft Transcript of Conclusion of Reinstatement

Hearing of 8/25/15
Exhibit 2: Monitoring Plan Submitted to Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board on
8/26/15.
Exhibit 3: 8/13/15 Progress Report by Dr. Earl S. Nielsen, Ph.D.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Exhibit 4: Example of Coughlin's recent work product in representing himself

before NNDB in Disability Reinstatement Hearing
Exhibit 5: Letters of Recommendation from fellow attorneys
Exhibit 6: 6119/09 Finai Decree of Divorce showing attorney fee award in divorce
case assessed against attorney Coughlin personally (referred to in disability
petition) was set aside
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
MOTION TO SET ASiDE ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
614
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
615
Excerpt from RI15-0804 In Re Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. Disability Reinstatement Hearing

before Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel on Tuesday, August 25,2015
MS. JENKINS: Back on the record at 4:12 P.M. the panel has considered the testimony today
and the evidence that was presented, and in very short order came to unanimity about how to address
the circumstances presented in thc petition. First, we considered at great length rule 117 and our charge,
and we found that there was a great deal of evidence that was very pertinent to our deliberations today.
What the panel has determined is that we need a bit more information from you, sir, and that is we
would like to request and give you a reasonable opportunity to propose a reinstatement plan to this
panel before it issues its opinion.
And that reinstatement plan will be due no later than November 15th. This body will reconvene
at its earliest convenience, no reason to delay, and issue its order appropriate based upon the hearing
today as well as your proposed plan. And that plan should be submitted to me as the panel chair and to
Ms. Flocchini. If the proposed plan that you send to us meets the directive that I'm about to give to you,
I'll submit it to the remaining panel members. I'm going to send it to them anyway either way, but with
my determination about whether it meets or does not meet the detailed outline that I'm going to give to
you right now.
And if it does meet the outline, we will convene in a conference call, finalize our decision, and
issue an appropriate order as quickly as possible. I'm hoping to have it all done well before the
Thanksgiving holiday, because I have plans. :rvluch, lTIuch incentive there. \X/e \vould like to hear from
you your ideas about your reinstatement, removal of your disability status, and your return to the
practice oflaw in the following areas:
Number one. Your plan to obtain and determine an appropriate attorney within the 12-step
program to be your sobriety mentor. That's in addition to any sponsor you may have in addition to any
colleague that you might have supporting your sobriety. But an attorney in the program who will agree
to work with you for a two-year period. We would also like for you to identify an attorney who will
mentor you in your law practice in Nevada for that same two-year period. And we will ask those
attorney mentors to work with you closely and support your success and report by letter or email for
that two-year period on a quarterly basis reporting challenges and successes, and they must have been
active in the practice of law for not less than 15 years. Because we feel like having a much more
experienced attorney is not going to let anybody get away with anything, and is going to be able to see
through an awful lot of shenanigans, talking the talk but not walking the walk. So those people we're
asking to report quarterly to the Bar about your progress.
We want to hear from you your plan to attend three meetings a week, as well as an additional
three hours a week with a sponsor or equivalent in the 12-step program that's separate from your
mentor. So adding people to your support network is critical.
We would like your plan to include your ability and your steps toward obtaining independent
therapeutic counseling of not less than twice per month for that two-year period. Someone you're
comfortable with who is licensed in some way. That means while we have testimony that it may not be
a psychologist or a psychiatrist, whatever, an MFT would be fine, but we prefer that it not be a religious
practitioner or some other counselor. We're talking about mental health counseling.
We would like for you to submit to and include in your mentors, who are attorneys, that they
can request that the Bar request your alcohol or drug counseling, as well as the State Bar doing it based
upon any reports or concerns that the State Bar might have.
MR. LOW: You said drug counseling. You mean drug testing.
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. Alcohol and drug testing. We would like to have in your
reinstatement plan how you might achieve that. Pay for it, what have you.
And then we would like for you to identify more substantively in this plan where you hope to
practice? How are you going to support yourself until a practice brings you the financial compensation
required to support yourself?
Identify what triggers there are in your life that cause you to be
616
either stressed or to want to return to alcohol or substance abuse. And frankly, we want your plan to
include any other information that you think is going to be critical. Not helpful. Not interesting. Critical
to the panel's determination that your plan is a plan for success .....
(CONCLUSION OF HEARING)
617
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
618
1
2
3
4

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
12
13
Case No: RI15-0804
Petitioner
14
15
16
MONITORING PLAN
17

18
19
20

1.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
and support my success and report to either the Bar, the PaneIINNDB, or both, by
and successes.
28
MONITORING PLAN
619
2.
2
3
4
either the Bar, the PanelINNDB, or both, by letter or email for that two-year period
8
9

10
11
12
additional three hours a week with a sponsor (currently Miles Warsh, whom
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
620
2
4
5
6

10
11
12

13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

7. I have identified as other infonnation that may be critical to the Panel's
detennination that this plan is a plan for success the following: I am very
24
25
26
27
28
and actions.
MONITORING PLAN
621
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
VERlFICATION/DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

hereby declare that ail assertions I have made herein are tnle and correct to the best
14
Dated this August 26 t\ 2015,
15
16
17

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
622
2
3
copy of this MONITORING PLAN upon the following by mailing it by first class
mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

and to
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14

Petitioner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MONITORING PLAN
623
-------------------------
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
624
..--_ _------~------------- EARL S. NIELSEN, PHD.

8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB: 9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE NAME: In the Mattera/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Respondent
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
for a Psychological Evaluation to assess the extent to which Mr. Coughlin" ... suffered
a mental infirmity, illness, or addiction" which interfered with his competency to
alcoholic with recent remission, and a past opiOid addiction in full remission, and
sufficient resource for Mr. Coughlin's needs. He needs ongoing access to a
quality psychia.trist for medication management, and an opportunity to
supercede anyone's authority. Based on existing rule and law, the Bar
834 WILLOW ST.

RENO, NV 89502 (775) 323-6766 FAX (775) 323-2716 esnphd@hushmaiJ.com
'----NEVADA LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST PY099
(;0
39'i1d
JINIlJ SHI GJI'J
P(;08-U:S-SLL
625
-2In June 2015; Mr. Coughlin contacted me and asked me to review his
progress. I explained that 1 could do so without further psychological testing, but I
On June 26,2015 I met with Mr. Coughlin in my Reno office. He explained he
January, 2015 he moved to San Diego where he obtained work as a painter's
counseling with Bill Martin, MPT on a twice weekly basis. He was also seen weekly
by Charlie Hoar, Ed.D. MFT. In June, MediCal rejected Mr. Coughlin's use of two
and Tim Coughlin, Mr. Coughlin's father.
Mr. Martin was able to confirm Mr. Coughlin's abstinence and his frequent AA
attendance. He was impressed with Mr. Coughlin's consistency and persistence, and
perceived growth in multiple areas. He was able to document Mr. Coughlin's
improved insight and commitment to change, which he attributed to Mr. Coughlin's
abstinence from alcohol. Mr. Martin believes that Mr. Coughlin's participation in AA
Dr. Hoar acknowledged her limited contacts with Mr. Coughlin. Dr. Hoar's
techniques. She incorporated AA's Twelve Step Program, but emphasized character
issues and personality grov'lfth. She, too, identified positive changes in Mr. Coughlin.
Finally, I had a pleasant but candid conversation with Mr. Coughlin's father.
I described Mr. Coughlin's frustration and disappointment with his father which had
he, too, has been impressed with his son's commitment to take responsibility for his
family recently Visited San Diego for a vacation. Dr. Coughlin was touched by his
son's openness and his ability to initiate emotion filled apologies to family members
he had injured in the past (his father; his step~mother; and his 16 year old stepsister).
E0
39\;;1d
:)INIl:) SHI G:)W
p(;08-(;E9-9LL
626
Mr. Coughlin also supplied me with extensive medical and counseling

records. Those records document Mr. Coughlin's substantial efforts to stay sober,
Among the people I interViewed, Mr. Coughlin has successfully formed a
chalJenges without giving up.
longer believe he is disabled. Mr. Coughlin has also asked in can support his
reinstatement.
remarkable. If the Nevada Bar accepts his request for reinstatement, l would
strongly recommend a dearly structured probationary period to include random
AA attendance records with a minimum of three meetings per week Weekly
hope this response is sufficient, but ifmore is needed, please contact me. I will be
morning of the 25 th [f needed, I can be contacted by cell phone that morning
RespectfuJly Submitted.
P0
39\;;id
::lINIl::l SHI G::lW
p(,;08-(,;E9-9LL
627
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
628
1
2
3
4

945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 9496677402, ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Case No: RI15-0804

Petitioner
12
13
14
15
16
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
17

18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
629
2
3
4

Masochistic Traits.
8
9
10
11
Based on such evaiuation of Coughlin, Dr. Nielsen will tt:stify that he then
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
Coughlinfs case that included a face-to-face interview, opportunity to review the
24
25
26
27
28
630
2
4
5
6

8
9

10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
has been removed and that he or she is fit to resume the practice oflaw,
27
28
remarkable.
3
PRE-HEARING BRlEF
631

2
3
I.


5

6
7
8
state and continuing mental health issues. Now, the same Dr. Nielsen l
10
11
fit to resume the practice oflaw.
12

13

14

15
evidence that Coughlin has satisfied the requirements of SCR 117 (4)-( 5)2.
16
17

18

19
20

21
22
23

SCR 117(4).
An
24
25
26
27
28
2 (which the Nevada Supreme Court has mled is all Coughlin must do to have his license to
4
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
632
2
and convincing evidence that the attorney's disabilifJl has been removed and
that he or she is fit to resume the practice of law ... The panel may direct that the
attorney establish competence and learning in lawJ. ... "
...
10
ofthe practice Qflaw will not be detrimental to the integrifJl and standing ofthe
11
bar. to the administration ofjustice. or to the public interest.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
despite the dictate against doing so found in SCR 117(2)4.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
633

2
10
11
SCR 105. 6
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
status is not under "any form of suspension". ("5. Publication of supreme court orders. The
attorney to any form of public reprimand, suspension or disbarment, that transfers an
reinstates an attorney to the practice oflaw to be published ... ". That "or" makes clear being
deposit; of $1 ,000 with his SCR 117(4) Reinstatement Petition, nor may his "reinstatement
injured by the petitioner's misconduct, or allV further conditions deemed appropriate bv the
panel... " as SCR 116(4)-(5) allows for such to be applied only to a "suspended attorney"
Indeed, SCR 117(4) prevents one from even inquiring into if there are any monitoring
634
As such SCR 102.5(2)(i)(1-4) simply do not come into play here, and, in
2
expressly and clearly departs from SCR 116(2) and SCR 102.5(2)(i)(1-4) and
102.5(2)(m).7
lOa disciplinary suspension) will require he address any alleged misconduct,

11
12
13
14
15
16
thereof.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 SCR 102.5 ." mitigation .... mitigating circumstances may be considered in deciding what
when:
( 1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by chemical dependency or
(3) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is
demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of success fill rehabilitation; and
unlikely; ...
(m) remorse;
7
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
635
2
which must be addressed in an SCR 117(4) hearing, much less to add to that the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ex pmie, unless the undersigned is unaware of a rule or practice allowing for such
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
636

2
attempt to have Dr. Nielsen testify as to what some recommendations he may have for
given an opportunity to be heard in that regard), and a hearing to determine whether to
10
11

Indeed, Coughlin is not currently sllspended from the practice of law in Nevada.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
approach).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner
comply. An attorney barred from the active practice of law, whether by disbannent,
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
637
2
3
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

5
and to
10
12
geofur@att.net
13
14
15
16
17

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
638
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
Exhibit 1, Certificates for lO4.5 Hours of CLE Completed four (4) pages
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
639
------
-------
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
640
Avoiding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims' An Expert's Perspective
NEVADA (NV)
3.00
Legal Ethlcs:3.00
COURSE NAME
CERTIFIED STATE
Bankruptcy Basics for the Non-8ankruptcy Lawyer
CREDIT HOURS
NEVADA (NV)
CERTIFICATE DATE
100
ACTIONS
6 Steps to Improved Cilent Relationships and CommtJnlcaHons

NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
100
7 Steps for legal Holds: Avoiding Malprnclice and Jail!
NEVADA (NV)
Behind the Cloud and How it Can Be Used in the legal Industry
1.SO
NEVADA (NV)
100
A Guide to IP Protection in the EU for U,S Attorneys
NEVADA (NV)
100
Business Valuation: Theory. Application, Controversies. Recent Developments & Errors
2015{)816
NEVADA (NV)
5.SO
A legal Primer on Nonprofit Law
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Cause Marketing' Special Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For Charities
NEVADA (NV)
100
201S.Q8-14
NEVADA INV}
100
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
NEVADA (NV)
100
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for Non-Bankruptcy Attomeys

NEVADA (NV)
100
2015-08-16
Asset Protectkln Planning

NEVADA (NV)
100
Choice of Entity
NEVADA (NV)
2015-Q8.16
2.00
Or:I:oo Con!Irung Legal Edu;3Iloo fa- Atlaneys _ elf! MCLE
OnilneCCIlIJ"-'rfJLega! Edocm!rofor Attaoeys-CLE I MCLE
1 00
Legal Ethics:HlO
Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses Do You Want to Take This PI Case?
NEVADA (NV)
3.00
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
Legal Elhics:1.00
Collections Law
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
legal Ethics:1.00
Common Issues When Ucensing Intellectual Property

NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-14
Common Sensa Rules of Trial Advocacy
NEVADA (NV)
2.SO
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1 00

NEVADA (NV)
EthiCS in a Web 2,0 World
100
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:H)Q
2015-0818
NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
2015..Q8-18
1.00
legal Ethics. 1 00
Digital Citizenship in Schools: From Policy to Practlce

NEVADA (NV)
100
Federal Rule 26. Expert Reports

NEVADA (NV)
100
2015..Q818
eDiscovery
NEVADA (NV)
100
Foreign Investment In U S. Rea! Estate

NEVADA (NV)
100
Ellminating Biases You Never Knew You Had
NEVADA (NVI
Forensic Document Examination and The law
641
8..'20'<'015
Bl2tY2015
NEVADA (NV)
3<50
NEVADA (NV)
100
Fundamentals of Antitrust LltlgaUon
NEVADA (NV)
,<00
Independent ContractorfEmployee Distinctions: Help Clients (And Your Firm) Minimize Uability
NEVADA (NV)
100
Gelling Paid and Slaying Out of Trouble
NEVADA (NV)
100
Legal Elhics:tOO
Indian Gaming; Shared Sovereignty & Tribal Self-Government

NEVADA (NV)
100
Honesty is Best Policy How Far Can You Go in Negotiations
NEVADA (NV)
HlO
Legal Eth!Cs'1 00

NEVADA (NV)
100
Inebriation, Intervention and Insight A Trial Lawyer Finds His Soul

NEVADA (NV)
1,00
Substance Abuse:1 00

NEVADA (NV)
100
How to AVOid Legal Malpractice Claims
NEVADA (NV)
100
Legal Aspects of Forensic Document EXamlnalion

NEVADA (NV)
100
How to Handle Cases With High Media Attention

NEVADA (NV)
Legal Considerat!OnS for Marijuana Businesses
,<00
NEVADA (NV)
UO
How To Prepare Your Cfient for Deposition
NEVADA (N'l)
I ~I Flhk:!; (,;iv!!lty;mn 7MloUB Representation
100
NEVADA (NV)
1 00
I Think I Just Received eDiscovmy: What Now?
NEVADA (NV)
100
Legal Eth{cs,1,{X}
Legal Writing Tips for Advanced Practllioners

NEVADA (NV)
100
2015-D818
litigation in the 21st Century

NEVADA (NV)
100
Mediation Techniques for LiUgators

NEVADA (NV)
100
Practical Ethics: AVOIding Trouole with Clients, Courts and the State Bar
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
Legal Ethlcs:1 00
Pr&lmmigratlon Income Tax Planning

NEVADA (NV)
100
Med;cal and Scientific EvidenCe Used io DUi and Drug Cases
NEVADA (NV)
100
Principla Considerations When Handllng a Divorce Case

NEVADA (NV)
,<00
Moving the Judge from DrtJdgery to Persuasion
NEVADA {NV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
100
Online Security and Risk Basics for Attomeys
NEVADA (NV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
100
ProtecHng Your CHent Against Civil and Cnminal Uabihty for Trust Taxes
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
PersonallnjUlY: A Detailed Examination of liability, Damages and Collectibility
NEVADA (NV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
200
Personal Injury' UabiHly, Damages & CoUeclibilily
NEVADA (NV)
100
SharePoint: Legal DiscoYery & Dala Stomge Issues

NEVADA (NV)
100
Persuasion, The Dangers of Over-Aggressive Lawyenng
NEVADA INV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
642
8.'21Y2tJ15
1.00
OnIII1eCcrlirunglhJa' Edu:atlonkr AttaaJYs- CLEjMCLE
Substance Abuse:too
NEVADA (NV)
100
Structuring lntemational Joint Ventures
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
1 00
legal Ethics, tOO

NEVADA (NV)
The Umilalions of Persuasion: Know Them and Use Them
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
Substance Abuse:tOO
tOO
Take Five: Edifying and Educalfonal Ethical Exampjes
NEVADA (NV)
The Six Minute Closing: SeI!ing Big Cases In UWe Time
100
NEVADA (NV)
legal Elhics:1,0Q
100
Tax Issues for Attomeys and Law Firms
NEVADA (NV)
1.00

NEVADA (NV)
100
legal Ethics:1.00
Tax Refunds from Poozi Scheme Losses

NEVADA (NV)
Understanding the Impact of Culture and Gender 10 Help Eliminate Bias
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
legal Ethics.too

NEVADA (NV)
United States Taxation of Foreign InvestOfS
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
1DO
NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
15()
Valuing a Business
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
w., !!www.auaneycredil$.eomllllsetCensplw?

NEVADA (NV)
1DO
When Blas Tums to Bullying: Strategies for Dealing with High Conflict People
NEVADA (NV)
1 00
legal Ethics 1.00
Winning on Appeal
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Working wJth Experts

NEVADA (NV)
2.00
legal Ethics:1 00

NEVADA (NV)
15()
643
644
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
645

(619) 895-2589
mbrennan34@cox.net
August 11, 2015
State Har of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89102
Re:
I am an attorney licenced in California in good standing since 2006. I am also the point of
lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals supporting each other in recovery from substance
abuse. In this capacity, T also attend weekly meetings of the Other Bar in the San Diego area as I
have done for the past 12 years when I commenced law school.
I have known Zach Coughlin through my involvement with the Other Bar where he has
attended our weekly meetings on numerous occasions. During the course my interactions with
Zach Coughlin, I have never doubted his sincerity in fully applying hi.mself to making the necessary
changes in his life. He has been forthright and honest with all members of our group, and I have
never entertained the thought that he was 110t stable in his present commitment to recovery. Rather,
Mr. Coughlin has demonstrated insight into his recovety and acquired knowledge to prevent
recurrence of some past poor decisions. He has consistently maintained his cotnmitment to overall
mental and physical health, despite the challenges in his life.
T have 110 reservations about endorsing Mr. Coughlin's character and his reinstatement:.
Sincerely yours,
Moira S. Brennan
646
WILLIAM M. HENRICH
A.ITORNEY A.T LAW

(858) 576-4484
August 10, 2015

problem associating Zach as co-counselor trusting him with client confidences should the
William M. Henrich
647
BERNARD M. HANSEN
Attorney at Law

(619) 283-3371
bernan.lmhansen@sbcglobal.net
August 13,2015
State Bar of Nevada
3100 W. Charleston Blvd..
Las Vegas. NV 89102
100
Petition for Reinstatement by Zach Coughlin

Dear
or Madam:
Since 2009. I have regularly attended the Other Bar l'uesday Night Meeting in
State, dedicated to assisting others within the profession \VllO are suffering from alcohol
Perhaps I
become too jaded. but I do not blindly believe that a new attendee
This includes trying to finagle a letter of
supp0l1. When I met Zach at the beginning of this year at the Tuesday night meeting. 1
at our meeting is \vithout secondary
As I listened to
over the months, it became apparent that the message of the
need to live a psychologically healthy me was permeating into his brain. \Vhen he shared,
gave specific examples
he was wrestling with and what he was doing to
cope.
However, one never

what another is truly thinking. Then, I saw Zack at
other 12-step meetings around town. Meetings where there could be no temptation to
solicit any member for a letter of support. Zach was there because he wanted (and
My personal experience with Zack leads me to believe that he can be a caring and
effective advocate for others and this Honorable Bar should look kindly on his
EMHi
648
Damian Sinnott
576 Ridge Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 376-8378
dsinnott.esq!lJjgmail.com
August 21, 2015
State Bar of Nevada
I have lived in Northern Nevada most of my life. My wife and I have lived in Reno for the past 6 years
and j ust started a family here. I am a practicing attorney licensed both here and in California. Currently,
I work for the Lyon County District Attorney's Office as a Deputy District Attorney; I have been so
possible because I am sober. I take my sobriety very seriously.
Zach and I met when I first started in recovery. I believe at that time Zach was already in some legal
trouble, but I was not sure exactly what was going on. Over the course of the next three years, I got to
know a bit more about Zach's story and his addiction issues.
While I have seen Zach in meetings and talked to him on and off over the years, I have recently seen an
incredible ameliorative change in him. Now I see someone who is taking responsibility for his actions,
facets of his life.
As an attorney in Nevada, I feel confident that Zach would be an upstanding member of the Nevada Bar.
He has many attributes that lend themselves to being a great attorney. I have reviewed some ofZachfs
that he is now fit to resume the practice oflaw without any further demonstration of his competency or
learning in the law. As a recovering alcoholic myself~ I am confident that Zach is committed to his
recovery. This is evidenced by his continued dedication to sobriety. As Zach's friend, I am happy that he
is getting a handle on his addiction problems. I have seen and heard the change in his attitude and his
outlook.
I highly recommend reinstatement in the Nevada Bar Association for Zach Coughlin. Feel free to
contact me for more infonnation or with any questions.
Sio:~
Damian Sinnott, Esq.
649
August 19, 2015

State Bar of Nevada
Las
, NV 89102
SUBJECT: Zach Coughlin Petition for Reinstatement
My name is Lt. Theresa Donnelly, and I'm a public affairs
officer in the U.S. Navy. My duties, among others, are to
provide cowlsel to senior prin
the Navy's
mes
for m11i
ions and hurnani tar ian relief
efforts. As a
communicator, I must make critical decisions
rega
one's intent and motivation when interact
with
others.
I have known Zach
lin since December 014 when I met
him in a recovery program. From the start, I sensed
kindred
:'030ul and like myself dedicated to ovex;coming setbacks. He J s
demonstrated himself as a
friend, a trusted adviser,
and his
ial and growth has been amazing to witness. I'm
ful
confidont he's committed to making substantial
s in
his life and will one
make a
contribution to the
1egal community. As a testament to his charact,er, he helped me
needs
accompanying me on nurnerous medical
and assist
with a
therapy program for
him. lIe is the person I turn to when I need d support ve ear,
and I know he's there for me in my times of need.
I have
faith and confidence in Mr.
character and
. If you hdvc additional
be reached at (808)-388-3423.
in's
can
Sincere y,
Donnelly
Public Affairs Officer
United States
650

R92 Camino Del Sur, Isla Vista
phoncR05-96R-2620
Is!aVistaUMC(((;gmail.com
August 20,2015
our music ministry as well as our hospitality ministry until the early part of2015.
Respectfully,
651
8/26/2015
Zachary Coughlin
Miles (mwarsh66@gmail.com)
Mon 8/24/15 11:02 PM
Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
To whom it may concern,

The purpose of this letter is to testify to the significant progress that has been made by
Zachary in the time I have known him. My name is Miles Warsh and I sponsor Zachary in an
anonymous twelve step recovery program. My recovery date is February 11, 2007. I have been
active in my recovery continuously since that time. I met Zachary in early January, 2015 and
invited him to accompany me to a meeting the next day. He came and after the meeting we
sooke for a lona time. hours. I learned that Zachary had been attendinq meetinqs for some
time. After our initial meeting we began to meet regularly, at least once per week, and Zachary
began to work the twelve steps with me. The twelve steps of recovery are a set of principles,
spiritual in nature, which if practiced as a way of life, dispels the obsession to use drugs and
alcohol and renders a person usefully and happily whole. This is an account of my experience
with Zachary. When I first met Zach I liked him. Although he was a bit jittery and detached at
times ( most of us are in early recovery) it was evident that Zach was sincere in his desire to
change his situation and honest in sharing his thoughts and feelings with me. We commenced
on his step work right away. Zach has been active in his recovery. He has admitted his
difficulties to himself and me, identified his part in the trying situations he has ended up in (as
the whole part), begun to make restitution to the best of his ability and has adopted the
tenants of the twelve steps in his actions and responses in daily life. I have had the good
fortune to walk with Zach on this path and witness his progress. I identity progress as moving
from less to more, less negativity to more abundance. Zach has become employed, improved
his living situation, repaired his relationships with family friends and colleagues. Zach has
created new and meaningful relationships with other men in recovery, has become a useful
and integral part of something much greater than himself. The recovery community benefits
from Zach being a part of. Zach is very intelligent, thoughtful, funny and has become very
engaging. It is my opinion that Zach has done his work diligently. We are now on step twelve
where Zach will carry the message of recovery and hope to others. I enjoy what Zach adds to
my recovery and my family. Zach is a transformed encouraged man today. I am proud to have
him as my peer. As a matter of continued progress, I ask you please consider his reinstatement
as Zach has a great deal to offer any community he may participate in. Zach truly desires to
practice law and has worked hard to fit himself to be of service to anyone who is blessed to
make his acquaintance. Thank you for considering this testament, respectfully submitted on
behalf of my dear friend, Mr. Zachary Coughlin.
Miles Warsh. Sent from my iPhone
-I
. . J '
_ _
https:llbay176.mail.live.com/oi/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1/2
652
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
653
...
F I LED
2
3
4
Electronically
06-19-2009:09:57:23 AM
Howard W. Conyers
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 846216
CODE: 1745
JOHN P. SPRINGGATE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar #1350
203 South Arlington Avenue
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.323.8881
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
IN THE FAMIL Y DIVISION
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

*****
8
9
ASHWIN JOSHI,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
BHARTI JOSHI,
13
CASE NO.: DV08-01168

DEPT. NO.: 14
Defendant.
14
15
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND DECREE OF DIVORCE
16
17
The above-entitled matter came on for trial before this Court on March 11, 2009 and
18
March 12,2009. ASHWIN JOSHI, Plaintiff, was present and represented by his counsel, JOHN
19
P. SPRINGGATE, ESQ. BHARTI JOSHI, Defendant, was present and represented by her
20
counsel, ZACH COUGHLIN, ESQ. The Court issued its Order After Trial which was tiled on
21
April 13,2009.
22
23
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Nevada, and for a period of more than six (6)
24
weeks before commencement of this action has resided and been physically present and domiciled
25
in the State of Nevada.
26
2.
Defendant is a resident of the State of Nevada, and for a period of more than six
27
(6) weeks before commencement of this action has resided and been physically present and
28
domiciled in the State of Nevada.
654
3.
2
Plaintiff and Defendant were married on May II, 1987 in Bombay, India, and ever
since that date have been, and now are, Husband and Wife.
4.
There are two children of this marriage, both of whom are now adults.
5.
Defendant is not pregnant at this time.
6.
Plaintiff and Defendant have become, and continue to be, incompatible in
marriage, and no reconciliation is possible.
7.
The current address of Plaintiff is 1644 Fieldcrest Drive, Sparks, NV 89434.
8.
The current address of Defendant is 260 Booth Street, Apt. Q, Reno, NV 89509.
9.
The Court adopts, as Findings of Fact, each and every Conclusion of Law below,
10
which by this reference are expressly incorporated herein.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
JURISDICTION. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff and Defendant, and of
the subject matter herein.

2.
GROUNDS. Plaintiff is entitled to a Decree of Divorce from Defendant on the
grounds of incompatibility.
3.
CHILD SUPPORT/ADULT CHILDREN'S EDUCATION. Mr Joshi will not be
held responsible for the continuing education of the adult children of this marriage.
18
4.
COMMUNITY PROPERTY IDEBT.
19
A)
Women's Wealth: The "women's wealth" at issue herein is the sole and separate
20
property of the Defendant. Plaintiff is to contact any and all relatives who may
21
have this property and immediately ask them to return said property to the
22
Defendant as soon as possible.
23
B)
Mr. Joshi's Vehicle: The 2005 Chevrolet Blazer shall be considered as Plaintiffs
24
sole and separate property and Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debt remaining
25
thereon. Since the car is worth about $10,910.00 and there is $15,009.75 due and
26
owing on the vehicle, Mr. Joshi's assumption of this asset is to be considered as
27
an undertaking of community debt of approximately $4,100.00.
28
-2-
655
C)
Ms. Joshi's Vehicle: Ms. Joshi's car shall be considered as her sole and separate
property and she shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon. Since no
evidence was presented to the Court as to the value of the auto, either positive or
negative, there is no value for this community asset.
D)
Son's Vehicle: This vehicle is not considered as an asset and will not be divided
among the community.
E)
Daughter's Vehicls;: This vehicle is not considered as an asset and will not be
divided among the community.
F)
10
London Bank Account: There is no factual basis to support that this account exists
and therefore it is not being considered a community asset.
11
G)
Community Bank Accounts: There is no factual basis to support that community
12
bank accounts exist and therefore the same is not being considered a community
13
asset.
14
H)
15
Computer: The computer which was purchased at Best Buy is awarded to Mr

Joshi.
16
I)
Television: Ms. Joshi is awarded the television which was purchased at Best Buy.
17
Said television is currently in Ms. Joshi's possession and shall be deemed her sole
18
and separate property.
19
J)
General Credit Card Debt: There is general debt of approximately $15,650,00
20
which has been expended for community purposes. Mr. Joshi has agreed to be
21
responsible for this debt and the same shall be considered as his sole and separate
22
responsibility.
23
K)
Best Buy Credit Card Debt: There is an approximately balance of $1,314.00
24
outstanding for the purchase ofthe television and computer. Mr. Joshi has agreed
25
to be responsible for this debt and the same shall be considered as his sole and
26
separate responsibility,
27
III
28
III
-3-
656
L)
Medical Debt: There is a debt due to St. Mary's Hospital for $6,735.00 and a debt to
REM SA for $500.00. Mr. Joshi has agreed to be responsible for these debts and the
same shall be considered as his sole and separate responsibility.

M)
Family Debt: There is a debt due to Ashik Nanaby and a $5,000.00 debt due to Rod
and Meena Fowler. Mr. Joshi has agreed to be responsible for these debts and the

N)
General Community Debt: There was no evidence to establish community debt. Mr.
Joshi agreed to take the remaining community debt in his name that is outstanding
and the debt shall be his sole and separate responsibility. It should be noted that Mr.
10
Joshi has likely incurred an unequal distribution of the community debt of the parties
11
and the Court finds his testimony to be a compelling reason for making an unequal
12
distribution ofthe community debt.
5.
13
Spousal Support: The Court has found that Mr. Joshi is 51 and Ms. Joshi is 46; the
14
parties earn roughly equivalent amounts; the parties have been married 21 years but Ms. Joshi has
15
always been employed during that time; Ms. Joshi has a college degree; both parties are able to
16
work; and after consideration ofthe net income, deduction of taxes, and the amount paid in
17
community debt by Mr. Joshi, an award of alimony in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) shall be
18
awarded to Ms. Joshi pursuant to NRS 125.150, Woljfv. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355,929 P.2d 196, and
19
Shydler v. Shydler, 194 Nev. 192, 196,954 P.2d 37,39 (1988).
20
III
21
/1/
22
1/1
23
1//
24
25
26
27
28
///
//1
III
III
//1
-4-
657
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE OF DIVORCE

2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 1.
Plaintiff, ASHWIN JOSHI be, and he is, tinally and absolutely divorced from Defendant,
BHARTI JOSHI, and that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between Plaintiff ASHWIN
JOSHI, and Defendant, BHARTI JOSHI, be, and they hereby are, dissolved, and the parties hereto
are restored to the status of single and unmarried persons.
2.
There Defendant's name shall be restored to that ofBHARTI R. DAVE.
3.
The matter, as set forthin the preceding Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Decree of Divorce, is hereby ratified, adopted, and approved, and the parties are
9
10
Ordered to comply with the terms of such.
11
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
~~
June~, 2009.
14
15
16
Lin
M. Gardner
District Court Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
658
Exhibit 2
659

2 945 W. 12th St.
3 Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
5 Pro Se
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6
1
OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT AND DISCIPLINE
8
9
10
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
11
Case No: G2676
12
13
14
15
PERSONAL STATEMENT
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERSONAL STATEMENT
660

2
recOlmnendation by Disciplinary Board with respect to an attorney's petition for
3
4
of Wiederholt, 182 PJd 1047 (Alaska 2008).
The recommendations of the Board on Professional Responsibility and the
Hearing Committee are entitled to great weight. In re Hollis, 968 A.2d 1037 (D.C.
10
11
12
2009).
13
14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23
Nevada Disciplinary Board. See, Exhibit 4, Coughlin's 8121/15 Pre-Hearing Brief.
24
25
Please see, also, Exhibit 5, Letters of Recommendation from fellow attorneys and
26
others.
27
28
PERSONAL STATEMENT
661
2
adopt the recOlmnendation of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board and
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12

The undersigned respectfully requests that the Office of Enrollment and
13
Discipline allow Coughlin to practice before it during such interim.

14
15
16
37 CFR 11.29 provides that unless the undersigned demonstrates by clear

and convincing evidence, or the USPTO Director finds there is a genuine issue of
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
material fact by clear and convincing evidence that:
(l) The procedure before the State Bar of Nevada was so lacking in
notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process;
(2) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the transfer to
disability status before the State Bar of Nevada that the USPTO
Director could not, consistent with USPTO's duty, accept as final the
conclusion on that subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same disability status or transfer to disability
status by the USPTO Director would result in grave injustice.
The disability petition resulting in the 6/18/15 Order placing Coughlin on
27
28
disability inactive status was filed quite some time ago, 5/31/12. In the interim, a
PERSONAL STATEMENT
662
lot happened. There was a disciplinary case against Coughlin that was dismissed,
2
rather than just suspended (and suspension of the disciplinary proceeding was all
5
6
that was required under Nevada's SCR 117(2), yet the Nevada Supreme Court
dismissed that disciplinary case/appeal instead).
It may be relevant to note the filing by Coughlin just prior to the disability
7
8
inactive status Order being entered on 6118115. Coughlin's filing in the
disciplinary case in NVSCT case 62337 of6/8/15 moved for a dismissal of the
10
11
12
disciplinary case against him in light of the "confession of error" resulting, under
Nevada's Rules of Appellate Procedure, from the State Bar of Nevada failing to
l3
ever file an Answering Brief in response to Coughlin's 4/2114 Opening Brief in the
14
15
16
appeal of that disciplinary case. See Exhibit 6, containing such 6/8115 filing by
Coughlin, in addition to a relevant filing of 5/29/15, and the 6118/15 Order by the
17
18
Nevada Supreme Court dismissing the disciplinary case against 6/8/15 filing by
19
Coughlin in disciplinary case (62337) seemingly resulting in Order in disability
20
21
22
23
petition case(60975), in addition to a relevant filing of 5/29/15, and the 6/18/15

Order by the Nevada Supreme COUli dismissing the disciplinary case against
Coughlin.
24
25
26
Instead, seemingly, the Nevada Supreme Court finally ruled on the 5/31112
Disability Petition in case 60975, placing Coughlin on disability inactive status and
27
28
dismissing the discipline case. See Exhibit 6.
PERSONAL STATEMENT
663
Coughlin was never provided a hearing (thus, bringing squarely into focus
2
37 CFR 11.29b(1)) before anyone, not even a disciplinary panel, much less the
3
4
Nevada Supreme Court prior to his law license (which is a property right under the
Fourteenth Amendment, and thus a hearing is required prior to taking such from
Coughlin, even temporarily) being placed on disability inactive status, which is not
7
8
a "temporary" designation in the sense that the failure to provide a hearing before
doing so could be justified.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The power of courts to disbar or otherwise discipline attorneys

must be exercised consistent with the requirements of the Due
Process Clause. See Schware v. Board of Bar Exam. ofN.M., 353
U.S. 232, 238, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). This means that
the attorney must be afforded fair notice of the charge and a
meaningful opportunity to respond. See Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550, 88
S.Ct. 1222.
A federal court may impose discipline or disbarment based
upon another court's disciplinmy adjudication only ifan independent
examination of the other court's record shows: "(1) no deprivation of
due process; (2) sufficient proof of misconduct; and (3) no grave
injustice would result from the imposition of such discipline." In re
Kramer, 193 F.3d 1131,1132 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Selling, 243 U.S.
at 50-51,37 S.Ct. 377). In such circumstances, a show cause hearing
must be afforded. See id. at 1133 .... " (emphasis added) In Re Poole.
Id.
22
23
24
Coughlin is providing the OED with the court record in the disability case in
Nevada and an independent examination of such requires a hearing. In particular,
25
26
27
Coughlin's submission of 8/6114 (see Exhibit 7) (originally submitted 7122/14 but

returned to sender due to the USPS 13 oz rule requiring submitting such to a
28
PERSONAL STATEMENT
664
counter employee) points out the infirmity of proof establishing the transfer to
2
disability status before the State Bar of Nevada such that the USPTO Director
3
4
could not, consistent with USPTO's duty, accept as final the conclusion on that
subject. See 37 CFR 11.29(2), and thus (3). Similarly, see Exhibit 8, 6119/09
Final Decree of Divorce showing attorney fee award in divorce case assessed
7
8
against attorney Coughlin personally (referred to in disability petition) was set

aside. Regardless, the various orders attached to the disability petition are not
10
11
"proof'] or evidence, as they would not be admissible as such.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the contempt order from the traffic citation trial and the attorney fee award in the divorce case), thus different
burdens of proof where utilized therein, as such, no offensive collateral estoppel could apply given the clear and
cOl1vicing burden in disciplinary matters ... that is if those orders were not set aside anyways, which they were)
offense may conclusively establish guilt of the offense charged in attorney disciplinary proceedings.[17]
Likewise, a foreign jurisdiction's adjudication of guilt may be deemed conclusive proof of guilt of the attorney
misconduct charged. [ 18] The burden then falls upon the attorney to demonstrate why the foreign judgment is not
valid or why the state should not accept it and impose sanctions based thereon.[19] While a judgment in a civil
in a prior proceeding, even when it is conclusive of misconduct on the part of the attorney.[ 22] [FNI7] N.J.-In
re Boylan, 162 N.J. 289, 744 A.2d 158 (2000). Mass.-Matter ofConcemi, 422 Mass. 326, 662 N.E.2d 1030
(1996). Consideration of underlying conduct not precluded A conviction does not preclude consideration of the
actual conduct itself for the purpose of detennining the appropriate discipline to be accorded an attorney. Ill.-In
re CiardeIli, 118 Ill. 2d 233, 113 Ill. Dec. 94, 514 N.E.2d 1006 (1987). [FNI8] Fla.-The Florida Bar v. Mogil,
763 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2000). Unsupported finding disregarded A finding by a board, in an out-of-state
disciplinary proceeding, that the respondent had charged an excessive fee would be disregarded in a disciplinary
proceeding within the state, where no basis for supporting the finding could be found. Mo.-In re Weiner, 530
S.W.2d 222, 81 A.L.R.3d 1272 (Mo. 1975), supplemented, 547 S.W.2d 459 (Mo. 1977). Burden of showing
infinnity of foreign proceeding The burden of showing that the respondent was denied due process and that there
was an infirmity of proof in the foreign disbannent proceeding is on the accused attorney. Neb.-State ex reI.
Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Dineen, 235 Neb. 363,455 N.W.2d 178 (1990). [FNI9] 100. [FN20] Tenn.Berke v. Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436 S.W.2d 296 (1968). [FN21] Iowa-Committee on
Professional Ethics v. Wright, 178 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1970). Tenn.-Tennessee Bar Ass'n v. Berke, 48 Tenn.
App. 140,344 S.W.2d 567 (1960). [FN22] Tenn.-Berke v. Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436
S.W.2d 296 (1968).
PERSONAL STATEMENT
665
2
5
6
Exhibit 7, Coughlin's "additional response" to the disability petition of August
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2014 and the 5/31/12 Disability Petition itself.

Because an attorney disciplinary l?roceeding is quasi-criminal in
advance notice of the charges, and the 0 ortuni to e ectivel res ond to
the char es and con ront and cross-examine wltnesses. .. . .
onst. men. . In re etersl' 2 .
2 If.
1).
However, because of tneir quasi-criminal nature, dIsciplinary
proceedings must accord the respondent the essentials of due process ofla~.
U.S.-In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222,20 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1968),
In re Ming, 469 F.2d 1352 (7th Cir. 1972). General rules invoked to msure
comQliance Cal.-Emslie v. State Bar, 11 Cal. 3d 210, 113 Cal. Rptr. 175,
520 P.2d 991 (1974).
As a general rule, in a proceeding to discipline an attorney, he or she
(Fla. 1965).
time and in a meaningful manner, WhICh is satisfied by the l?fovisions for
presuspension notice and a hearing, together with the availabIlIty of
postswmenslOn reVIew. Mass.-In re Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d
15 (2002).
A license to practice law was a property right protected by the due
process clause oftlie FOUlieenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
property right protected QY state and federal constitutional right to
procedural due process. E-x parte Case, 2005 WL 2600214 (Ala. 2005).
for seeking his temporary suspension and was r;{0rded both a hearing
before a smgle justIce of the Supreme Judicialourt, at which facts were
presented, and a hearing before the (ull court prior to effectiveness of an
order directing his temporary suspenuSion. Mass.-Matter of Ellis, 425 Mass.
332, 680N.E.2d 11540997).
APpointment Of Counsel For Attorney Facing Disciplinary Charges,
86 A.L.R. 4Th 1071.
PERSONAL STATEMENT
666

"PetItion to detennine competency; notice ....
by a hearing panel or tlie examination of the attorney by qualified
medical experts.
If, uJ!on due consideration, the court concludes that the
attorney is mcapacltated for the purpose of practicing law, it shall
shall be suspended.
she IS WIthout adequafe representatIOn."
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
hearing. It does not seem to be a settled point of law2 in Nevada whether SCR
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
merit of such arguments against declaring him disabled.

2
In Nevada, SCR 102(4)( c) and (d), seem to support the position that a hearing is required before placing
Medical Examiners, 68 Nev. 455, 235 P.2d 327 (1951). A state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law
without due process of law, as respondent readily concedes. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232,
77 S.Ct. 752, I L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). In this instance, however, the risk of erroneous deprivation is minimized by
the provisions ofSCR 102(4)(c) and (d). Under these niles, a temporarily suspended attorney is entitled to
resolution of the matter. The government public interest element is evident. The nile on its face only permits this
court to order temporary suspension if there are affidavits to support allegations that an attorney is causing "great
hann" by his actions; i.e., temporary suspension prior to a hearing is only warranted if "exigent circumstances"
exist. Cf. State ex reI. Sweikert v. Briare, 94 Nev. 752, 588 P.2d 542 (1978). We therefore conclude that the nile
case to justify dispensing with a pre-suspension hearing." Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 643 P.2d 1201 (Nev.
1982).
PERSONAL STATEMENT
667
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

A.L.RAth 136 (1990 & Supp. 1995).
With respect to a statute which provided that at any time after
charges were filed against an attorney a court had the power, pending
trial of the charges, to suspend the attorney, the court in Laughlin v
Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190, 95 F2d 101 (applying District of
Columbia law), while construing the statute to include the right to
notice and a presuspension hearing, held that it was invalid as applied
to an attorney who was suspended without notice and a hearing.
declared.
An attorney may be temporarily suspended without a presuspension hearing where the risk of enoneous deprivation is
(1995).
Disbarment or Suspension of Attorney in One State as Affecting
Right to Continue Practice in Another State, 81 A.L.R.3d 1281
PERSONAL STATEMENT
668
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

be heard in his own defense. In re DisciplinaIY Proceeding Against
Sanai, 167 Wash. 2d 740,225 P.3d 203 (2009).
Failure to provide
adequate opportunity to defend
Albert, 389 Mich. 153,206 N.W.2d 729.
10
11
12

13
practicing law, just such newly acquired evidence.

14
15
16
In Conclusion, Coughlin respectfully requests the OED not place him on
17
18
disability inactive status at this time, or at least, hold such decision in abeyance for
19
the next six to twelve months given the judicial economy attendant to waiting to
20
21
see the result of what appears to be a fairly imminent reinstatement of Coughlin in
22
Nevada.
23
VERIFICATION/DECLARA TION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

24
25
26
27
28
10
PERSONAL STATEMENT
669

2
Dated this August 27 th , 2015,
3
4
5
6

Petitioner
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
PERSONAL STATEMENT
670
2
3
5
6
copy of this RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE upon the following by
mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following
addressee:
Mail Stop OED, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
7
8
9
10
11

Petitioner
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
PERSONAL STATEMENT
671
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
3
4
5
6

Hearing of 8125/15
8/26/15.
7
8

9
10
11
12
13

Exhibit 6: 6/8/15 filing by Coughlin in disciplinary case (62337) seemingly
resulting in Order in disability petition case (60975), in addition to a relevant filing
of 5/29/15, and the 6/18/15 Order by the Nevada Supreme Court dismissing the
disciplinary case against Coughlin.
14
15
16
17
18
Exhibit 7: Coughlin's "additional response" to the disability petition of August

2014 and the 5/31/12 Disability Petition itself in 60975.
Exhibit 8: 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce showing attorney fee award in divorce
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
PERSONAL STATEMENT
672
Exhibit 3
673
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7 IN RE:
8 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.,
Case No. RI 15-0804
10 ===================================================
11
12
13
14
15
REINSTATEMENT HEARING
Tuesday, August 25th,
2015
Reno, Nevada
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Job No. 255647
23
24 Reported by:
Transcription
25
CAROL HUMMEL, RPR, CCR #340

Computer
674
REINSTATEMENT HEARING - 08/25/2015

Page 2
2
3
4
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
5
6
7
Caren Jenkins, Esq., Chair

Craig Denney, Esq.
Bruce C. Hahn, Esq.
George Furman, Lay member
10
ALSO PRESENT:
R. Kait Flocchini
Deputy Bar Counsel
11
12
Zachary Coughlin, Esq.

Respondent
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
www.litigationservices.com
675

1
Page 182
First, we considered at great length Rule 117
2 and our charge.
And we found that there was a great deal
3 of evidence that was very pertinent to our deliberations

4 today.
5
What the panel has determined is that we need
6 a bit more information from you, sir.
And that is, we
7 would like to request and give you a reasonable

8 opportunity to propose a reinstatement plan to this panel
9 before it issues its opinion.
And that reinstatement plan
10 will be due not later than November 15th.

11
This body will reconvene at its earliest
12 convenience, there's no reason to delay, and issue its

13 order appropriate based upon the hearing today, as well as
14 your proposed plan.
And that plan should be submitted to
15 me as the panel chair and to Ms. Flocchini.

16
If the proposed plan that you send to us meets
17 the directives that I'm about to give to you, I'll submit

18 it to the remaining panel members.
I'm going to send it
19 to them anyway either way, but with my determination about

20 whether it meets or does not meet the detailed outlines
21 that I'm going to give to you right now.
22
And if it does meet the outline, we'll convene
23 in a conference call, finalize our decision, and issue an

24 appropriate order as quickly as possible.
I'm hoping to
25 have it all done well before the Thanksgiving holiday,
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
676

Page 187
And that means that we're going to hold this
2 hearing in time out until we receive that additional
3 information.
And we will enter our order, the panel will
4 enter its order upon receipt of that, and conference calls

5 to deliberate further toward a recommendation to the
6 Nevada Supreme Court for your reinstatement.
If what you submit to the panel is incomplete
8 or off the charts or exhibits to this panel behaviors that
9 indicate that you haven't heard us at all, there might be

10 a different outcome here.
But it's my hope that you will
11 be able to put together a good plan, not just for us, but
12 for you to succeed in being able to practice actively in

13 the State of Nevada.
14
Questions?
15
MR. COUGHLIN:
16
MS. JENKINS:
I do, your Honor.

You can do whatever you need to
17 do.
18
MR. COUGHLIN:
SCR 117.4, I believe, requires
19 this panel issue its findings within 30 days.

MS. JENKINS:
20
It says the panel shall render a
21 written decision within 30 days of the hearing's

22 conclusion.
And the hearing will not conclude until that
23 additional information is received.

24
MR. COUGHLIN:
If I submit that -- how could
25 the panel know it hasn't already received that
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
677

1 information?
Page 188
It seems to me there was a point made about
2 how the panel wanted whatever I filed this morning, well,

3 we should have gotten this earlier.
Yet what I filed this
4 morning was highly dependent upon what Bar counsel filed

5 in her prehearing packet, which was filed late under the
6 rules.
7
So this panel having 30 days from I believe
8 today to issue the decision, I'm a little bit puzzled why

9 this panel isn't adjourned here today and is taking some
10 time to consider what I filed, and read through all those
11 letters of recommendation.
12 monitoring.
Seems there's already
There's already this plan.
It's been laid
13 out in what I filed.
14
MS. JENKINS:
Mr. Coughlin, if you would like
15 for us to go back into deliberations right now, I'm

16 certain the panel would be more than happy to conclude
17 this matter today if that's your wish.
18
MR. COUGHLIN:
My wish would be for this panel
19 to take the 30 days it has from today to consider what I

20 filed, and then make a ruling.
I did not anticipate that
21 the panel would not have a decision made within 30 days

22 from today, so I might need -23
MS. JENKINS:
While I appreciate your
24 disappointment, perhaps, the rule requires within 30 days

25 of the hearing's conclusion.
This hearing will not be
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
678
08/25/2015
Page 189
1 concluded until the panel receives that additional

2 requested information.
And if it's not received, then at
3 the end of November 15th the panel will reconvene at that

4 time and issue its decision.
5
MR. COUGHLIN:
6 tomorrow, will it then
Okay.
And if I submit it
will a decision be made within
7 30 days of tomorrow?
8
MS. JENKINS:
If your submission is received
9 tomorrow, I've already expressed to you that I fear that

10 it will not be
will not contain the amount of
11 consideration and thought that I've expressed will be

12 necessary.
But if it does, the panel will meet at its
13 earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude this

14 matter.
15
MR. COUGHLIN:
So then a decision -- it would
16 conclude?
17
MS. JENKINS:
18
MR. COUGHLIN:
It would.
I guess I just ask because the
19 way it's being presented here this could be not concluded

20 for years.
21
MS. JENKINS:
22
MR. COUGHLIN:
23
MS. JENKINS:
Mr. Coughlin -I'm not suggesting

Mr. Coughlin, I've expressed now
24 several times that you have until November 15th.
If
25 nothing is received before November 15th, this matter will
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
679

Page 190
1 conclude with a conference call and an issuance of an
2 appropriate order.
3
If something is received before that time, and
4 it meets the requirements I've outlined now for you, the

5 panel will reconvene and issue an appropriate order.
And
6 if something is received that does not meet the

7 requirements I've outlined, the panel will reconvene and
8 issue an appropriate order.
9
In no event do I envision that the reconvening
10 of this panel will happen a great deal after November 15th

11 of 2015.
That simply won't happen.
This panel will
12 reconvene as soon as it can at the convenience of the

13 members upon receipt of your submission or upon the
14 happening of November 15th and issue an appropriate order.
15 And that's all.
16
MR. COUGHLIN:
I just anticipate indicating,
17 and certainly due care and respect will be taken to what I

18 have been told here today by the panel with respect to
19 what they would like to see in this plan.
This plan I
20 think largely follows what the panel, if it hasn't already

21 read Dr. Nielsen's updated report, would largely assent or
22 indicate a willingness to comply with that.
But I don't
23 believe I need three months to do that.

24
MS. JENKINS:
25 testimony at this point.
Mr. Coughlin, there is no

It's simply the order is to
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
680

Page 191
1 submit the requested information, and the panel will
2 reconvene.
That's all there is.
MR. COUGHLIN:
If I may ask that the panel
4 take what I believe is 30 days from today or tomorrow, if

5 I file the brief tomorrow, to use that time to review the
6 materials I spent a great deal of time and effort putting
7 together -8
MS. JENKINS:
Mr. Coughlin, rest assured the
9 panel will give you your due process.
There is nothing
10 more for you to say.

11
MR. LOW:
12
MS JENKINS:
13
MR. LOW:
May I say something?

You may.
Mr. Coughlin, I hope you understand
14 that Bar counsel asked that we do nothing for six months.

15 And what's been proposed here today is that at the latest
16 within three months we would have a determination.
17
What's been asked of you is not what's in
18 Dr. Nielsen's report, and it's not in the other papers.

19 It's a very specific request for very specific information
20 about your intent, what you're going to do here in Reno or
21 wherever you relocate going forward for the next two
22 years.
23
We are giving you your best and last shot here
24 to make this right.
And we have accommodated your wish to
25 have this happen quickly.
And I find that your difficulty
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
681

1 STATE OF NEVADA )
)
2 COUNTY OF WASHOE)
Page 193
ss.
I, CAROL HUMMEL, a notary public in and for
5 the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, do hereby certify:

That at 8:30 A.M. on Tuesday, the 25th day of
7 August, 2015, at the offices of Nevada State Bar, 9456

8 Double R Boulevard, Reno, Nevada, personally appeared
9 witnesses who were sworn by me and were deposed in the
10 matter entitled herein;
11
That said transcript which appears
12 hereinbefore was taken in verbatim stenotype notes by me,

13 a Certified Court Reporter, and thereafter reduced to
14 writing by means of computer-assisted transcription as
15 herein appears;
That the foregoing transcript, consisting of
16
17 Pages 1 through 192, inclusive, is a full,
true and
18 correct transcription of my stenotype notes of said

19 proceedings;
20
I further certify that I am not an attorney or
21 counsel for any of the parties, nor a relative or employee

22 of any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor
23 financially interested in the
acti0Z2J;~
24
CAROL HUMMEL, CCR #340
25
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
682
Exhibit 4
683
AFFIDAVIT OF MILDRED SANCHEZ-GIBSON
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF CLARK
4
5
)
) ss:
)
MILDRED SANCHEZ-GIBSON under penalty of perjury, being first duly sworn,

deposes and says as follows:
1.
I am employee of the State Bar of Nevada, Office of Bar Counsel.
2.
I reviewed
8
9
all incoming correspondence from August 1, 2015 to
September 12, 2015 related to Zachary Coughlin, Esq.
3.
The only documents received during that time period by the State Bar of
10
Nevada in the Las Vegas office, which were related to Coughlin, are attached hereto.
11
Neither is a Petition filed by Coughlin with the Nevada Supreme Court.
12
Dated this 9th day of November, 2015.
13
14
15
Mildrbd~Sanchez-GibsqJ1
16
17
18
19
20
SUBSCRIBED ~D SWORN to
before me this~ day of
&
vember,
: N 2015.
~.
I(i)'.'
~)'
LOUISE WATSON
Notary Public, Stale of Nevada

Appointment No. 1524021
~y Appt. Expires July 14, 2019
-,
NOTARY PUBLIC
21
22
23
24
25
684
RECEIVE!.;
Sl:.r' 0 8 2015

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THE MATTER OF ZACHARY B.
COUGHLIN. ESQ . BAR NO. 9473.
Supreme Court No. 60975
RECEIPT FOR DOCUMENTS

TO:

State Bar of Nevada/Las Vegas \ David A. Clark. Bar Counsel
You are hereby notified that the Clerk of the Supreme Court has received and/or filed
the following:
09/01/2015
Returned Filing Fee. Check No. 0101 returned to Zachary Coughlin.

(No fee for Bar Matter.)
DATE: September 01.2015

Tracie Lindeman. Clerk of Court
ai
685
Knute Knudson
Reno, NY 89523
(775) 448-1528
RECEIVED BY
AUG 2 1 2015
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
August 17, 2015
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NY 89102
President of Business Development I have also been in recovery for over 23 years. I've attended AA
-//
society..
/
S~~~"
,~~_~;~t ~-;:e'~,.,~
I<rt'ute Knuds6n
686
Exhibit 5
687
DECLARATION OF R. KAIT FLOCCHINI, ESQ.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I, R. Kait Flocchini, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada
that the following is true and correct:
1.
I am an Assistant Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Nevada. I work in the
State Bar of Nevada's Reno office.
2.
The State Bar of Nevada's Reno office did not receive any U.S. mail related
to Zachary Coughlin, Esq., between August 25,2015 and September 12, 2015.
3.
I did not receive any e-mail from Coughlin between August 26, 2015 and
10
October 30,2015, exceptfor one acknowledging receipt of a message from Chair Jenkins
11
on September 22, 2015.
12
4.
I did not receive an e-mail from Coughlin with the Petition or the
13
Supplemental Petition attached. I only received those documents because Assistant Bar
14
Counsel Phillip Pattee forwarded them to me.
15
I.e
Dated this ~ day of November, 2015.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
688
Exhibit 6
689
Kait Flocchini
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Phillip Pattee
Monday, September 14, 2015 8:32 AM
Brian Kunzi; Kait Flocchini; Shelley Young
FW:60975
8 27 15 NRAP 40 60975 In Re Coughlin seeking to set aside order placing on disability
inactive status with six exhibits.pdf
Looks like Coughlin wants another hearing. He sent this to me, David Clark and Patrick King,
none of whom hang out in the Reno office anymore.
Phil
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Patrick King; David Clark; Phillip Pattee
Subject: 60975
courtesy electronic copy
690
Exhibit 7
691
2
3
4
6
7
8
ESQ. ; Nevada Bar Number 9473,
)
)
--~--------------~-------
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REHEARING
10
11
Case No: 60975
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully submits the above titled
document on his own behalf. Coughlin hereby recognizes that, despite the arguments contained
12
13
herein, he needed to make some very significant changes in his life and assures this Honorable
14
Court that he has done so, and in no way intends for this filing to question this Honorable Court's
15
authority or wisdom.
16
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
17
An SCR 117 Disability Petition was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court (hereinafter
18
19
"Court") on 5/31/12. Coughlin filed responses to such on 6/18/12 and again on 8/8/14. On
20
4/23/14 the Court ordered an evaluation of Coughlin be perfonned by a qualified medical expert
21
of the State Bar's choosing. The Bar's 7/11114 filing makes clear that it lost this Court's Order in
22
transferring it from the Southern to the Northern Office, though it fails to explain why the Bar
23
failed to return any of the communications it received from Coughlin in May 2014. The Bar
24
25
filed an evaluation by Dr. Nielsen on 9/29/14. The Court then ordered Coughlin placed on
26
disability inactive status on 6/18/15.; No hearing was ever held prior to such being ordered. The
27
Court's Order does not include any findings and indicates such is to be the final disposition of the
28
692
matter. A review ofSCR 119(3) and SCR 117 do not make all that clear that NRAP 40(b)(4)'s
restrictions apply here, or, indeed that NRAP 40( c)(1 )-(2) are controlling here. After all the
phrase "Petition for Rehearing" implies there was a hearing in the first place. Here, that is not the
case. ii
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The failure to accord Coughlin a hearing (and the
6
attendant opportunities to call and confront witnesses and conduct discovelY), the possible
reliance on matters not pled and not part of the record in the disability case, the lack of any
actual findings, written or otherwise, and the lack of appellate review here resulted in Coughlin
10
being deprived of his license to practice law without sufficient due process. iii Coughlin very
11
12
much appreciates this Court having ordered the evaluation and arranging for it to be paid for, and
13
has taken such and made the best of things and submits this filing merely as a demonstration of
14
his current fitness to practice law and his determination and work ethic applied toward having
15
his law license reinstated.
16
To the extent the Nevada Supreme Court's Order relies on infonnation (accurate or not)
17
18
(in Dr. Nielsen's Evaluation and either of the two responses filed by Coughlin, or anything in the
19
appeal of a disciplinary matter in case 62337) that were not pled in the Disability Petition (and
20
there was never any amendment made thereto by the Panel or Bar), such should not serve as
21
support for the Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status due to the attendant notice
22
and opportunity to be heard due process deficiencies that stem therefrom.
23
24
There is quite a disadvantage to Coughlin between the Court's not providing any findings
25
and the lack of notice or notice-pleading here. The failure to provide the fonner makes it more
26
difficult to argue the latter. This Court acted in a trial court capacity in the disability case, and
27
there has been no appellate review of such afforded to Coughlin. The undersigned is grateful to
28
2
693
this Court for having allowed him to file an NRAP 40 Petition in this regard, and this
Supplemental thereto. It seems quite likely that much of what the Court relied on (especially
given the three year lapse between the filing of the Disability Petition on 5/31/12 and the Court's
6/18/15 Order) draws from either Dr. Nielsen's 9/22/14 Evaluation or Coughlin's filing of an
"additional response" on 8/8/14, or Coughlin's filing in the disciplinary case appeal in 62337 of
6
late May, early June 2015. Such matters were not plead, nor ever added by amendment, and the
Court's 4/23/14 stem admonishment to Coughlin to cooperate with the evaluation by a qualified
medical expert should not operate to make any such materials Coughlin divulged to such expert
10
somehow notice plead sufficient to satisfy due process dictates.
11
12
Dr. Nielsen's various unsworn, unsupported, often inaccurate, contentions as to a variety
13
of matters (especially those not even pled) should not be relied on where not subject to cross-
14
examination, in making a determination on the disability petition. Regardless, to the extent such
15
were, there exists a multitude of basis for Coughlin to mitigate the import of any such matters,
16
and or demonstrate their patent invalidity due to due process deficiencies and Coughlin hereby
17
18
19
20
requests an appropriate opportunity to do so should such be necessary. iv
I.
COUGHLIN WAS NOT AFFORDED SUFFICIENT DUE PROCESS
A HEARING OF SOME SORT NECESSARY: As a general rule, in a proceeding to
21
discipline an attorney, he or she is entitled to a full and fair hearing before a competent and
22
unbiased tribunal. The respondent in a disciplinary proceeding generally is entitled to a hearing,
23
in connection with the charges filed therein, before disciplinary action can be taken. Ex parte
24
Burton, 237 Ark. 441, 373 S.W.2d 409 (1963).v
25
A fundamental requisite of due process in a disciplinary proceeding for suspension of an
26
attorney is an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, which
27
is satisfied by the provisions for presuspension notice and a hearing, together with the
28
availability of posts us pension review. In re Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d 15 (2002).
3
694
In summary, a full and fair hearing is recognized as the right of the respondent. Bar
2
3
Ass'n of Baltimore City v. Posner, 275 Md. 250, 339 A.2d 657 (1975).
Indeed, it seems entirely implausible to find that an attorney in Nevada is guaranteed a
hearing should they face the specter of something so comparatively minor as a "private
reprimand", yet no such hearing should they be subject to being publicly declared "incapacitated
for the purposes of practicing law", the effect of which can obviously be quite devastating to
one's career as well as their personal and professional reputations, for many, many years,
whether they are ever reinstated or not. vi
Further, where the practical effect of being placed on "disability inactive status" is to be
10
celiain to prevent one from practicing law, a hearing and other due process hallmarks
11
certainly should be afforded Coughlin here where the mere possibility of some discipline (even
12
more minor forms thereof, such as a ten day suspension or public reprimand) levied in the SCR
13
105(2)(d) context entitle an attorney to a panoply of due process protections. Such arguably
14
applies in the SCR 117(2) context, depending upon just what "due consideration" means therein,
15
thus, implicating NRAP 40(2)(A)-(B).
16
vii
In Nevada, SCR 102(4)(c) and (d) and SCR 105(2)-(3), support the position that a
17
hearing is required before placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, or at least an
18
"immediate hearing" after so doing. "The practice of a profession is, without question, a
19
valuable property right, of which one cannot be arbitrarily deprived. State v. Medical Examiners,
20
68 Nev. 455, 235 P.2d 327 (1951). A state cannot exclude a person from the practice oflaw
21
without due process oflaw, as respondent readily concedes. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,
22
353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). In this instance, however, the risk of
23
erroneous deprivation is minimized by the provisions ofSCR 102(4)(c) and (d). Under these
24
niles, a temporarily suspended attorney is entitled to continue his existing practice for a
25
circumscribed time and may obtain an "immediate hearing" and prompt resolution ofthe
26
matter." Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 643 P.2d 1201 (Nev. 1982).
27
28
The failure to accord Coughlin a hearing here to rebut allusions to content in videos
alleged posted on "You-Tube" (sic) that the Bar and NNDB failed to attach to its Petition (and
4
695
failed to sign a sworn declaration attesting to what was purportedly said in said videos), or an
2
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Nielsen with regard to his evaluation, or to present proof of the
setting aside of the orders attached to and referenced in the Disability Petition, and or to offer
evidence in mitigation or as to the patent invalidity of alleged conviction(s) referenced is further
indicative of the due process lacking here.
Verdict or findings integral to due process: Express factual findings of the elements
necessary to support the charge are necessary in attorney disciplinary matters. See SCR 105(2)-
(3); In re Oliver, 470 F.2d 15 (7th Cir. 1972).viii It is especially necessary for due process
purposes to provide written findings where other due process hallmarks are not present. In re
10
Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d 15 (2002). Findings made should conform to the charges.
11
State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460, 524 P.2d 747 (1974).ix
12
Further, especially where one facing something so slight as a public reprimand (a
13
comparatively minor injury to one's personal and professional reputation compared to being
14
placed on disability inactive status) is entitled to findings offact (delivered quite soon after an
15
actual hearing), the fact that the order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status here is
16
devoid of such, and fails to even expressly find Coughlin to be "incapable of practicing law"
17
(despite the Disability Petition expressly requesting such a determination) augers in favor of
18
reconsidering the Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, or, reinstating him to the
19
practice of law in a more expeditious fashion than might be available to one pursuing such via
20
traditional SCR 117(4) routes. x
21
Here, Coughlin was provided no findings whatsoever, but, rather, the Court wrote:
22
"Having reviewed Dr. Nielsen's report and all documents on file in this matter, we conclude that
23
the relief request in the petition is warranted". However, the Petition expressly requested a
24
determination of Coughlin's competency, and no such determination is expressed in the Court's
25
6118/15 Order. Rather, such Order merely places Coughlin on disability inactive status, while
26
offering no ruling as to Coughlin's competency or indication as to whether the Court finds
27
Coughlin "incapacitated for the purposes of practicing law", much less an indication of upon
28
what findings any such order might be based on.
5
SUPPLEMENT AL PETITION FOR REHEARING
696
Where SCR 117(5) shifts the burden of proof to the Petitioner, Coughlin, away from the
2
State Bar (which was charged with such burden in the SCR 105 disciplinary complaint context in
case 62337, which was dismissed), such a dramatic shifting of the burden of proof ought require
a hearing, findings of fact, and an opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses before an
attorney such as Coughlin is placed on disability inactive status.
NO OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT AND CALL WITNESSES: a district court
attorney disciplinary proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature, the Due Process Clause entitles the
charged attorney to adequate advance notice of the charges, and the opportunity to effectively
respond to the charges and confront and cross-examine witnesses. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5.
10
In re Peters, 642 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2011).
11
Coughlin ought have been afforded to cross-examine witnesses. and to present
12
evidence in his opposition to the request to have his competency determined for the purposes of
13
practicing law and to have him placed on disability inactive status. Indeed, an attorney facing
14
even a public reprimand in an SCR 105(2) context is afforded the ability to compel discovery
15
and subpoena witnesses. xi Dr. Nielsen's evaluation, in particular, would have come across a lot
16
differently upon being subjected to cross-examination.
17
INSUFFICIENT NOTICE: Amendment, by State Bar Disciplinary Board, without
18
providing attorney with notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the amendment, which was
19
tantamount to a new misconduct charge, violated due process. Pappas v. Virginia State Bar, 271
20
Va. 580,628 S.E.2d 534 (2006).xii The lack of findings in this Court's Order placing Coughlin
21
on disability inactive status prevents an opportunity to assess whether such conforms to the
22
charges.
23
The essential feature of the process by which the proceeding is begun is that it notify the
24
attorney ofthe nature of the charge against him or her. Matter of Klein, 407 F. SUpp. 570 (S.D.
25
N.Y. 1976); Mendicino v. Whitchurch, 565 P.2d 460 (Wyo. 1977). To this end, the notice
26
should be reasonably specific. Id. Coughlin was prejudiced here where the Order placing him
27
on disability inactive status seems (no actual factual findings therein ... ) to rely on matters not
28
even pled in the disability petition. xiii
697
Amendments. Amendments to the complaint in a disciplinary proceeding should be
allowed, provided that an opportunity of meeting any new matter therein alleged is given to
the respondent. Coughlan v. U.S., 16 Alaska 407,236 F.2d 927 (9th Cir. 1956).
An attorney must be informed that charges are being amended and provided an
0ppOltunity to be heard as to such amendments. Tomlinson v. State Bar, 13 Cal. 3d 567, 119 Cal.
Rptr. 335, 531 P.2d 1119 (1975). An attorney can be tried only on the charges contained in the
complaint. Matter of Abrams, 521 F.2d 1094 (3d Cir. 1975). Proof of acts not charged generally
will not justify disciplinary action,. In re Corace, 390 Mich. 419, 213 N.W.2d 124 (1973);
Pappas v. Virginia State Bar, 271 Va. 580, 628 S.E.2d 534 (2006).xiv
10
11
12
It seems apparent that the Court's Order is largely based on matters not pled in the
Disability Petition. xv
NO FORM OF APPELLATE REVIEW: Due process hallmarks necessary to a fair
13
attorney disciplinary matter include the right to appellate review, written findings, and
14
affording the attorney the opportunity to testify and cross-examine witnesses during a
15
hearing. In re Ifill, 878 A.2d 465 (D.C. 2005).
16
Where an attorney is Nevada is entitled to an automatic review by the Supreme Court

17
18
under SCR 105(3)(byvi (which includes a de novo review of the verbatim transcript of the
19
hearing) should they face something so comparatively minor as a "public reprimand" (which
20
does not involve the loss of one's right to practice law for even a day, much less the burden of
21
proof shifting attendant to SCR 117(5, the failure to afford Coughlin a hearing here, and the
22
23
seeming reliance upon matters not pled in the Disability Petition, and upon matters and
24
circumstances present only in an entirely different case'vii make even more strong the argument
25
that Coughlin was not afforded the requisite due process here. Consequently, there is then an
26
infirnlity of proof to support the order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status.
27
28
FAILURE TO APPOINT COUGHLIN COUNSEL UNDER SCR 117

INCONGRUOUS WHERE APPEARING PRO SE AND RULED INCAPABLE OF
698
PRACTICING LAW
2
3
4
But a finding that the attomey is competent to appear is not equivalent to a finding that
the attomey is competent to appear pro se. In Re Meade, 103 Wash.2d at 380, at 381,693 P.2d
713. Attomeys appearing pro se must have the capacity to intelligently waive the services of
counsel and adequately represent themselves by "respond[ing] appropriately [and] rais[ing]

6
legitimate defenses." Id. at 380-81,693 P.2d 713. Under this standard, we have held that
attomeys are not competent to defend their disciplinary actions where their mental condition
interferes with their understanding of the underlying situation and prevents them from
10
responding appropriately and raising legitimate defenses. See id.
11
12
13
The very fact that Coughlin was not prevented from representing himself pro se in the
disability case ought act as a defensive collateral bar to placing him on disability inactive status.
14
In re Carroll, 287 Ala. 29, 247 So. 2d 350 (1971).

15
16
II. I. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COUGHLIN BEING
17
INCAPACITATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRACTICING LAW
18
INFIRMITY OF PROOF: Where substantially the same facts which constitute a single
19
course of conduct are alleged as violations of two separate mles, a finding of not guilty as to one
20
may preclude a finding of guilty as to the other. In re Carroll, 287 Ala. 29, 247 So. 2D 350
21
22
(1971). Coughlin's filing of 8/8/14 establishes that the contempt citation by Judge Howard
23
attached as Exhibit 1 to the Disability Petition was not upheld on appeal, and that the Orders by
24
Judge Nash Holmes attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 were set aside by Judge Nash Holmes, whom
25
also set aside the criminal trespass conviction, and that Judge Linda Gardner set aside the
26
attomey fee award levied against Coughlin representing a legal aid client in a divorce case
27
28
referenced in the Disability Petition, and that the other prosecutions of Coughlin were patently
8
699
invalid given the unconstitutional denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and other due
process infirmities. That being the case, there existed very little left (that was actually pled in
the Disability Petition) in support of placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, thus
implicating NRAP 40(2)(A)-(B).
5
6
7
Especially where Coughlin was not afforded a hearing of any sort, the fact that SCR
117(2) uses the plural "expert,"xviii, is significant (implicating NRAP 40(2)(b)) where only one
purported qualified medical expert was offered and or ordered, in Dr. Nielsen. A second opinion
would seem to be called for by SCR 117(2). This same argument applies to show a lack of due
10
process, here, particularly where one facing even a gross misdemeanor in Nevada must be
11
12
13
14
15
evaluated by two different mental health professional to determine their fitness to stand trial.
NRS 178.415(1).
Perhaps most troubling about Dr. Nielsen's evaluation is its complete and total lack of
comment or any emphasis whatsoever with respect to the rather marked apparent correlation
16
between Coughlin becoming unable to afford two potent psychiatric medications he had been on
17
18
19
20
21
for over a decade in August 2011 and his thereafter being arrested for two different instances of
petty theft (within just days of each other) just a couple weeks later.
Coughlin attached a certified prescription history printoutXiX in Exhibit 1 to his 8/8/14
response in the disability case establishing that Coughlin suddenly went off these medications
22
hmnediately prior to the two petty theft arrests, and that he remained off the anti-depressant for
23
24
the criminal trespass arrest occurring just weeks thereafter. Further, despite Dr. Nielsen's
25
evaluation noting Coughlin had been in recovery for substance abuse issues for years, such
26
evaluation fails to mention or place any import on the fact that the Walmart petty theft arrest
27
included an allegation that Coughlin consumed, while shopping for groceries, an enormous
28
9
700
quantity of a potent dissociative, Dextromethorphan (contained in high dosages in the Duract
2
3
4
Cough Melts that Dr. Nielsen's report merely references as "throat lozenges").
FUliher, Dr. Nielsen's evaluation fails to grasp that not only were the traffic citations
dismissed by Judge Nash Holmes, but so to where the two Orders attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 to
the Disability Petition (detailing alleged civil contempt and alleged professional misconduct),
6
7
much less make any note of the fact that the criminal trespass conviction was set aside as well.
Dr. Nielsen's report also makes several inflammatory allusions to Coughlin allegedly being
"homeless" or "nearly homeless" when such simply was not the case. Further, Dr. Nielsen's
10
report fails to accord any significance to the fact that Coughlin's was forced to file his initial
11
12
response (which was, consequently, not as polished and measured as it would have been
13
otherwise) to the Disability Petition, of 6/18/12, in the early morning hours just prior to his being
14
forced to proceed to trial in the criminal trespass case during the pendency of an order for
15
competency evaluation in violation ofNRS 178.405.
16
Additionally, the extent to which Dr. Nielsen fails to accord any significance or attention
17
18
to the fact that Coughlin was repeatedly subjected to violations ofNRS 40.253's requirement that
19
the Washoe Sheriff wait at least 24 hours from the posting of a Summary Lockout Order prior to
20
conducting a lockout is troubling. Dr. Nielsen's evaluation also simply notes that Coughlin was
21
"convicted on the iPhone offense" without noting the extremely strange and mitigating
22
circumstances of such matter. xx
23
24
Dr. Nielsen's evaluation contains a great deal of inflammatory material not pled in the
25
Disability Petition and is devoid of any note of mitigating circumstances whatsoever. For
26
instance, a May 2013 arrest and subsequent conviction for resisting a public officer fails to note
27
(despite Dr. Nielsen being provided proof of such) that the justice court bailiff making the arrest
28
10
701
was fired for misconduct just days after Coughlin's sentencing in such mattter, nor does Dr.
Nielsen make any mention of the multitude of instances where Coughlin was forced to proceed
to trial during the pendency of an Order for Competency Evaluation in violation ofNRS
178.405, and forced to represent himself in violation of the 2008 Indigent Defense Order (the
above just one such instance; especially repugnant considering Coughlin ultimately was made to
6
serve a county year in connection with the resisting the fired justice court bailiff charge and the
misuse of 911 case, which Nielsen fails to note was pled down to a mere misdemeanor), or note
where Coughlin was denied the very transcript of his criminal case on appeal required by NRS
10
189.030. Similarly, Dr. Nielsen's evaluation alleges the Bar "received complaints from sitting
11
12
judges", yet fails to specify whether any judge other than Judge Nash Holmes (whom
13
subsequently set aside the very orders her referral to the State Bar was based on) actually made
14
any such complaints to the Bar. Coughlin has repeatedly requested from the Bar copies of any
15
such complaints from other judges and has never been provided such. One can imagine how
16
much less weight might be given to Dr. Nielsen's recommendation had his report been subject to
17
18
testimony and cross-examination, much less being placed alongside the second opinion required
19
by SCR 117(2)'s use of the plural "experts". Further, there has been no evidence offered to
20
suggest that Dr. Nielsen is even a forensic psychologist, and given the interplay between
21
Coughlin's abruptly going off two potent psychiatric medications and his suddenly being arrested
22
23
24
25
26
27
at the age 34 for two instances of petty theft followed by a criminal trespass arrest within
approximately six weeks of abruptly going off such medications, it is entirely arguable that a
forensic psychiatrist should have been required.
Dr. Nielsen's evaluation of Coughlin fails to identify anywhere near the dramatic and
troubling issues typically present in cases where an attorney is placed on disability inactive
28
11
702
status. Further, Coughlin's 8/8/14 Notice and the 6/6/14 filing in the appeal ofa disciplinary
matter in NVSCT case 62337 by Coughlin (which was attached within Exhibit 1 therein)
actually makes many important and valid points with respect to Nevada landlord tenant law,
summary evictions (such as the fact that Washoe County is along among counties in Nevada in
refusing to comply with the dictate in NRS 40.253 that tenants be accorded at least 24 hours
6
7
from the posting of a summary lockout order prior to such lockout being conducted), right to
counsel issues and the Indigent Defense Order, an various arcane points of criminal law, all
devoid of the sort of off the wall paranoia and disjointed claims attendant to the typical disability
10
inactive case. xxi
11
12
Further, the State Bar and or Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board failed to ever file a
13
response of any sort to the arguments put forth in the two filings submitted by Coughlin in
14
response to the Disability Petition. xxii This implicates NRAP 40(2)(A)-(B).
15
16
17
18
19
Supreme Court looks to similar cases for guidance as to the discipline to impose in an
attorney disciplinary proceeding. In re Disciplinary Action against Lundeen, 2012 WL 933102
(Minn. 2012). In Nevada, in In Re Harris (NVSCT case 57507) the attorney there was never
subjected to a Disability Petition, nor was he ever placed on disability inactive status. SCR
123(3).xxiii
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin was temporarily suspended indefinitely from the practice oflaw in Nevada
between 6/8112 and 6/18/15, over three years, pursuant to the automatic suspension required
under SCR 111(6) for the alleged conviction of an offense containing an element of "theft" (ie,
the Walmart cough medication petty larceny charge). In the interim the Disability Petition filed
on 5/31/12 sat dormant, the State Bar of Nevada failed to file an Answering Brief to Coughlin's
Brief in the appeal of the disciplinary matter in 62337, and three of the bar counsel appearing on
either Coughlin's disciplinary case or the disability case are no longer employed by the State Bar.
As Senior Judge Charles McGee testified (please see attached the complete transcript from such
12
703
Reinstatement Hearing in Exhibit 1) at Coughlin's reinstatement hearing, none of the infractions
Coughlin has been accused of typically warrant anything more than a public reprimand.
Coughlin has worked hard to become an attorney (at one point ranked tenth in his law school
class and a member of the law review) and accrue experience and expertise thereafter, including
a stint as a legal aid domestic violence attorney and a associate at Hale Lane. He has more than
paid the price for the wrongs he committed, and further, he has established that he has done more
than an adequate job of addressing the personal issues underlying and precipitating such matters,
as evinced in the transcript of the 8/25/15 Reinstatement Hearing Coughlin now provides this
Honorable Court. Coughlin hereby respectfully requests his law license be reinstated in the near
10
future.
11
VERI FICA TIONIDECLARA TION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

Comes Now, Declarant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says under
penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct: I. I am subject attorney in the above-referenced
matter, have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I hereby
declare that all assertions I have made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
12
13
14
15
16
Dated this September 21st, 2015,

Petitioner
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
704
2
3

945 W. 12th St.; Reno, NV 89503
Te1e and Fax: 9496677402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com, Pro Se
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
705
I certify that on September 21 st, 2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of
this SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE upon the following by
mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Douglas Rands, Esq.

Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
9498 Double R Blvd., Ste. A
Reno, Nevada 89521
drands@rsgnvlaw.com
Phillip Pattee, Esq.
Office of Bar Counsel; State Bar of Nevada
3100 W. Charleston Blvd. Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
philp@nvbar.org
11
12
Dated this September 21st, 2015
13
14
15

Petitioner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
706
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: transcript from RI15-0804 8/25/15 SCR 117(4) Reinstatement Hearing in In Re

Coughlin. One hundred and ninety three pages (193).
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
16
707
The NVSCT's Order of 6118115 in case 60975 placing Coughlin on disability inactive status ruled:
"After reviewing the petition and its attachments, as well as Coughlin's
motion filed in response to the petition, we directed the State Bar to arrange for an
examination of Coughlin by a qualified medical expert to determine Coughlin's
capacity to practice law to file a status report regarding its efforts in this regard.
Coughlin has since filed another response to the petition, and the Bar has now filed
a supplemental report containing Dr. Earl S. Nielsen's evaluation regarding
Coughlin's capacity to practice law.
Having reviewed Dr. Nielsen's report and all documents on file in this
matter, we conclude that the relief requested in the petition is warranted.
Accordingly, Zachary B. Coughlin is transferred to disability inactive status.
Coughlin may resume the active practice of law only after he has complied with SCR
117(4) and (5)."
It is interesting to note that the Court's Order fails to make a finding that Coughlin is now or
then "incapable of the practice oflaw".
Consider what the Disability Petition actually requested: "the Chair hereby
asserts ... he believes the Respondent is incapable of continuing the practice oflaw at
this time due to mental infinnity, illness, or addiction: and the NNDB Chair hereby
seeks a determination bv this Honorable Court ofthe Respondent's competency and
an order transferring the Respondent to disability inactive status"
The Court failed to actually rule on Coughlin's competency. Rather, its Order simply placed
Coughlin on disability inactive status. Thus, there was no finding or ruling made as to Coughlin's
"competency", or as to whether he was "incapacitated for the purposes of practicing law") nor any
indication as to whether such was caused by "mental infirmity, iIIness, or addiction". The Court's
Order fails to expressly adopt Dr. Nielsen's assessment, but, rather, indicates "Having reviewed Dr.
Nielsen's report and all documents on file in this matter, we conclude that the relief requested in
the petition is warranted."
NRAP 40(2) The court may consider rehearings in the following circumstances:
(A) When the court has overlooked or misapprehended a material fact in the record or a
material question of law in the case, or
(B) When the court has overlooked, misapplied or failed to consider a statute, procedural rule,
regulation or decision directly controlling a dispositive issue in the case.
With respect to NRAP 40(2)(A) the Court here may have (its is difficult to say given the lack of
findings in this Court's Order, which was made in the scope of its original jurisdiction in SCR 117
Petitions) may have overlooked to fact that most of the convictions, citations, or sanctions
referenced in either the Disability Petition, or Dr. Nielsen's evaluation have been set aside. Further,
this Honorable Court may have misapprehended a material question of law in determining that
Coughlin was not entitled to a hearing, to conduct discovery, call and confront witnesses, or receive
findings in support of this Court's decision, and was somehow allowed to appear pro se where then
placed on disability inactive status, or that NRS 40. 253 does indeed require the passing of at least
24 hours prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout order, or that an indigent criminal
defendant is entitled to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, especially where sentenced to actual
incarceration, or that NRS 189.030 does require the justice to transmit the transcript in a criminal
appeal, and such justices failure to do so in now way justifies refusing an indigent criminal
defendant his right to an appeal.
ii
708
Judicial disciplinary proceeding satisfied state and federal due process requirements; at hearing
before cOlllnittee on judicial conduct, judge has power to subpoena witnesses, right to counsel,
right to cross-examine witnesses and present witnesses on his or her behalf, hearing is
transcribed verbatim for Supreme Court review, judges are informed in advance what issues
will be considered and that they may present evidence of mitigating circumstances, Supreme
Court reviews entire record to determine if/actual findings are supported by evidence of whether
violation is shown, and Supreme COUli detennines independently what sanction should be imposed.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. In re Case of Snow, 140 N.H. 618, 674 A.2d 573 (l996);_CJS
Constitutional Law s 1899, Requirements of procedural due process-For removal or other discipline
of judge.
iv
The various alleged convictions, citations, or sanction pled (and those not pled, but seemingly
considered by the Court) in the disability petition present peculiar and unusual circumstances which
warrant an independent inquiry as to the fact of guilt. People ex reI. Attorney General v. Laska, 101
Colo. 221, 72 P.2d 693 (1937). The trier of the facts may go behind the conviction to weigh its impact
upon the discipline, if any, to be imposed. In re Gross, 67 N.J. 419, 341 A.2d 336 (1975).
Thus, where a conviction is not conclusive with respect to the sanction to be imposed in the
disciplinary proceeding, evidence is admissible to explain or mitigate the significance of the
conviction, to show the character of the crime, and what sanction, if any, should be imposed. Id.
Coughlin allegedly withdrew his criminal appeals as to a number of matters apparently
considered by the Nevada Supreme Court, some of which where not even pled in the disability petiton.
To the extent such had a baring on whether the Court found Coughlin need be placed on disability
inactive status, any such alleged withdrawing of his appeals ought be tempered by providing Coughlin
an opportunity to speak to such. Coughlin's filing of 8/8/14 did to some extent, referencing assurances
made to him by his fonner employer at Washoe Legal Services, the fact that Coughlin was denied
access to legal tools while in custody, and was not pennitted to represent himself on appeal.
In disciplinary proceedings the board in its investigative capacity, may look behind a plea of
guilty to a crime by an attorney, especially where plea bargaining is involved, in order to detennine just
what offense the attorney is or was guilty of. Ky.-Kentucky State Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 492 S.W.2d 880
(Ky. 1973).
It is important to consider that Coughlin actually accepted plea bargain to dispose of both the
iPhone petty theft case and the misuse of911 case (where such charges were reduced to disturbing the
peace); however, the trial judge rejected such plea as not voluntarily made by Coughlin. Regardless,
there exists dramatic due process violations in these various cases, ranging from Coughlin being denied
counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment and 2008 Indigent Defense Order, being required to
continue to represent himself in the Walmart cough medication case (which also featured a doubly
illegal arrest for a misdemeanor, after 7 pm, by a tribal police officer in violation of the Fourth
Amendent) after being found in summary contempt ten minutes into trial, judges refusing to comply
with the appellate transcript requirements ofNRS 189.030, being denied the right to represent himself,
denied access to legal tools and his medication while incarcerated, inconsistent verdicts in violation of
~ and Staab. Further, as to any actual convictions or sanctions Coughlin ought be provided an
opportunity to be apprised as to which have actually been pled and are to be properly considered by the
COUli, the afforded any opportunity to offer mitigation in such regard or otherwise assert any patent
invalidity of such due to due process violations.
v The Florida Bar v. Fussell, 179 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1965); Slotnick v. Pike, 374 Mass. 822,370 N.E.2d
1006 (1977)
vi
SCR Rule 105. Procedure on receipt of complaint. 1. Investigation ... (c) Hearing. Upon
receipt by bar counsel of written objections to the issuance of a private reprimand and a statement
of election by the attorney within the time prescribed, the matter shall be set for a fornml or infonnal
hearing in accordance with the attorney's election. A fonnal hearing shall proceed in accordance
iii
709
with Rule 105(2). At an informal hearing the attorney shall be given the opportunity to appear, to
present oral argument, and to present evidence related to the written objections or any
relevant issue.
vii
SCR 105(2); "(d) Time to conduct hearing; notice of hearing; discovery of evidence against
attorney. The hearing panel shall conduct a hearing within 45 days of assignment and give the
attorney at least 30 days' written notice of its time and place. The notice shall be served in the same
manner as the complaint, and shall inform the attorneY that he or she is entitled to be represented
bv counsel. to cross-examine witnesses. and to present evidence. The notice shall be accompanied
by a summary prepared by bar counsel of the evidence against the attorney, and the names of the
witnesses bar counsel intends to call for other than impeachment, together with a brief statement of
the facts to which each will testify, all of which may be inspected up to 3 days prior to the hearing."
viii Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n v. Johnson, 447 F.2d
169 (3d Cir. 1971); In re Ifill, 878 A.2d 465 (D.C. 2005); Mildner v. Gulotta, 405 F. Supp. 182
(E.D. N.Y. 1975).
ix In re Doherty, 28 A.D.2d 546, 280 N.Y.S.2d 340 (2d Dep't 1967); In re Kersey, 444 Mass. 65, 825
N.E.2d 994 (2005); Hitchcock v. State Bar, 257 Cal.Rptr. 696; 771 P.2d 394 (1989); In re DwyerJones, 470 Mass. 582,586-88,24 N.E.3d 566, 570-72 (2015).
x (SCR 105(2)(e) ... time for decision ofpanel...Any five members of the panel shall be a quorum.
The hearing panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing ...
accomoanied by the panel's findings and recommendation).
xi
"SCR Rule 110. Subpoena power, production of documents, witnesses, and pretrial proceedings. 1. Issuance
of subpoenas by hearing panels and bar counsel. .. The attorney may also compel by subpoena the attendance of
witnesses and the production of pertinent books, papers, and other documents before a hearing panel."
xii See, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson, 86 Ohio St. 3d 104, 712 N.E.2d 122 (1999).
Findings
made should confonn to the charges. State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460,524 P.2d 747 (1974). In re
Dohelty, 28 A.D.2d 546, 280 N.Y.S.2d 340 (2d Dep't 1967).
xiii
In attorney disciplinary proceeding, a charge must infonn the attorney adequately of the
misconduct involved, and, an attorney cannot be disciplined without some charge being made and
filed against him or her, and all charges of professional misconduct should be included in any
complaint made against an attorney. It necessary that the attorney be fairly and specifically infonned
of the charges against him or her. The constitutional guarantee of due process will prevent a court
from finding violations of attorney disciplinary rules that have not been charged in the complaint
against the attorney. See, Burkett v. Chandler, 505 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1974); In re Krehel, 419 Pa.
86,213 A.2d 375 (1965); In re Peterson, 178 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1970); In re Griffith, 283 Ala. 527,
219 So. 2D 357 (1969).
xiv
The Court's Order of 4/23114 in 60975 should not operate to make anything in Dr. Nielsen's
report somehow an amendment to the allegations pled in the 5/31/12 Disability Petition, where such
Order read: "We strongly admonish Coughlin that we expect him to fully cooperate with the
medical expert chosen by the State Bar, and we warn him that any refusal on his part to do so will
result in this court moving forward in considering tho other bar matters pending against him,
including the recommendation that he be disbarred. In re Discipline of Zachary Coughlin, Docket
No. 62337."
xv
PASSAGE OF THREE YEARS FROM FILING OF DISABILITY PETITION
PREJUDICIAL: Coughlin here was prejudiced by the damage to his professional reputation and
earning capacity done during the passing of three years from the time of the filing of the 5/31/12
Disability Petition and the 6/18115 Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, especially
where he was afforded no hearing of any sort. Compare that to the swiftness guaranteed under SCR
105(2). See, In re Disciplinary Action Against Overboe, 867 N.W.2d 482,486 (Minn. 2015).
Disciplinary proceedings generally should be handled with dispatch. The Florida Bar v. Papy, 358
710
So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1978). Take practically any attorney in Nevada and strip them of their law license for
three years on an indefinite basis, with all the concomitant lack of earning capacity, alienation, and
shame that attaches thereto, while three different bar counsel enter and exit the picture in such cases,
and it is entirely likely such attorney's lives would contain a fair amount of dysfunction too.
xvi
SCR 105(3). Review by supreme court. (b) De novo review of public discipline. . .. a
decision recommending a public reprimand, suspension or disbarment shall be automatically
reviewed by the supreme court. Review under this paragraph shall be commenced by bar counsel
forwarding the record of the hearing panel proceedings to the court ... " (SCR 105(2)(g) Court
reporter. All formal hearings shall be reported by a certified court reporter ... ").
XVll
(Case 62337, Bar Counsel's failure to file an Answering Brief, the specter of addressing
Coughlin's motion to have confession of error accorded to such failure to file an Answering Briefby
the Bar)
XVlIl
SCR 117(2) provides: "Upon the filing of such a petition, the court may take or direct such
action as it deems necessary to detennine whether the attorney is incapacitated, including referral of
the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for hearing and recommendation by a hearing
panel or the examination of the attorney by qualified medical expert~."
xix (and accompanying email he sent to the State Bar of Nevada just weeks prior to it filing the very
Disability Petition claiming Coughlin refused to admit he had any mental health issues needing
attention)
xx (involving lost or mislaid property where the finder thereof threatened to (as admitted to by hostile
witnesses) throw such iPhone in a nearby river if someone did not claim it, and without noting the
patent invalidity associated with the trial judge refusing to accept Coughlin's plea of guilt for
disturbing the the peace (which would have disposed of both the misuse of911 case and the iPhone
petty theft case), and Coughlin then subsequently being convicted of both petty theft and receipt of
stolen property with respect to the very same iPhone. A thief cannot receive from himself the fruits
of his larceny ... " Staab v. State, 90 Nev. 347, 526 P.2d 338, 341 (1974).
xxi See, for example, In re Keefe, 159 Wash. 2d 822, 825-26, 154 P.3d 213,215 (2007); See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Meade, 103 Wash.2d 374, 379-80, 693 P.2d 713 (1985); In re
Disciplinmy Proceeding Against Ryan, 97 Wash.2d 284,287,644 P.2d 675 (1982); In re
Campbell, 74 Wash.2d 276,280-81,444 P.2d 784 (1968).
In re Keefe, 159 Wash. 2d 822,833-34, 154 P.3d 213,218-19 (2007) puts into stark reliefthe
failure by Dr. Nielsen's evaluation to actually bring into question Coughlin's capacity to practice law:
" .. .In Meade, the psychiatrist testified that Meade "was competent to handle most legal
matters" and "may have appeared competent at the earlier proceedings because his appearance
and verbal abilities were unaffected." 103 Wash.2d at 378-79, 693 P.2d 713. Nonetheless, we
affirmed Meade's transfer to disability inactive status because his paranoid state would affect
his perceptions and judgment in particular cases related to his delusional system. Id. at 379, 693
P.2d 713. In Ryan, we found a sufficient nexus between the attorney's mental condition and his
competency to practice law because his delusions were intimately connected with his practice
**219 oflaw. 97 Wash.2d at 287,644 P.2d 675. We also affirmed Ryan's transfer to disability
inactive status because the evidence indicated that "Ryan, if restored to active status, might
make irrational judgments concerning the merits of cases brought *834 before him and might
continue to subject clients to litigation based on allegations of conspiracy and fabrication." Id.
... Dr. Grant's expert testimony established that Keefe's delusional system may affect his
judgment and perception in particular cases and that his mental condition impaired his abilities
to reason, establish facts, and distinguish fantasy from reality. 1 TR at 122-23. An attorney
must have these abilities to provide competent representation in the practice of law. Because the
evidence supports the hearing officer's findings regarding Keefe's mental condition and its
impact on the legal system, we affirm the hearing officer's determination that Keefe lacks the
711
capacity to practice law." In re Keefe, 159 Wash. 2d 822, 834-35, 154 P.3d 213,219 (2007)
Similarly, consider: "First, Ryan contends that the evidence fails to establish a nexus
between his mental condition and his capacity to practice law. See Schware v. Board of Bar
Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). We find a sufficient connection.
Ryan's delusions are intimately" connected with his practice. His own testimony is that his
beliefs about the "bogus" cases have rendered him unable to distinguish between real and
fraudulent cases. He has sued fonner clients, cocounsel and opposing counsel. He has made
public his belief that a pending case was fabricated. Moreover, one psychiatrist concluded that
Ryan had a "fullblown paranoid delusion" encompassing almost everyone he has met in recent
years. This doctor's opinion was that Ryan was not capable to practice law.
As Ryan is not presently practicing law, it is necessary to speculate to some degree
about his present and future capability to practice. The conclusion reached here, however, is
based upon Ryan's own actions which occurred in close proximity to the hearing. We believe
the evidence shows that Ryan, if restored to active status, might make irrational judgments
concerning the merits of cases brought before him and might continue to subject clients to
litigation based on allegations of conspiracy and fabrication. We believe it is not in the best
interests of the public and the Bar that a lawyer in this mental condition be allowed full practice
rights." In re Ryan, 97 Wash. 2d 284,287,644 P.2d 675,676 (1982).
By contrast, Dr. Nielsen's psychological evaluation of Coughlin refers to the comparatively
benign diagnosis of "Persistent Depressive Disorder (mild to moderate)" and "Dependent Personality
Disorder associated with traits of Depressive and Masochistic Personality Styles" and notes that "From
a layman's (non-attorney) point of view, his violations seem petty and innocuous, ... ". (Page 9). Dr.
Nielsen notes only mild behavioral problems for Coughlin considering the gravity of being placed on
disability inactive status and the effect such has on one's career, earning capacity, and reputation, much
less the detriment to the public associated with so placing a fonner legal aid attorney whom has
effectively advocated for tenant's and indigent criminal defendnant's rights.
Dr. Nielsen wrote: " Mr. Coughlin was on time for appointments and cooperative with
all requests and inquiries ... Mr. Coughlin is alert, responsive, and well-oriented to all perceptual
spheres. His memory is intact for recent and long-past events. He denies hallucinations and
delusions, and does not describe beliefs or perceptions consistent with thought disorder ... He is
embarrassed and remorseful about his behavior, and remains mildly depressed ... but impulsivity
and inattention to detail interfere with problem solving, practical solutions, and perceptual
reasoning. He does not show evidence of impaired thinking or signs of brain impainnent.
thinking may be judged as odd by some, but he is not bizarre or fully out oftouch .... He has not
had major depressive episodes but rather chronic and insidious symptoms of low self esteem,
disinterest in people or activities, low motivation, and some social avoidance .... He is largely
passive-aggressive, but expresses hostility as righteous indignation, blames others for his
troubles, and resents authority. He is often bored, feels empty, and is unable to profit fonn his
own experience. He doubts his own ... he is not a sociopath and does not have an antisocial
personality disorder. He can be superficially charn1ing, but he is not pathologically
manipulative or conning. He has some conscience development, including capacities for guilt,
remorse, and sympathy .... "
Dr. Nielsen concludes "Mr. Coughlin is not formally mentally ill, but does suffer emotional
disturbance with an underlying personality disorder." Id. Such simply does not support taking away
an attorney's right to practice law. Even improperly considering matters (whether accurate or not,
712
and there are a multitude of factual inaccuracies therein) contained in Dr. Nielsen's evaluation which
were not pled in the disability petition, there exists insufficient proof to place attorney Coughlin on
xxii Arguably, the failure by both to dispute the contentions Coughlin made in such filings ought be
deemed confessions of the merit of such arguments against declaring him disabled. See, NRAP
31 (d), DCR 13(3), SCR 119(3).
xxiii " ... or (3) relevant to an analysis of whether recommended discipline is consistent with previous discipline orders
appearing in the state bar publication."
713
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
714
1
2
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
5
6
7
IN RE:
8 ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
ESQ.,
Case No. RI 15-0804
10 ===================================================
11
12
13
14
15
Reno,
2015
Nevada
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Job No.
255647
23
24 Reported by:
Transcription
25
CAROL HUMMEL, RPR,

Computer
CCR #340
715
08/25/2015
Page 2
Page 4
-000-
RENO, NEVADA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 25TH, 2015; 8:38 A.M.
-000-
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
MS. JENKINS:
This is the time and place set
for a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing regarding

Craig Denney, Esq.
Bruce C. Hahn, Esq.
the reinstatement, or possible reinstatement of Zachary B.

Coughlin, State Bar number 9473.
It is August 25th, 2015, at approximately 8:38
10 A.M.
ALSO PRESENT:
have never started a hearing on time in my life,
11 and r'm really working on that, but I haven't quite gotten
R. Kait Flocchini
10
12 there yet.
Deputy Bar Counsel
13
11

12
Respondent
13
This is Case Number RI 15-0804.
14
Are the parties ready to proceed?
15
MR. COUGHLIN:
. 16
MS. JENKINS:
15
; 17
MS. FLOCCHINI:
16
18
14
17
MS. JENKINS:
Yes.
Mr. Coughlin says yes.
Yes.
19 we had a prehearing conference last week by telephone.
18
At
] 20 that time I denied Mr. Coughlin's motion for change of
19
! 21
20
venue to southern Nevada.
21
Mr. Coughlin was placed on disability inactive
22
status in northern Nevada.
23
Nevada.
24
He practiced in northern
As a result he maintains the venue for this
matter here in northern Nevada, mostly because the panel
25
had already been appointed, and I

N D E X
PETITIONER'S WITNESSES:
Charles McGee
DE
Earl Nielsen
34
55
66
Hiles l1arsh
70
73
84
Mary Barker
87
91
95
Timothy Coughlin
96
Zachary Coughlin
CE
RDE
RCE
vIe also at the status conference
22
we did a
status conference earlier in the matter where I offered

the parties the ability to do peremptory challenges.
Because of the nature of this matter I thought that was
Not typical in a reinstatement hearing, but
we're all here for the interest of justice and fairness

and what have you.
And so this designation of panel
10 members was entered by the disciplinary board chair.
149
11
10 DEFENSE WITNESS:
understand that just this morning at
12 apprOXimately 8:10 Mr. Coughlin has served each of the
NONE
11
12
13
14
felt that all of those
2 reasons required that motion to be denied.
appropriate.
13 panel members with a rather lengthy,
over SaO-page
14 supplement, to his prehearing statement, which I have not

E X H I BIT S
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
15 received because,
. 16
15
Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21 marked
16 and admitted into evidence
17 Exhibits 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18 and 20 which are marked
and not admitted as evidence.
18
19
STATE BAR EXHIBITS:
20 A - Harked and admitted into evidence.
21
(All exhibits retained by the State Bar.)
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
Just as a matter of procedure,
of course,
I was already here.
haven't had an opportunity to read that, and
17 I doubt that the panel members have because they were

18 either in transit or what have you.
So I don't know
119 whether that's going to be able to be considered at this

20 time.
I 21
In the interest of fairness, Ns. Flocchini
22 hasn't had an opportunity to look at it either or to

23 consider whether to object to it.
v-Iould you like to at this time make an
25 argument for why it should be considered, Mr. Coughlin?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
716

Page 6 i
Page 8
1
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor.
Ms. Flocchini.
2
2
Good morning, panel. Thank you for being
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar appreciates the
3 here. The thing I submitted this morning is, I apologize
3 recognition that the full substance of the 117 Petition is
4 for being late, some of it is due to just the change in
4 at issue before the panel today, and not just
5 strategy.
5 Dr. Nielsen's recommendation that was ultimately decided.
6 And that was the primary focus of or most likely will be
6
What you got last week from me basically
7 arguing, ;Iell, this is a disability reinstatement hearing,
7 the primary focus of the State Bar's presentation to the
8 not a misconduct reinstatement hearing was one tack. I
8 panel to the extent that when it's necessary following
9 decided to take a different tack, which is basically to
9 Mr. Coughlin's presentation that it was not just
10 treat this like a misconduct reinstatement hearing, so
10 Dr. Nielsen's report, but the underlying circumstances
11 that necessitated providing the panel with basically the
11 that led to the 117 petition, which then led to
12 entire record from the disability case.
12 Dr. Nielsen's review that the supreme court considered.
13
So what \'las missing from the Bar's prehearing
13
And therefore the panel should consider
14 packet, I just supplemented. Such as the eight exhibits
14 whether or not all of those issues have been addressed or
15 to the original 117 Petition, the additional response
15 are able to be addressed by Mr. Coughlin at this point.
16 reference in the Court's order placing me on disability.
16
To the extent that there is a substantial
17 Response from me, the Notice. In that order.
17 document, I agree, I too noticed that the exhibits to the
18
Based on our review of all the documents on
18 117 petition were not included in your packet. I know it
19 file in this case, and Dr. Nielsen's report, I thought
19 was long, and there was stuff missing still. And to the
20 this panel certainly was entitled to everything the Nevada : 20 extent that those are important, we can make copies of
21 Supreme Court was looking at.
21 that available to the panel during deliberation separately
22
So the length of it is maybe a little
22 so that it's clear what those are.
23 misleading. It's not -- yes, it's 500 pages, but the
23
I just flipped through the supplemental
24 pleading attached to it, I believe around 20 pages, it
"24 prehearing brief. Some of this I recognize, some I don't.
, 25 To the extent that there's exhibits attached that
25 basically is just case law.
1 Mr. Coughlin would like to use in his presentation of
Then the exhibits attached thereto are
2 basically things that I would seek to have introduced as
2 evidence, I think we just address those in the course of
3 exhibits here, such as proof of attendance at AA meetings.
3 the hearing as opposed to as part of the supplemental
4 prehearing brief.
4 That's, I think, roughly 15, 20 letters of recommendation.
5
I think at this point, because of the
5 An order from Judge Nash Holmes, my understanding setting
6 inability to review it previously or -- the intent of a
6 aside some convictions. An order from Judge Gardner
7 ;Ihich, my understanding, amounted to setting aside an
7 pre hearing brief is to give a synopsis to the panel, to
8 attorney fee avlard. These were ones referenced in the SCR i 8 the parties, about what's going to be happening. I think
9 to the extent -- maybe that ship has sailed at this point.
9 11 7 peti tion .
10
So I apologize for not getting that to the
! 10 And to the extent that tolr. Coughlin can address what's in
11 panel earlier. I don't think it's really all that
11 the packet during the presentation, I think that's more
12 necessary for today's purposes that the panel had it in
12 appropriate than to have the supplemental prehearing brief
13 advance. It might have been helpful, of course, but my
13 admitted into the record and fully considered by the
14 kind of changing attack midcourse, somewhat due just out
14 panel.
15 of respect for the panel, somewhat due to becoming more
15
MS. JENKINS: Any rebuttal to Ms. Flocchini's
16 familiar with the disciplinary rule procedure, Rule 57,
: 16 statement?
, 17
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. Just perhaps it would be
17 around a year old, which basically kind of undermines a
18 useful for me to reference the index to exhibits in the
18 lot of my arguments in what I filed last week to some
19 pre hearing brief.
19 extent.
20
But I think just in the spirit of cooperation
20
MS. JENKINS: Before we do that. Let's just
21 ,lith the Bar it makes a lot more sense to just address
21 talk about procedurally why it should be considered in
22 each of the things in the petition head on, and not seek
22 this hearing at all.
23
MR. COUGHLIN: I think it would just be
23 to limit the panel's knowledge of everything that the
24 useful. Everything that's in the brief, I believe, I
24 Nevada Supreme Court had access to.
25 could make the argument on the record here today, and I
25
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
717

Page 10'
Page 12
1 will probably in truncated version, citing all the case

1 that's volunteer -2 laws cited there which basically is just from CJS' s review
2
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, my concern is that
3 of attorney disciplinary matters, reinstatement hearing
3 any materials for the panel to consider should be provided
4 specifically. I just picked out the useful stuff to help
4 to the panel, because we have all invested time in looking
5 me understand vlhat to address.
5 at that and stUdying it and preparing for this hearing.
6
Wi th respect to why should the exhibits be
6
You may not be aware that regularly decisions
7 considered. I think it's useful, it's very helpful. What
7 and deliberations take place following the close of
8 I submitted, I emailed to each member of the panel and the
8 evidence, and deliberations take place immediately after,
9 Bar. It's a very useful digitized OCR file of all this
9 and decisions are rendered immediately. So there is not
10 stuff. So I think -- I don't believe a decision is going ! 10 time to consider 500 pages of material today.
11 to be made today. I think it might be useful for the
11
It is troubling to me that you chose to change
12 panel to hear testimony today and get a sense from that,
! 12 your approach so late in the game.
This circumstance
13 and then be able to have this 500-page pdf file, where if
13 you've been aware of for quite some time, and this hearing
14 they want to type in the word Adderall, you see anywhere
14 date has been on calendar for quite some time. And for us
15 it comes up in the 500 pages, take them right to it.
15 to get that much material while we're sitting in this room
16
A lot of work went into that vlith respect to
; 16 waiting for the hearing to happen is just -- it's a very
17 making a digital copy. I think that might save the State
17 troubling situation.
18 Bar some time in terms of producing the record, forwarding 18
I believe that it was clear to both the State
19 the record on to the Nevada Supreme Court should that need i 19 Bar and to you during our telephone conference that
20 to take place.
20 exhibits were to be exchanged. Any objection to those
21
The underlying thing is I think it's just
21 exhibits were to be raised. You were to determine whether
22 stuff the panel would want. I think the panel -- if I was i 22 we could stipulate to the entry of evidence prior to
23 on the panel I would want everything within the disability i 23 getting here. And I'm very, very disturbed that that
24 case.
24 didn't happen.
25
MS. JENKINS: I have what I need. Thank you.
25
So we're going to be wasting some time today.
I,
Page
13
Mr. Coughlin, during our telephone conference

1 And as you said, all of the members here are volunteers.
last week I asked the State Bar and the Respondent
2 We could be at our desks making money. Instead we're
3 giving you an audience for the possibility of your
3 exchange any documents that were going to be used in this
4 hearing today.
4 reinstatement. So that really is very troubling to me.
5
My understanding is that the materials you
S
I am not going to rule about the admissibility
6 and consideration of now supplemental materials until I
6 attached to this prehearing statement, the supplemental
7 thing this morning, include things like letters of
7 have a chance to look at them. But if you wish to
8 recommendation, which we talked about on the phone;
8 introduce any of those exhibits as evidence today, I would
9 correct?
9 like for you to show them to Ms. Flocchini, ask if she has
10
MR. COUGHLIN: (Nonverbal response.)
10 an objection, give her an opportunity to look at them, and
11
118. JENKINS: Were those provided to the State : 11 then provide copies to this panel. We're not going to be
12 Bar within -- by last Friday so that they could be
12 going onto our cell phone to look at them.
13 provided to the panel in consideration for today?
13
If you don't have hard copies, I'm certain
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. All of them were
,14 that Ms. Peters will be able to make a reasonable number
15 provided, save one or two that came in late. I think
i 15 of copies for you.
I'm not talking about reproducing 500
16 those were provided last night or something in that
! 16 pages five or six times, because the record needs one as
17 regard.
17 well. Any of those things that you can get taken care of
18
But I would reference DRP, just in the spirit
18 while we take a brief rest room break this morning, I
19 of cooperation here. Discipline Rule of Procedure 57
19 would appreciate.
20 says, I believe, the prehearing packet to be served on the 20
I would like to move forward with the hearing
21 State Bar five days in advance of the hearing. It was
21 at this time, our procedural circumstances. Is there
22 served, I believe, at the August 21st or August 25th
22 anything else procedurally that we need to do before we
23 hearing. I don't think I had any real prejudice from
23 swear the witness and get going?
24 that. I was able to get it a little bit late and still
24
118. FLOCCHINI: Nothing that I can think of.
25 try to make as much use of this precious time for a panel : 25 Thank you.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
718

Page 14
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin?

MR. COUGHLIN: Nothing.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
Then I would like to ask the panel to
5 introduce itself, and we'll start with Mr. Denney to my
6 left.
7
MR. DENNEY: Good mcrning. I'm Craig Denney.
MS. BRETERNITZ: Marilee Breternitz.
8
MR. LOW: Keegan Low.
10
MR. FURMAN: George Furman.
11
MS. JENKINS: I'm Caren Jenkins, and I'm the
12 chair.
Counsel are present. Mr. Coughlin, the
13
14 Respondent, is here, and Ms. Flocchini for the State Bar.
15 Would counsel like to make opening statements of not more
16 than ten minutes? An opening statement?
17
18
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, please.
19
Do we need to swear Mr. Coughlin or is he here
20 as an attorney?
21
MS. FLOCCHINI: You're representing yourself.
22 The easiest course would be to swear him at this time,
23 then we know everything is -- has been sworn in. No
24 matter what's being said at what point, it's all under
25 oath. I'm sure Mr. Coughlin is going to be forthvlith vlith
~Page
Page 16
Where I got a bit caught up was in that fit to

2 practice. And I didn't necessarily know what that meant.
3 I didn't find a whole lot of authority to help spell it
4 out besides just generally what you think of when you hear
5 the word fit or fitness. To me that was a broad thing
i 6 that probably does include character, and probably would
7 necessitate putting on character witnesses. I'm a little
8 confused because you hear the term character and fitness,
9 and they are different things.
10
Regardless, I see this as an opportunity, a
11 precious opportunity. And I think it would be foolish to
12 come in here and try -- well, I have to do less than
13 somebody. That might be true, and maybe if that helps
14 this panel apply a little bit more forgiving standard to
15 me, that would be great.
16
But I think it would be foolish for me not to
17 try to address all the mitigation aspects that are found
18 in 102.5 that seems to be incorporated in 116.4, and I
19 intend to do that today by -20
Well, first I intend to address the fact I'm
21 no longer disabled by putting on testimony by someone I
22 believe already has been deemed a qualified medical
23 expert, Dr. Nielsen, pursuant to the Nevada Supreme Court
24 accepting his report and not saying otherwise where the
25 order requiring such indicated he needs to be a qualified
15
ige-U
1 the panel.
1 medical expert. So he will be appearing by telephone.
MS. JENKINS: Do you have an objection,
2
2 Probably the first witness here. Then primarily for the
3 purpose of meeting the first prong of 117.4, showing the
3 Mr. Coughlin?
4 disability has been removed.
MR. COUGHLIN: No.
5
After that, meeting the fitness prong showing
(The oath vias administered to
5
Mr. Coughlin.)
6 I'm fit to practice law, I think will necessitate
6
MS. JENKINS: Please be seated.
7 addressing that which was brought up in the 116 Petition.
MR. COUGHLIN: I appreciate the panel being
8 There might be other stuff that will be \vorthwhile
9 addressing that didn't find its way into the 117 petition.
9 here today. Today I intend to put on evidence showing
10 I have to do that here today in the interest of judicial
10 reinstatement, like I said, with an approach that treats
11 this more like a misconduct reinstatement hearing than a
11 economy.
12 disability reinstatement hearing, to whatever extent those 12
It's interesting to note the disability
13 are different.
13 petition was filed May 31st, 2012, so it's over -- I
14
What I filed last week on the 21st needs more
14 believe that's about 38 mcnths ago. There was some things
15 evidence to the extent there does seem to be different
15 that happened subsequent to the filing of the petition
16 standards under supreme court rules with respect to what
16 that might be relevant to my fitness. Whether or not
17 that's within the purview of what the panel needs to
17 Petitioner must prove in the different contexts.
18
With SCR 116.2 spelling out some standards
18 address today or should address today, I'll leave that to
19 the panel. But I'm happy to address that stuff.
19 that are substantially similar to what are found in the
20 mitigation standards under SCR 102.5. Wherein the
i 20
But I think I'm not conceding the point on
21 disability statement context, the rule is SCR 117.4 which , 21 appeal, but I want to use this hearing as well as
22 basically -- which does, in fact, state the Petitioner
22 possible.
23
Judge McGee will also be testifying, the
23 must show the disability has been removed, and they are
24 character witness, and in whatever capacity he chooses to
24 fit to practice law, and they have the necessary
: 25 testify, whether as to fitness or disability being
25 competence and learning in the law.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
www.1itigationservices.com
719

Page 18'
1 removed.
Page 20
And then I'll put on evidence related to

3 sho,ling current competence and learning of the law.
4
But it seems to me the bulk of the time should
5 be spent on the fitness prong. I'll leave that to the
6 panel. And if the panel provides some direction in terms
7 of Ivhat it ,iOuld like me to focus on, I certainly will.
8
But from my review of the case law, addressing
9 the fitness aspect might necessitate addressing some of
10 the underlying either alleged misconduct or alleged
11 conduct resulting in a disability petition. And I'll be
12 doing that today.
13
The majority of it, if not all of it, is just
14 saying mea culpa, expressing contrition. Not getting too
15 much, if at all, into, well, I wasn't that culpable
16 because I had this state of mind, even though there is
17 case lalv that supports doing that, looking beyond the
18 title of the conviction to the unlike circumstances. I'll
19 do that if the panel feels it's useful.
20
But the underlying sentiment is just that
21 was wrong. I vias not well. Kind of a combination of
22 being not well, but also understanding I have personal
23 responsibility here, and I vias not behaving appropriately,
24 and I did some things that were wrong. I'm not
25 necessarily saying, well, it's okay because I was either
that the panel hold the matter in abeyance for six months,
2 and conduct a status hearing regarding a continuance of
3 his current course, that he continues to follow the
4 recommendations of Dr. Nielsen and address the underlying
5 issues that got us to the 117 petition, and that he
6 establish a plan for handling the stress and/or the
7 changes that will ensue if he returns to the practice of
8 law.
9
Our request, or our recommendation, is based
! 10 on, will be based on the brevity of Mr. Coughlin's
11 compliance ,lith Dr. Nielsen's recommendation. And the
12 other basis is for the supreme court's finding of
13 disability.
14
Also the anticipated issues with starting up
15 the practice of law that the State Bar has not yet seen be
16 addressed in Mr. Coughlin's presentation of information to
17 the State Bar.
18
And then thirdly, the State Bar recognizes
19 that under SCR 117 an attorney who is placed on disability
20 inactive status cannot apply for reinstatement any sooner
21 than one year after the first application. So there has
22 to be a one-year gap from the first application, which was
23 made in June. So if his request for reinstatement is
24 denied today, Mr. Coughlin would have to wait a full year.
25
And recognizing that perhaps that's longer than is
1 impaired or whatever it may be or because of this or that.

2
Thank you.
3
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you for your time here
4 today also. I'll be brief.
5
The panel has been provided with a copy of
6 Rule 117, I believe. And in that it provides that
7 Mr. Coughlin is the Petitioner for reinstatement bearing
8 the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing
9 evidence that the disability has been removed or that he's
10 no longer disabled, and that he's fit at this time to
11 return to the practice of law.
12
The focus on fitness is appropriate in this
13 case. There's no doubt that Mr. Coughlin is very smart.
14 And the State Bar has made no qualms when discussing with
15 Mr. Coughlin that vie' re not prepared at this time to
16 support his reinstatement petition. Sometimes the State
17 Bar appears and does not object or stipulate to
18 reinstatement, but nonetheless just provides for the
19 Petitioner to put on their case.
20
At this point the State Bar is not supporting
21 the petition for reinstatement. And that is primarily
22 because there is doubt at this time that he is emotionally
23 or mentally stable enough to take on practicing law yet.
24
And the State Bar's recommendation or the
25 State Bar's request in response to the petition would be
1 necessary, perhaps, that's why we viOuld request that the

2 panel hold their decision in abeyance so that it gives
3 Mr. Coughlin some time, but not necessarily a full year,
4 to show examples that the State Bar would support as a
i 5 basis for returning to the practice of law.
6
~lS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, presentation of
7 evidence.
8
MR. COUGHLIN: I would first like to put on
i 9 some witnesses. If Judge McGee would like to go first.
: 10 would like to do that unless you would like to hear the
i 11 doctor's testimony.
12
I will call Judge McGee.
13
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I</as this witness
14 disclosed to the State Bar?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
16
MS. JENKINS: Obj ection?
! 17
MS. FLOCCHINI: I am considering the
: 18 representation that Judge McGee was disclosed. I believe
i 19 that Judge McGee may have been referenced in conversation.
20 The State Bar does not have an objection to Judge McGee's
21 testimony today.
22
But I wanted to give some input on the order
23 of testimony. It is Mr. Coughlin's hearing. But I know
24 that Dr. Nielsen ,las available, prepared to be available
i 25 from 8:30 until 10:00, and that he will not be available
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
720

Page 24
Page 22!
1 after 10: 00 0' clock. So I vlanted to make sure that that

2 was taken into consideration.
CHARLES McGEE
4
called as a witness in said case,
5
having been first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
'
THE WITNESS: Thank you for that guidance.

There is no secret that 12 years ago I was
2
3 stopped and then subsequently convicted of a DUI. And I
4 have been in a 12-step program ever since. And that is
: 5 one of the venues in which I was able to observe Zach.
6
I've read Dr. Nielsen's report. I've talked
7 to many people, including his father who is here this
8 morning. And Bruce Beesley, who also represented the
THE WITNESS: I may be very, very brief,
9 State Bar here just a couple years ago.
9 because I got here long enough, and I'm sorry I'm late, to
10 hear I'm being called as a character witness.
110
I have -- I don't envy your position, because
11 for me what is necessary here is an amber flag of caution.
11
The reason that I put this judicial
12 identification badge on this morning was to remind myself
12 Caution. Caution. Caution. Because as -- I don't know
13 that I'm not here as an advocate for Zach Coughlin. I'm
13 if I want to use the word miraculous. Maybe whatever
14 enlightenment he, I think honestly, has received is fairly
14 here as a judicial officer, in one sense, trying to guard
15 the profession, just like the State Bar is doing, and a
15 shortlived as the Bar has stated this morning.
16
I am something of a pseudopsycho
16 person who has had percipient observations of this young
17 pharmacologist having started the first family drug court
17 man over a period of years and headway that he has
18 recently made.
18 in the United States in 1994. And I'm aware of certain
19 parts of the addiction 1'lOr Id because of my personal
19
So if he wants me to limit my testimony to
20 just character testimony, then I will say a few words, and 20 experience, and because of my studies.
21
This 90 days they talk about, for example, has
21 I'll leave. If I'm allowed to -- go ahead.
22
MS. JENKINS: Would you please identify
22 clinical backup to it. It's about 90 days before the
23 yourself for the record.
, 23 brain chemistry begins to change. And my anecdotal
24
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Charles M. McGee.
i 24 experience anYVlay is it's about a year for somebody who is
25 And I live at 4930 Turning Leaf Way in Reno, Nevada. I've : 25 addicted to a substance. You can't state with any
I
1 been a trial court judge or juvenile judge for over 35

2 years.
May I go ahead?
3
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. Unless you
5 would prefer me to ask you questions, I'll allow you to
6 say whatever you want to say, testify about whatever you
7 want to testify about.
8
THE WITNESS: I'll do that.
MR. COUGHLIN: For whatever purpose.
10
THE WITNESS: It's really interesting for me
11 to see how awkward it must be for you to stand up and try
12 to argue legal niceties when your primary mission in here
13 this morning should be the mea culpa part of it, because
14 that's what you need to do with these people.
15
Let me state briefly my qualifications.
Is this a confidential hearing?
16
17
MS. JENKINS: No.
18
Ms. Flocchini, would you like to respond to
19 that?
THE WITNESS: Is this a public hearing?
20
MS. JENKINS: It is a public hearing. The
21
22 public is invited to attend the hearing, and the record,
23 don't believe, is sealed in any vlay. But depending on
24 Mr. Coughlin's future disciplinary or behavioral issues it
25 may be open, and so you need to be aware of that.
1 confidence he or she is completely out of the woods.

2
Zach is a brilliant young man as the State
3 just stated. And he is brilliant, and who has a multiplex
4 of problems. He had a problem with alcohol, as do I. And
5 I say that in the current tense because that's what all
6 12-step people will tell you. You're recovering a day at
7 a time.
But on top of that, he's had mental health
8
9 issues, as you can see in Dr. Nielsen's report. What's
10 interesting to me is that none of his transgressions
11 considered in isolation would probably vlarrant more than
12 a -- some of them may be a private reprimand. Some of
113 them may be a public reprimand, or maybe even a suspension
! 14 or something like that.
15
Taken together collectively, this man, and I'm
i 16 saying this to you in your face, acted like a jerk.
17 You've read the transcripts, and you can see how haughty
! 18 and arrogant he was before these lower court judges as if
119 he had some kind of corner on the world.
: 20
And that to me is a sign of the problem that
21 he was having with Adderall, which is a psychotropic drug.
22 So he got a little bit manic. Not in the full-blown sense
, 23 of a mood swing disorder, but he got a little beyond
24 himself.
25
NOW, those are the caution flags that I think
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
721

Page 26'
Page 28
1 really care for him. But I'm not going to be hornswoggled

1 are absolutely legitimate in this case. And I only
2 learned from correspondence from you, I think, that
2 by him either. So the job is yours. I just made it maybe
3 there's a monitoring program that is offered by the State I 3 a little bit more tense.
4 Bar. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. And as early, as rigorous
4
And I'm sorry if I haven't been here to just
5 laud your character to the heavens, because I think you're
5 as possible, and then taper it off. Because he is still
6 in a process of recovery, and that you have taken the
6 in that area where he could relapse both on the Adderall
7 right steps, and that at some point you ought to be a
7 or any other kind of drug.
8 proud practitioner of the profession that everyone in this
8
And let me tell you, I think a biased 11arning
9 room loves.
9 vlith some scientific basis. More and more now they're
10 saying that these addictions all go through the same kind
10
That's all I have to say.
11 of process, whether they are uppers or downers, they are
11
MS. JENKINS: Any other questions for the
12 all affected by the dopamine or serotinum travel between
I 12 witness?
MR. COUGHLIN: No, your Honor.
13 the synaptic clef. And it literally after a while kind of I 13
14 rewires the brain. So the brain has got to wire back to
14
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini?
15
MS. FLOCCHINI: No, thank you.
15 the point of normalcy, if you will. I can't get much
MS. JENKINS: The panel?
16 beyond that because I'm not a psychiatrist or a chemist or i 16
17
17 any of those things.
MR. FURMAN: None.
MR. LOW: Good morning, Judge McGee. I'm
18
But I applaud Zach Coughlin because for years
18
19 I thought he was full of himself. And he was good at it,
19 Keegan Low, and we have met before.
20
THE WITNESS: Of course.
20 because he's smart. I don't think he's fooling himself
MR. LOW: In the packet I was provided I did
21 anymore. I think he's honest. I think he recognized what 21
22 not have a copy of Dr. Nielsen's report. And I sort of
22 a jerk he was.
23
I think if he could -- in the 12-step program i 23 feel like I need a copy of that at my earliest ability to
24 we're supposed to make amends. And whatever way he can do 24 have one, because I need to see what was in that report.
i 25
But I \;ill talk to you about -- you have some
25 that without offending the judicial officers that he
1 offended, he should probably be doing that as the ninth
2 step we call it.
But the overall prognosis is excellent after
3
he had this kind of epiphany. And I can't describe it in
5 a different word than that, because I think he's rock
6 solid in his early recovery.
7
So, to me, you should start out, whether it's
8 now or a month from now or three months from nOl;, or even
9 six months from now. But if you start out and say, okay,
10 we're going to put you under a microscope and under the
11 monitoring of a licensed attorney or somebody that would
12 be willing to take him in and watch everything he does to
13 see if he has that quality of professionalism that I think
14 he now recognizes is an integral part of being a
15 professional.
16
Then I don't think you need to necessarily
17 wait six months. I think he needs to come up with a plan
18 that accomplishes all those goals so that it starts out
19 real tentative. He's not going to take on a caseload of
20 30 or 40 cases no matter what. He's going to do a few and
21 see how he does. And then the monitor is going to maybe
22 monitor him, go to court with him and see is he acting in
23 a way that is appropriate for an officer of the court.
24
That's pretty much all I have to say. I'm
25 speaking with the eye of my heart. And I care for him. I
1 familiarity Vlith the Petitioner in the recovery program,

2 you've indicated?
3
THE WITNESS: I do.
4
MR. LOW: Are you his sponsor?
I
5
THE WITNESS: I am not.
MR. LOW: Do you kno\; who his sponsor is? And
7 you don't have to tell me that.
8
THE WITNESS: I think so. But I think that's
9 information that I I;ould like to maintain confidentiality
I 10 for.
'11
MR. LOW: I don't need any identity.
12
To your kno\;ledge, does the Petitioner have a
13 sponsor?
THE WITNESS: I think so. But I'm not sure.
14
15 He's been gone. He went from here and took a journey, I
16 think to southern California. He's only recently returned
17 to Reno. Relatively recently.
, 18
MR. LOW: You're talking about the Petitioner?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
19
20
MR. LOW: All right.
THE WITNESS: There was a gap in there.
21
, 22 don't knOl'l what his relationship with a sponsor might have
23 been in southern California.
i 24
MR. LOW: Do you have any information about
25 how long the Petitioner has been in a recovery program?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
722

Page 30'
Page 32
THE WITNESS: Yes, with qualifications. I

1 Nevada Legal Aid Society, Paul Elcano. And one of the
2 think he's been in the recovery program for approximately
2 people he disappointed was Paul Elcano. And he's since
3 six years. Whether he's been fully -- had full traction
3 made amends to Mr. Elcano.
4
That's part of the reason for my hesitation as
4 in the program is of much more recent vintage.
MR. LOW: There's obviously a determination of
5 I spoke on direct examination.
5
6 the quality of recovery -6
MS. JENKINS: Any other questions from the
7 panel?
7
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
8
MR. LOW: -- that's he's experiencing.
8
MR. DENNEY: None.
Do you have information or knowledge about how
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Judge.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can.
10 often he currently attends his recovery program?
10
11
THE WITNESS: I know he's there every time I'm 11
MS. JENKINS: Please, go ahead.
I 12
12 there on Thursday nights. I don't know what his regimen
DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 is. I think he goes to much more than once a week.
13 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14
And if I were in your shoes, I would make
14
Q Your Honor, if I can just ask you. You
15 referenced six years ago. I believe at the neeting you're
15 mandatory a certain rigor of attendance of three or five
16 referring to where I saw you a few weeks ago you had said
16 times a week.
17
Ironically, you might even ask his dad that
17 you had actually known me since about 2003 or '04?
18 question, because his dad is an expert in this area.
18
A That's probably right.
19
MR. LOW: I think that's all I have. Thank
19
Q That's my recollection.
20 you.
i 20
A I stand corrected. It probably has been that
; 21 long. I'm not real good on time. And I apologize to you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
21
22
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Denney?
: 22 It probably has been at least ten years.
I 23
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Judge McGee.
MR. DENNEY: I have no questions.
23
THE WITNESS: May I be excused?
MS. JENKINS: Judge McGee, when was the last
24
24
MS. JENKINS: You are excused. Thank you for
25 time you were at a meeting where zach Coughlin was in
25
Page 33
Page
1 attendance?
2
THE WITNESS: Three weeks ago.
MS. JENKINS: You mentioned that he's been
4 away.
5
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Hovl long ago did he leave? And
7 hOI' long ago did he return? That you're aware of.
THE WITNESS: I'm not completely sure, because
8
9 I've been in the hospital this year for over two months.
10 And then I've been in a rehab hospital. And then I've
11 been in physical therapy. So during those periods of time
12 I wasn't even able to attend the Thursday night meetings,
13 the so-called comeetings as they are known.
14
So I know there was a hiatus vlhere he vias
15 gone. And I know that his father from earlier on was
16 something of a lightning rod for some of his angst, if you
17 will.
18
What I saw in the meeting three weeks ago is a
19 father and son grasping at each other in the wellness of
20 the moment. And it was sincere as all get-out, and I
21 cried.
22
MS. JENKINS: How long ago did you meet
23 Mr. Coughlin?
24
THE WITNESS: Probably six years ago, seven
25 years ago. I actually helped him get a job with the local
1 being here.
Is it time for Dr. Nielsen? Get the telephone
3 set up, please.
4
(Recess taken.)
5
MS. JENKINS: I understand, we have a
6 telephone witness. Would the witness please identify
7 himself.
8
THE IrIiTNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't understand
9 that.
118. JENKINS: Would you identify yourself for
10
11 the record, please, sir.
12
THE WITNESS: My name is Earl S. Nielsen,
13 N-i-e-l-s-e-n, Ph.D.
14
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask the court
15 reporter to swear you to tell the truth. If you would
i 16 stand, please, and raise your right hand.
17
(The oath was administered
118
telephonically to the witness.)
119
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, my name is Caren
120 Jenkins, and I'm the chair here. I want to let you know
21 that this panel, the five-member panel, today has not yet
I 22 reviewed your report, either the one you did initially or
23 the one you've done more recently. So Mr. Coughlin is
24 going to be examining you to elicit your testimony.
25
Any references to your reports are just fine,
2
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
723

Page 34
Page 36
1 but we want you to testify from your knoViledge rather than

1 and during the psychological testing, the conclusions that
2 from your report. Okay?
2 I was able to reach Vlere that he was -- he was having some
THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 problems with addiction to alcohol. He had had difficulty
4
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin.
4 in the past Vlith other chemicals that seemed to have been
5 resolved. That he \'ias mildly depressed, but a lot of that
5
EARL NIELSEN
6 appeared to me to be situational in response to his
called as a Vlitness in said case,
7 difficulties Vlith the Bar.
having been first duly SViorn, Vias
8
And I also diagnosed a dependent personality
8
examined and testified as folloVls:
9 disorder underlying everything else, and probably of
DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 longer standing.
10 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11
What I recommended Vias that he seek counseling
11
Q Good morning, Dr. Nielsen. Thank you for
12 on a regular basis from a qualified counselor, that he
12 making yourself available to testify.
13 also participate in at least AA, if not alcohol treatment.
13
A You're vie 1come .
14 And that he -- the other recommendation I made vias that he
14
Q Dr. Nielsen, can you describe the contents of
15 your evaluation, your original evaluation and your
i 15 Vlithdraw himself from the law and find Vlhat I call the
16 subsequent evaluation of myself, the Petitioner?
! 16 subsistence job Vlhere he could survive, but he needed to
17 get back to his own roots, working, being responsible,
17
A Yes. Although it's not on the records in
18 supporting himself, get avlay from some of his dependency
18 front of me, I'll have to do it off the top of my head.
19
Q Dr. Nielsen, if I can just interject quickly. i 19 issues.
20 Including reference to recovez:y efforts by the Petitioner
And I also recommended that if possible he get
20
21 that may have been present with respect to substance abuse 21 out of the area. Because I think there are too many
I 22 triggers around him in the Reno community, at least in
22 recovez:y.
. 23 Ivashoe County.
23
Please go ahead, sir.
24
I knovl that's a pretty brief summary of a
24
A Okay. I was originally asked to conduct a
25 psychological evaluation of Mr. Coughlin and the question
That's essentially what the report
1 in front of the Nevada State Bar or from the supreme
2 court, I was never clear on exactly which.
3
So I met with Mr. Coughlin in July of 2014 and
4 conducted a background, social history intervie\'i, and also
5 what I call a clinical review to review his perception of
6 his own level of functioning.
7
I was also surprised with the relatively
8 extensive records by the Bar. And so I had the records
9 that described the complaints about Mr. Coughlin, and the
10 history from the legal point of view.
11
I also conducted psychological testing with
12 Mr. Coughlin, including the reading skills of intelligence
13 and the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory -14
THE REPORTER: He's breaking up.
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, if you could speak
15
16 as loudly as you can \'iithout shouting. We're having a
17 little trouble hearing you.
18
THE WITNESS: I'm having that trouble too.
19 Did you ask me to speak up?
20
MS. JENKINS: If you would.
21
THE WITNESS: Okay. I Vias talking Vlhen you
22 said it, so I didn't hear you. I Vlill try to speak more
23 clearly and louder.
24
MS. JENKINS: Great.
25
THE WITNESS: So in meeting Vlith Mr. Coughlin,
1 concluded.
I then received a phone call from Mr. Coughlin
3 in June of 2015 asking if I Vlould revievl his progress and
4 be Vlilling to write a letter to the Bar that describes my
5 observations. I agreed to do that, and I met Vlith him, I
6 think, on June 26th in my office.
7
He supplied me with additional records. He
8 also supplied me with a relatively long list of people to
9 contact Vlho had opportunity to observe him. I chose not
10 to contact all of those people. It seemed redundant. But
i 11 I did speak Vlith Bill Martin, Vlho is a marriage and family
12 therapist. I spoke Vlith Dr. Hoar who is also a marriage
13 and family therapist. And I also spoke to Dr. Tim
14 Coughlin, Vlho is Mr. Coughlin's father. These are
15 people -- the first two he had been in counseling Vlith in
i 16 San Diego.
17
The importance of speaking to his father is
18 that when I did the original report he Vias quite estranged
19 from his father and had not been able to communicate
20 directly with his father for a period of time. But they
21 were in a more antagonistic relationship at the time that
22 I evaluated him first. So his Vlillingness to allow me to
I 23 speak to his father at this point allowed me a viindovi that
i 24 I thought I needed.
; 25
So I was able to do those things, to review
2
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
724

Page 38'
Page 40
1 the records of the counselors, to review the medical

1 father and family had visited Nr. Coughlin in San Diego,
2 records, and also to speak to these three people, as well
2 had reconnected with him. His father's description was
3 very positive about Zach's change in attitude, including
3 as Mr. Coughlin, so four people.
Based on my then contacts of Nr. Coughlin and
4
4 his capacity to apologize to people whom he had probably
5 his community, I wrote a letter on his behalf back to the
5 hurt over a period of years, including his stepmother and
6 Bar saying that essentially I thought that he had followed
6 stepsister.
7 my recommendations, that he had made the effort to do what
And so I thought that on a personal level was
7
8 I had suggested. He had -- he followed through his
8 another remarkable step forward for Mr. Coughlin.
i 9
At this point vlhat I had said in my letter,
9 counseling in Reno, although that counseling vias through
10 the Northern Nevada Adult Nental Health Services. And in i 10 and it's certainly not up to me to make a decision whether
11 my report I had not recommended that service, I
i 11 he is reinstated. But if he's reinstated at this point, I
12 specifically not recommended the service. But I think
12 would certainly encourage the Bar to create a structured
13 that's all he can afford, and I understood that, that he
13 reentry for Nr. Coughlin, including random alcohol
14 had no means.
14 screenings, a requirement that he continue his attendance
15
l'lhen he got to San Diego, I think his first
115 at Alcoholics Anonymous on a high-frequency basis with
16 objective there was to apply for NediCal. And once
I 16 reports to the Bar, and engage in serious counseling with
17 NediCal was approved, he was able then to get private
; 17 a qualified counselor.
18 counselors who, I think, provided more support and more
i 18
It doesn't have to be a psychologist. The
19 benefit than what he was receiving with NANS.
19 marriage and family therapist or psychiatric social
20
I didn't have any contact with Nr. Coughlin
20 workers are fine. It just has to be somebody strong
21 from at least August of 2014 until June of 2015. I didn't 21 enough to keep Mr. Coughlin focused on his needs to
22 have further contact from the Bar, although I submitted
22 improve and his ovm responsibilities.
23 the report. I had no feedback. I don't actually know
23
So when he had chosen to move to San Diego, in
24 what the Bar recommended for Mr. Coughlin.
24 particular Dr. Hoar I thought was a qualified person.
25
But when I was able to see him in June, and
25 Reading her notes I would encourage him to return to that
review his records in July, I was convinced that he had
2 made his best efforts. That he had said -- that I had
3 suggested that he be in counseling with a stronger
4 counselor two or three times a week. He attempted to do
5 that three times a week, but MediCal wouldn't approve
6 three times a week, so one of his counselors backed out.
But the reports from the counselors vlere
7
8 positive about his efforts and his attempt to engage in
9 his own issues rather than what's often the case, looking
10 for a way to blame your problems on somebody else. I
11 think that is what I observed in Mr. Coughlin.
12
By January of 2015, he finally appears to have
13 taken control of his own ship and made the efforts,
14 basically stopped complaining. And again it's even
15 reflected in his counseling notes that he was taking on
16 his own personal problems and had decided to solve them
17 himself. He chose to discontinue his alcohol use and be
18 substance free. He attended the counseling as he could
19 afford it. He, in fact, moved to San Diego and became a
20 painter's helper rather than an attorney.
21
So the summary of my second letter is that
22 think he's done what I suggested, and I think to his
23 benefit. I also did speak with his father. And his
24 father, in fact, had also observed what he described as a
25 remarkable change in Mr. Coughlin. And, in fact, the
1 counselor, if he can.
In addition to monitoring those things, I
2
3 think there ought to be a quarterly report from the
4 counselor back to the Bar to discuss his continued ability
5 to maintain his focus and, in fact, his efforts to improve
6 character.
So that's how I summarize my experience with
7
8 Nr. Coughlin. Do you need more?
9
NS. JENKINS: Nr. Coughlin?
10
~ffi. COUGHLIN:
I have a couple quick
11 questions.
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q Dr. Nielsen, were you aware that the first two

arrests at issue in the disability petition occurred
within a couple weeks of myself, the Petitioner, abruptly
ceasing to take both Adderall and Wellbutrin, and instead
dealing with the effects of coming off of those by
relapsing on dextromethorphan or over-the-counter cough
medication?
I was aware of that, yes.
21
Q Do you see any -- did you see that as
22 significant in the arrest or somehow some causal
23 correlation or connection in there?
24
A I think there's some important connection.
25 don't know that I would say it's a causal relationship.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
725

Page 42
Page 44
1 In fact, I believe it was symptomatic. My impression is

1 what I understand, I think one of the thefts I"as I think
2 that you were floundering. You had reached a point where
2 you were drinking cough syrup in the store without paying
3 there were too many difficulties for you to overcome, and
3 for it. And that was you believing that you needed the
4 your choices were poor choices.
4 cough syrup to survive. It wasn't exactly I'm going to
5
And so it is a combination of alcohol, of
5 steal it because I want to.
6 choosing to use or not use prescribed medications. But
6
I don't want to overdo this. I have a limited
7 all of those were, from my point of view, more symptomatic
7 amount of information about your actual motive at the time
8 of what I saw as your unraveling at that point.
8 of the crimes. As I look at the pattern, I sawall of it
9
The arrests themselves were further stressors.
9 as sort of knee-jerk solutions to problems that were
10 But the way you chose to cope with those I think was
10 greater than you believed.
11 inadequate. I think that's why I said in my original
11
And so again it's that conflagration of events
12 report that I did believe that you were not able to
12 that came together. I don't think you -- I guess I should
13 practice law at the time of that evaluation, and that
, 13 go back to my original report. I don't think you have an
14 eventually I saw you as a disabled counselor.
14 antisocial personality disorder. I don't think you're a
15
That actually, from my point of view, sets
i 15 sociopath.
You weren't choosing to do those things just
16 that's what was going on at that point in time. Not at
16 for the fun of it. You were panicked. And that was my
17 the point of the arrest, but at the point where I
17 overall impression.
18 evaluated you. All those things had an impact. But I
18
Q Could you say the Petitioner throughout the
19 think the cause is more a combination of stressors with
: 19 period of time in which the various events detailed in the
20 which you didn't adequately cope.
: 20 petition occurred, would you say the Petitioner was going
21
When I look at that a year later, that's
21 through personal or emotional problems?
22 actually my assessment is that you finally got enough of
22
A Yes.
23 your self-control to put things in better perspective.
23
Q Would you say throughout that same period the
24 But I don't think I would say this was caused by Adderall
24 Petitioner had a mental disability or chemical dependency
25 or the lack of Adderall.
25 including alcoholism or drug abuse?
45
1
Q Or by ingesting massive quantities of a
2 disassociative in dextromethorphan?
3
A Well, again, I think that was your solution at
4 the time, I don't think -- and that becomes a symptom of
5 the problem. I don't think that was the cause.
A Well, I did believe there was an alcohol

2 dependency that affected this. And I think that was one
3 of the factors.
4
I also think there was mental and emotional
5 issues that impacted your behavior and your ability to
6 function. And that's essentially what I said in the
7 report is that based on that standard, I didn't think you
8 could function as an attorney because of both the
9 addiction factored in as well as the mental and emotional
10 symptoms that I described.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q Okay. So Dr. Nielsen, getting into mitigation

aspects. All the misconduct or misbehavior detailed in
the disability petition, in your opinion would you say
that there was an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive
on the Petitioner's part exhibited in all that behavior,
but rather just such being symptomatic of a level of
dysfunction in the Petitioner's life?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A I don't know how to answer that. In all

honestly, I think you were scrambling, and I think you
were grasping at whatever you could. Those things tended
to be ineffective.
I don't know about motive. I think your
motive at the time was survival. Your choice of solution
was poor.
20
21
22
23
24
Q To compare that to somebody who is functioning

at a fairly high level, who is convicted of theft, would
you say that might exhibit more of a dishonest or selfish
22
A Again, I don't have the statute in front of
motive than one of Petitioner's circumstances at the time, 123 me, so I don't have that standard here. I do believe that
whereas you say he was just scrambling to survive?
24 the standard I'm responding to in my report, however, when
25
A Yes. Again, I think the theft wasn't -- from
11
Q Would you say the chemical dependency or
12 mental disability caused the misconduct?
13
A I don't think I can make a causal statement.
14 I can make a statement that they certainly interact. But
15 it's more complex than simply this caused this.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q Are you aware that the standards for

mitigation in Nevada to, if you will, be more forgiving or
have more understanding of one's misconduct include a
prong which asks whether or not the chemical dependency or
mental illness caused the misconduct? And if that be
established, then some more mitigation would be found?
25 I did say that I believe as a result of these things that
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
726

Page 46'
Page 48
1 you were at that time disabled and unable to function as

2 an attorney.
1 counseling things that I recowmended. And I do believe by

2 the time I saw you the second time you were certainly
3 thinking differently and more motivated to the cause of
3
Q Okay.
4 your action rather than just being defensive wanting to
A I also said that I did believe with adequate
5 fight back.
5 treatment and adequate commitment on your own part that
6 you can recover and return to a point where you can
6
So yes, I think in my view you have met the
7 function adequately as an attorney. In my second report
I 7 rehabilitative standard, as I said. And I think in
8 that's basically what it says, that I thought that you had
8 Alcoholics Anonymous they take this very seriously.
9 You're never fully recovered. This is a lifelong pattern.
9 adequately addressed those issues to now be to a point
10 where you \o[ere able to function independently and might be 10 But you've been able now to sustain the pattern for many
11 considered to return to the Bar.
11 months, and I think tnat counts.
12
The causal language in the standard, I can
12
Q Do you find it significant that the Petitioner
13 take my report response to that directly, even though I
!13 here has ceased taking Adderall?
i 14
A I think Adderall has good and bad effects.
14 said I \o[as at the moment being cautious about the causal
i 15 And it's prescribed medication, prescribed for a reason,
15 statement, I think it does say that in the report.
16
Q Doctor, the third prong in the SCR 105.2. (i)
i 16 and it's effective for what it's used for.
However, it's
17 mitigation analysis which essentially finds mitigation
17 also something that can be abused. And in your case I
18 think that the Adderall in conjunction with alcohol
18 where the following.
19
Would you say on Prong 3, the Respondent's
19 created more problems than it was worth to you.
20 recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability 20
For you to have stopped the Adderall and found
21 a way to function with -- I think you were diagnosed ADHD
21 is demonstrated by his meaningful and sustained period of
i 22 from the past -- without the medication is, again, a
22 successful rehabilitation?
, 23 tribute to you efforts.
23
A Yes.
24
Q Do you find that to be the case here?
24
Adderall might make your life easier, but it
25 runs so many risks with you that you're better off without
25
A
1 explained to you is that -- and I think the way I put it
1 it.
2 to you is you're not finished. I think you've taken the
2
Q Do you think the use of Adderall here might
3 have contributed to some of the Petitioner's inappropriate
3 necessary steps toward recovery.
4
I do understand that you have been alcohol
4 filing and/or antagonistic behavior with the various
5 authorities detailed in the petition?
5 free for a period of time, and I think that counts. I
6 also see that you have done constructive things to right
6
A I think that's possible. The effect of
7 Adderall, Adderall is a stimulant medication. So with the
7 your Ovin ship, and that counts. So I'm willing to say
8 that I recommend that the petition be considered, although
8 more frightening stimulants, methamphetamine, when people
9 take those kinds of drugs they become very manic and very
9 I'm not the one who makes the decision.
10
But that's vlhy I recommended relatively strict 10 hyperactive and hostile and use poor judgment.
11 supervisory standards around it. That, yes, I think
11
Adderall doesn't usually stimulate that set of
12 you're functioning. You're not under the influence of
12 events because it's usually taken in much smaller doses.
13 alcohol at this point. You're not under the influence of " 13 But if you begin to add Adderall to dextromethorphan or
14 other medication. And your mental and emotional health
14 you begin to add Adderall to alcohol it becomes harder to
15 are enough improved that I think you can stand on your own 15 predict.
16
So there has been an element in your -- when
16 two feet.
17
So yes, I think that you have met that
i 17 you seem to be overly stressed and begin making poor
i 18 judgments, you tend to exacerbate that with a hyperactive
18 standard, and you have met the rehabilitative standard.
19
Q So did you find that to be the case with
: 19 display or almost a hypomanic display. And it's again my
20 respect to both the chemical dependency and a mental
! 20 reason for arguing Adderall probably isn't a drug of
21 choice for you. You're going to have to go it on your
21 disability?
22
A Yes. I think that you have been away from the 22 own. You don't need the alcohol, and I think you'll find
23 a way to not need the Adderall.
23 alcohol long enough that it's no longer affecting your
24
Q Doctor, the fourth prong of that mitigation
24 thinking and your direct behavior. I think that in the
i 25 analysis, do you find that the recovery arrested
25 meantime you've also on your own sought some of the
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
727

Page 50'
1 misconduct, and that a recurrence of that misconduct is

2 unlikely here?
Page 52
your actual character other than the observations that are

2 current. But I didn't have contact with high school
3 friends or college buddies or enough of a history that
4 would establish a change.
3
A Well, I think based on your recovery efforts
4 to this point you have reduced the risk. I think that the
5 reason that I was adamant about creating a structured
5
Q Doctor, would you say in your review of the
6 reintroduction is that, as I said, I think you're not
6 various materials you were provided that you were
7 done. I think you've done all you can do. I don't think
7 impressed with the Petitioner's efforts to advocate on
8 behalf of tenants' rights and the rights of those
8 there are other things that you could have done to this
9 point. It's early.
9 subjects' competency proceedings, and those dealing with
10
As I think you're aware, when we talk about
!10 rights to counsel issues and other various altruistic
11 recovery with alcohol or other things, they often take a
11 pursuits
12 while, and it's a long-term commitment. In the meantime,
12 relative to the law?
13 as I said, I think you've done all the things you could
13
A I don't think I'm qualified to make that
14 do, and you've been consistent, and you've been persistent 14 statement. I'm not an attorney, and I'm not an actual
15 with that.
15 expert on attorneys and law. I believe that the
I 16 improvements that I see place you in a position where I
16
I think that if you find yourself getting
17 agitated and doing hyperactive things that you need to
17 think you could practice law. About what law, I wouldn't
18 talk to yourself about that. Okay. What's going on here? 18 know. I don't have the capacity to evaluate your ability
19 vlhat am I doing? But I don't think you need the
19 to conduct a specific legal proceeding.
20 medication.
20
I don't know -- frankly, I don't know enough
21
Since you've stopped the medication and the
21 about your legal training or expertise. That's outside
22 alcohol, then yes, I can say the recovery has had the
122 the scope of my ability.
23 beneficial effect of returning you to a point where you
, 23
Q Would you say that you found yourself agreeing
24 have more ability to take responsibility for yourself and
24 with Petitioner with respect to some of the various things
25 your actions, better judgment, and better commitment to
125 relative to competency evaluations and things of that
1
Page
51 t~
1 improving yourself, making yourself safe for our society.

2
Q On that note would you say the Petitioner has
1 like?
' 2
A Again, you're asking me a question about a

3 specific legal knowledge set, and I don't know how I would
4 evaluate that capacity. I think only an attorney could
5 evaluate that specific capacity.
6
Q Well, did you find yourself at various points
3 made a timely, good faith effort to make restitution or to

4 rectify the consequences of his misconduct?
5
A To the extent that you have made the effort to
6 recover, yes. I don't know what other restitution would
7 have been required, so I don't know the whole package.
8 But I do know that if the question is have you made a
9 good-faith effort to bring yourself back to an adequate
10 level of functioning, I would say yes.
7 in interacting with the Petitioner essentially saying to

8 yourself, yeah, I feel that way too. I don't like it when
9 that person does this or that, or I don't necessarily
10 approve of the approach this or that person takes in those
11 settings?
Q Would you say that the Petitioner, when

12 meeting with you, divulged more to you than was actually
13 even covered in the disability petition?
11
14
A I think that's true.
15
Q Would you say that evidenced or was evidence
16 of a full and free disclosure to disciplinary authorities
17 or displaying a cooperative attitude toward the
18 proceeding?
19
12
A I probably did that. And yes, I think there
13 were points in our discussion when I could agree with your
14 viewpoint or opinion. To me that's different from
15 evaluating your competency to function in a specific area.
A As far as my role goes, yes.
20
Q Other than the misconduct at issue, are you
21 aware of the Petitioner having character or a good
22 reputation?
23
A I'm not sure about that, Mr. Coughlin. With
24 the records that I reviewed beyond the interviews and
25 testing with you, didn't necessarily reflect a lot about
16
17
; 18
19
20
21
1
Q To the extent that I would gather, and I think

you should, but you view yourself as having character, a
good character, would you say that the congruence of your
opinions and the Petitioner's opinions in those various
contexts could lend support for you to find the Petitioner
has character?
22
A Yes. I don't have a problem saying that you
23 have the character to function as an attorney or as an
24 altruistic human being. All I'm saying is I would limit
, 25 my statement to the generality that I think without the
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
728

Page 54
8
Q Would you say that the Petitioner displayed
9 remorse or contrition with respect to the various
10 misconduct detailed in the petition and otherwise?
11
A I think that's more obvious today than it vias
12 a year ago, yes.
13
Q
14 questions.
15 disabled?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Just to wind this down with respect to my

Would you say the Petitioner is no longer
Page 56
1 alcohol and the Adderal1 and the high stress that you were
2 under that you're much more able to function with a higher
3 level of character, that I think you are capable of
4 generosity and kindness and things that you may not have
5 been able to do under the influence.
6
And so yes, I think that there's evidence that
7 your character is more solid today than it was a year ago.
1
Q You indicated earlier that you have reviewed
2 doCtullents that were provided by the medical providers,
3 including Bill Martin, who is a marriage and family
4 therapist who has been working with Mr. Coughlin; correct?
5
6
A Correct.
A Correct.
Q And you also reviewed doCtullents provided by

7 Dr. Hoar as well who met with Mr. Coughlin for a few
8 months; correct?
10
Q You indicated that you felt Dr. Hoar's methods
: 11 were very good. What about Dr Hoar's methods were you
12 particularly keen on; do you remember off the top of your
13 head?
14
A Yes. Dr. Hoar specifically -- and, by the
15
16
Q Would you say the Petitioner is fit to
17
practice law?
18
A To the extent that I'm able, I think that, you , 19
know, it's -- I don't see at this point an impediment in
20
your emotional or mental health or your general character I 21
to prevent you from functioning as an attorney.
122
Q Would you say that -- okay.
23
Would you say the Petitioner has the requisite 24
competency and skill in the law at this time?
25
A I think the Petitioner is no longer disabled.
way, I did speak vlith Mr. Martin and Dr. Hoar as well as
reading the records. Dr. Hoar's approach that she
described is a form of dielectric behavior therapy, and
also a newer form of therapy that is generally called
mindfulness, so it gets mixed up with some other things.
And those two types of therapy are really the
forefront of effective psychotherapy today. And so the
fact that Dr. Hoar practices those things and understands
vlhat they are was meaningful to me as the direction
Mr. Coughlin needs to go. I am not available to take
~Ir. Coughlin on as an individual client. But if I were,
Page
1
MS. FLOCCHINI: Objection. Beyond the scope.
MS. JENKINS: Doctor, I'm going to sustain the
2
3 objection and say that the question is beyond the scope of
4 your testimony today. So objection sustained.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5
MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have, your
7 Honor.
8
9
Ms. Flocchini, do you have questions for the
10 doctor?
11
CROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 those are the approaches that I would be using.

2
I don't mean anything negative about
: 3 Mr. Martin, but I think he's more traditional in his
4 approach and may not have some of the specific information
5 about psychotherapy that Dr. Hoar seems to have.
I
6
Q How much concem does it cause you or raise in
7 your mind that Mr. Coughlin chose to continue with
8 Dr. Martin than with Dr. Hoar?
A I don't really think he made the choice. I

,, 9
: 10 think, the way I understood it from Mr. Martin and
! 11 Dr. Hoar, Dr. Hoar is the one who discovered that they
: 12 were both billing MediCal, so she had contacted
Q I just have a few. Thank you for taking time I 13 Mr. Coughlin to say you established with Hr. Martin first,
out of your vacation for us, Dr. Nielsen. I know
, 14 one of us has to leave.
Mr. Coughlin greatly appreciates it and so does the state
15
He was seeing Dr. Hoar only once a week and
Bar.
16 seeing Martin twice, so I think it was actually Dr. Hoar's
A Thank you. You're vlelcome.
, 17 decision to break away from it as a professional courtesy.
Q I will try to keep my questions brief.
i 18 I didn't get the impression that it was something that
In your professional opinion, how long does it 19 Mr. Coughlin chose.
take to establish a relationship with a therapist?
20
On the other hand, as I said, I don't have
A A trusting relationship. It takes a long time 21 anything against Mr. Martin. I was more impressed with
for the relationship to develop. To establish the
22 what I saw with Dr. Hoar. But I don't think he was trying
relationship probably takes a matter of weeks. I believe
23 to get rid of Dr. Hoar.
in my own practice I have established pretty solid
24
She was very clear that she \;ould continue
relationships vlith people within three to six \;eeks.
25 with him if he chose and was very comfortable with him,
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
729

Page 58
Page 60
1 and felt that they did have an -- established a clear

2 relationship.
3
Q Thank you. You're aware that Mr. Coughlin
1 for you regarding Mr. Coughlin's ability to be stable

2 while practicing?
3
A It doesn't. Again, I think it's evidence that
4 he's under a great deal of stress. And when that happens
5 he, as I described before, he becomes somewhat hypomanic.
6
A Yes, I'm aware of the dates, and initially
6 But I'm not seeing anything destructive in it.
7 that concerned me. But vlhat I realized later is that
7
I don't know what he exactly did to get the
8 Mr. Coughlin was seeing people at the NAMS while he was in
8 hundred hours. Again, I think we discussed this. I know
9 Reno. By going to San Diego he had to be approved for
9 when I did continuing education credits on-line it doesn't
10 seem to take me as long as the credits say they will. So
10 l1ediCal, and that took three months. It takes three
11 months. So he didn't have the funding.
ill I don't know that he's spent exactly a hundred hours, but
, 12 he got credit for that.
12
As I said, I wish he had started sooner, but
13 don't know if he had the capacity. Once he did have
13
I think it's a symptom of his style to try to
14 do everything he possibly can, even if it happens to be at
14 MediCal approval, he got two counselors, which I applaud
15 the last minute.
15 him for. But he didn't get that started as soon as I had
16 hoped, but I understood that it's a financial thing.
16
Q Does it cause you any concem as to whether or
17 not when entering a stressful practice of law Mr. Coughlin
17
Q I appreciate that. Were you able to review
i 18 will be able to maintain his emotional and mental
18 the medical records from NAMS, the Northem Nevada Adult
4 began seeing both Dr. Hoar and Mr. Martin in late April of
5 2015; correct?
I.
19 Mental Health Services organization?
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes.
Q And so you saw in those medical records that
Mr. Coughlin was not receiving therapy services from NAMS
from approximately September of 2014, and then of course
he discontinued services when he moved to San Diego in
about January of 2015. You saw that; right?
19 stability?
20
A Well, it's the reason I keep saying I think he
21 needs to be in ongoing counseling. Because I think if he
i 22 has a counselor as an anchor that he can speak to weekly
123 and talk about, okay, this is strategy, this is where I'm
\ 24 going. As long the alcohol and the Adderall don't get
i 25 back involved, I think he will be able to function fine.
Page 61
A Yes.
2
Q And does it cause you concem -- well, let me
3 ask you.
4
Have you read Mr. Martin's letter that was
5 produced to the State Bar, I believe it's a letter of
6 recomnendation from Mr. Martin?
1 I do think he needs some guidance, but that's been

2 recommended all along.
3
Q Are you aware of a report from a Dr. Hunter
4 from 2002 regarding Mr. Coughlin?
I don't recall that, no.
6
Q There was a report to the admissions
7
A I did read that, yes.
7 department at the State Bar indicating that there were
8
Q Does it cause you concem that Mr. Martin
8 some emotional stability concems with respect to
9 feels that participating in a 12-step program is more
I 9 Mr. Coughlin, and that Dr. Hunter believed that to be a
10 helpful to Mr. Coughlin than therapy might be?
10 synptom or that his behavior was a synptom of an
I 11 adjustment reaction in 2002.
11
A That does raise concerns. And I would say
12 it's one of my motives for stating that I would be happier 12
Is that consistent with your understanding or
13 your perception of what happens when there are major
13 if he was seeing Dr. Hoar.
14
I think Mr. Martin -- I think Mr. Martin is
14 stressors for Mr. Coughlin?
15
16
17
18
involved in M and sees that as a path, but rather he was

involved with someone who understands AA, but does
psychotherapy rather than leaning on the AA model, and I
think that's the difference between the two of those.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Are you aware that Mr. Coughlin has

represented that he's completed over a hundred hours of
continuing legal education between August 14th and August
19th?
A I am aware of that because you told me.

Q Yes. And that infonnation had been provided
to the State Bar. How much of a concem does that raise
15
A Well, I don't know Dr. Hunter.
16
I appreciate that.
17
! 18
19
20
21
A I don't have the context. I don't have what

was going on at the time. But adjustment reaction is a
diagnosis used by many mental health practitioners
to basically say this is a relatively mild problem. It's
solvable. And they have to have a diagnosis for insurance
I 22 purposes.
, 23
Okay.
24
A And so, if you recall, it Vias an adjustment
25 reaction of what type? Was it -- vlhether it concerns
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
730

Page 64
Page 62
1 conduct or whether it concerns emotion. That would also

2 be part of the context. Do you even know \vhat Dr. Hunter
3 is; doctor of what?
1 his antagonism among family members. His family's

2 actually very impressed with the progress he's made, and I
3 think they would vlelcome him back. So that's one of the
4
Q My understanding that Dr. Hunter is a
4 things that was here before that I wouldn't \vorry about as
5 psychiatrist.
5 much.
6
A Okay.
6
I know that he had some rather antagonistic
7
Q You're aware that Mr. Coughlin is currently in
7 relationships with some other attorneys, I don't know if
8 San Diego; correct?
8 those would pop back up or not. I don't know how to put
9
A Yes. When I spoke with him he was in San
9 this, it's not really a professional thing. I vlOuld
10 Diego.
10 encourage him to go to Vegas because I think it would be
11
Q Does it raise concern for you that
11 easier. I don't think that means he can't make it in
12 Mr. Coughlin has established a good network in San Diego
12 Reno. I just think he has to protect himself. Nobody
13 and is doing well, but to practice law he will have to
13 else is going to do that. And he has to be ready to face
14 leave that network and relocate to Nevada?
14 criticism and awkwardness and things that are in the wake
15
A Actually, I think the fact that Mr. Coughlin
15 of what he's created himself in Reno.
16 moved to San Diego, and within a relatively short period
16
MR. FURMAN: Thank you, Doctor.
17 of time established a stable network is proof of his
: 17
MS. JENKINS: Other questions from panel
. 18 members?
18 ability. So I'm not concerned about that.
19
I would want to be sure if he moves back to
19
MR. LOW: Dr. Nielsen, this is Keegan Low, one
20 Nevada that he reaches out to the resources that he's
20 of the panel members here.
21 already established. And I did discuss this with
21
I'm just trying to establish a time1ine. You
22 Mr. Coughlin.
22 first saw Mr. Coughlin in July of 2014?
23
He recently got his law degree from Boyd in
23
THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes. I don't have
24 Las Vegas, and has many, as many connections in Las Vegas
24 the records in front of me, but I think I first saw him at
25 as Reno. What I originally said was get out of town,
! 25 the request of the Bar to conduct this evaluation in July,
1 leave Reno. There's too many bad things here for you, and
2 you're not overcoming. So he did, he went to San Diego.
3
I would strongly encourage him to come back to
4 Vegas rather than Reno. But that's just my advice.
But I think in San Diego, like I said, he sort
5
6 of started with nothing in San Diego, got a job as a
7 painter's assistant, began attending AA on a regular
8 basis, made these connections with people, and is well
9 established. And people do like him. The people I spoke
10 to are very fond of Mr. Coughlin, very encouraging about
11 his success. And nobody has known him a very long time.
12
So I think he has the social skills, and the
13 social ability to actually adapt to any situation. I'm
14 not real worried about that.
15
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you for your time and
16 your commitment to seeing Mr. Coughlin through on this.
17
THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
18
MS. JENKINS: Does the panel have any
19 questions for Dr. Nielsen?
20
MR. FURMAN: Dr. Nielsen, at a point you said
21 there are too many triggers in Reno. What are you
22 thinking the possibility of that recurring at this time?
23
THE WITNESS: I don't knOlv. He's been gone
24 from Reno for several months. Some of the things that I
25 felt were triggers before seem to have been resolved, like
1 and then I spent time with him. But I also spent time
2 talking to other people and reviewing records. So I don't
3 think your office got my report until September.
4
MR. LOW: And then I believe you testified
5 that you then saw Mr. Coughlin recently in June of this
6 year; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct, June 26th.
7
8
MR. LOW: Did you see him between those two
9 dates?
10
THE WITNESS: No.
11
MR. LOW: From the history that you took at
12 those examinations that you had with Mr. Coughlin, what's
13 your understanding of when he ceased taking alcohol?
14
THE WITNESS: Well, actually, I think he
15 had -- I think he had stopped mUltiple times. But I'm not
16 sure I have this right. Again, I don't have the records
17 in front of me. My understanding is that there might have
18 been some relapse. As I recall, the last relapse that was
19 described to me had been in about April of 2014.
20
Again, I don't have any records here, and I
21 would have to go back and crosscheck that to see \vhat' s
22 written down.
23
MR. LOW: Do you have an understanding of
24 currently what medications Mr. Coughlin might be taking or
25 having prescribed to him, if any?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
731
08/25/2015
Page 66'
THE WITNESS: I thought he was free from

2 medication. I thought he was not taking anything at this
3 time right now.
4
MR. LOW: The change in location appears to
5 have been your recommendation to Mr. Coughlin?
6
THE I'IITNESS: Yes. I didn't say go to San
7 Diego, I just said I think you will be better off getting
8 out of Reno and getting a day job. Do something that you
9 can do with your hands and clear your head. And he did
10 that.
11
MR. LOW: Thank you, Doctor.
12
13
MS. JENKINS: Other panel members?
14
Mr. Coughlin, of course you get the last word.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I just have a couple questions.
16
MS. JENKINS: Please.
l7
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
19
Q If you were aware the Petitioner is taking
20 We1lbutrin, would you have any concem with that?
21
22
23
24
25
A No. Wellbutrin is an antidepressant. It's

inside the class of SSRIs. It's a relatively safe
medication, and it doesn't contribute to any of the side
effects that would be attributed to Adderall and Ritalin
or the stimulants.
Page 68
1
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, we appreciate your
2 time and energy today on your vacation, and the \'Iork that
3 you have done to do your report.
4
Is there anything that you're aware of in your
5 initial report or your most recent report that is no
longer true, as far as you know?
I 7
THE I'IITNESS: I don't know how to answer that.
8 I mean, I do think there have been changes from one report
9 to the next.
10
MS. JENKINS: I understand. That was a poorly
: 11 asked question.
, 12
When you wrote the first report, have you
113 subsequently learned that anything in that was erroneous?
14
THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.
: 15
MS. JENKINS: When you wrote your follow-up
16 evaluation, have you since that time learned that any of
17 the information in that report is erroneous?
18
THE WITNESS: No, not that I knOl'l of.
, 19
MS. JENKINS: Grea t. Those are the answers
I 20 we're looking for.
21
Anything further, Counsel?
: 22
'23
MS. FLOCCHINI: No.
24
MS. JENKINS: You are released to your
25 vacation, sir. I appreciate your time.
Other witnesses?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. If I can
3 briefly use the rest room.
4
MS. JENKINS: I think that's a grand idea.
5 Let's take five.
(Recess taken.)
6
MS. JENKINS: Let's go back on the record.
7
8
A Actually, in my profession I hadn't thought
8 It's 10:40, and we're going to go until 11:30. Please
9 about that, but it works just as you describe. I may have
9 proceed with your next witness, Mr. Coughlin.
10 a book to read and have it for six months, but when I
10
MR. COUGHLIN: If possible, I would like to
11 enter the code to take the test, that's the day I get the
11 call my AA sponsor and have him testify.
12 credit. So yeah, that's a possibility I hadn't -- again, , 12
MS. JENKINS: You mean telephonically?
13 you and I have never spoken about the credits, so I didn't 13
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
, 14
14 know whether those were all done in one week or not.
MS. FLOCCHINI: What's the name of that
15
Q Was there any time that you felt Steve Harris , 15 person?
16 was disabled from the practice of law?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Miles Warsh. W-a-r-s-h.
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Obj ection . Relevance.
17
MS. JENKINS: Has that name been disclosed to
18
MS. JENKINS: Do you have a counter?
18 the other side?
19
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, the doctor testified at
19
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
20 Steve Harris's hearing, and it might not be that relevant. 20
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, any comments,
21
MS. JENKINS: Objection sustained.
21 objections, otherwise?
22
No need to answer that question, Dr. Nielsen. I 22
~lS. FLOCCHINI: I don't remember the
23
23 disclosure, but I do not have an objection. Thank you.
24
MR. COUGHLIN: That's all I have. Thank you,
24
MS. JENKINS: Thank you. There's the
25 Dr. Nielsen.
25 telephone. Can you assist Mr. Coughlin in getting his
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q Is it your experience with on-line continuing

education courses that sometimes you'll listen to them,
and need to listen for a participation code, and that you
can do that for weeks, and then log on-line and type in
all those codes, but that doesn't necessarily mean you did
all those hours the day you typed in those codes and got
the certificates?
1
2
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
732

Page 72
Page 70 i
1 sponsor on the phone.

2
(Discussion off the record.)
(Telephone call placed.)
MR. COUGHLIN: You are on the record to
5 testify before the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board.
6 appreciate you making yourself available.
7
MILES WARSH
8
9
10
11
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
1 point for the purposes of practicing law?

i
2
3 ability.
13
Q Thanks again, Miles, for making yourself
14 available. For the record, I think you might need to
15 spell your name for the record and state where you live.
16
A My name is Miles, M-i-l-e-s. Warsh,
17 W-a-r-s-h.
Q And you live in San Diego?
19
A I do. San Diego, California.
18
20
Q And I will be referring to myself as the
21 Petitioner. Hopefully that won't be too confusing.
22
Are you the Petitioner's sponsor in some
23 context?
No, I don't. I've seen, you know, an amazing

I vlOuldn' t see any reason for that judgment to
4 be made.
5
Q As far as you know, has the Petitioner
6 remained sober throughout the period of time you've known
7 him?
8
A Yes. Absolutely clean and sober and working a
9 program of recovery.
10
Q Do you feel the Petitioner is fit to practice
11 law?
12
A
I do, yes, in my opinion. I think the
13 Petitioner, Mr. Coughlin, can do anything.
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Nothing further, your Honor.
15
Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
16
THE WITNESS: You're welcome. Is there
17 anything else I can do?
18
MS. JENKINS: Yes. Ms. Flocchini has a couple
19 of question for you, sir.
20
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Who am I speaking
21 vlith?
22
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. My name is Caren
I'm the chair of a five-member panel meeting
am.
24
25
How long has that been the case?
Since the first or second week of January
THE I'IITNESS:
Hi, Caren.
MS. JENKINS:
Hello. Thank you for being
Page
2 2015.
3
Q Have you met approximately weekly for several
4 hours a week with the Petitioner?
5
A I have.
6
Q Can you describe that?
A Yes. vie get together, and we do step work
8 related to recovery. Read the big book, talk about \.;hat
9 is going on and how to handle situations.
10
Q Do you do that approximately a couple hours
11 every Monday night?
12
A Yes.
13
Q Do you see the Petitioner at recovery meetings
14 regularly?
15
A Absolutely, yes. At least weekly.
16
Q Have you witnessed the Petitioner exhibiting
17 remorse or contrition for some of his conduct in the past?
18
A Yes. Absolutely I have, yes.
19
Q Do you feel the Petitioner has good character?
20
A Yes. Yes, I do.
21
Q What's the Petitioner's reputation amongst
22 individuals that you know in the San Diego area?
23
A Oh, within the recovery community Zach is a
24 loved and valued part of the community.
25
Q Do you feel the Petitioner is disabled at this
73
2 here.
3
5
6
7
8
9
, 10
11

MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini is with the State
Bar of Nevada. She will cross-examine you. I will then
ask if the panel members have questions for you, then
we'll give Mr. Coughlin the last word.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
Q Good morning, Mr. Warsh. This is Kait
12 Flocchini on behalf of the State Bar.
13
Hi, Kait.
14
Mr. Warsh, are you an attorney?
15
I am not.
16
Q Are you aware of the stressors that are
17 involved in practicing law?
i
18
Pardon me? I didn't hear your question.
19
Q Sure. I can repeat it.
20
Are you aware of the stressors that are
21 involved in practiCing law?
22
No, I'm not.
I don't practice law.
23
Q Is your general -- your impression of
24 Mr. Coughlin's ability to practice is based strictly on
: 25 your personal observations of his work in his recovery
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
733

Page 74'
Page 76
1 very, very generic word.

Yes.
2
THE WITNESS: It is.
3
Q But not on anything that you know about
3
MS. JENKINS: Can you give me an idea of how
4 practicing law; correct?
4 you decided to say yes, I think he has character?
5
A Well, again, I don't practice law. I own and
5
THE WITNESS: I can tell you exactly why.
6 operate several businesses. And I'm very aware of the
MS. JENKINS: Great.
7 stress that it takes to manage people and manage payroll
7
THE WITNESS: You know the program that we
8 and cash flow. And I don't practice law, but, you know,
8 participate in doesn't have a very large success rate.
9 manage a group of people and, you know, produce a certain
9 Most people are unwilling to look at their character flaws
10 amount of billable hours every day. I have daily, \~eekly, ,10 and their defects and their poor behavior. And frankly,
11 monthly goals.
11 they just don't make it. They don't get clean and sober,
12
So I'm not saying that my business, my
12 they don't stay so.
13 businesses are in any way similar to a law practice, but I 13
And Mr. Coughlin shows up. He is incredibly
14 think that Zach could do anything that I do. It's just my 14 honest. He's been very remorseful, in my opinion. I've
15 opinion having gotten to know him very intimately and see , 15 done this work with a lot of men over a number of years,
16 how he operates and handles things in his daily life.
16 and he's been very, very willing to share and look at his
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Those are all the questions
, 17 part in these situations which, as he's identified, has
18 that I have for you. Thank you for taking the time,
18 been the whole part.
19 Mr. Warsh.
i 19
And it takes, you know, it takes someone of
20
THE WITNESS: You're very welcome.
! 20 character to be willing to look at themselves with gut
21
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, I'm going to start
21 level honesty and own their behavior and be willing to go
22 the panel's questions.
22 to any length to makes amends for it. He shows up. He
23
You referred to one of the things that you do
23 has done all of this work very rigorously. He
24 on Monday nights of step work related to recovery,
, 24 participates in groups that I belong to. He has made
25 including an activity called "reading the big book." What 25 friends in my experience vlith him. He is welcome and
1 program?
2
A
Page 75
1 does that mean?
1 invited to my home for family functions.
We love and
2
THE WITNESS: It's a book. The book is kind
I 2 adore Zach in our life.
3 of a text. And if you're unfamiliar with it, it's just, I
3
MS. JENKINS: Similarly -- this is the last
4 can share in a general way that it's a book of spiritual
4 one. When you were asked vlhether Mr. Coughlin had or
5 principles about how to handle daily life and situations.
5 maintains status of being disabled from the practice of
6 And it's a basis for living your life one day at a time
6 law or the ability to practice law, your answer was no.
7 But -7 successfully.
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. JENKINS: Great. That's a nice synopsis.

8
THE WITNESS: I think I was asked -- and
You were asked vlhether the Petitioner has
9 pardon me if I'm mistaken.
shown any remorse for his actions, and your answer was
10
MS. JENKINS: Go ahead.
yes. Can you tell me what it is that you relied on to
11
THE WITNESS: I think I was asked if I would
come to that conclusion?
I 12 consider him to be disabled.
THE WITNESS: Well, we have personal, you
: 13
MS. JENKINS: Good. Are you aware -know, conversations and relations at an intimate level.
14
THE WITNESS: I'm not a legal or mental health
And he has shared with me, you knO\~, a number of issues
15 professional.
that he had in the past, and legal problems, and all of -- 16
MS. JENKINS: Fair enough. Are you aware of
the sum of all of those things that's brought Mr. Coughlin 17 the basis for Mr. Coughlin's move to inactive status based
to sit in front of this panel today.
18 upon his disability, inactive from the practice of law?
And, you know, we have looked at all of those
19
THE WITNESS: Yes. I've actually seen all of
instances and situations and dug down into the how, what
20 the paperwork and the health evaluation. And, you know,
and why of it. And he's incredibly like remorseful. And, 21 I'm aware of whatever information and evidence is in front
you knO\~, he's looking to make amends for those things and 22 of you.
knows it's just not acceptable behavior.
! 23
MS. JENKINS: As a friend of Mr. Coughlin, and
MS. JENKINS: Great. And you also were asked 124 a person who is intimately involved in his life, hOvl are
whether the Petitioner exhibits character. Well, that's a 25 his behaviors, his attitude, his demeanor different now,
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
734

Page 78
1 in your personal opinion, from the way they were presented

2 to the State Bar when he \,as moved to inactive status?
3
THE WITNESS: You know, when I first met Zach,
4 which was, I don't know, eight or so months ago, I liked
5 Zach immediately. I could see things in Zach that
6 basically I see in myself, you know. And when I first
7 came into recovery I had a very short attention span.
8 had a difficult time engaging with other people, listening
9 and participating in the conversation. I had an
10 overwhelming feeling of this chatter going on in my head.
11 And Zach had shared that with me.
12
And the work that we do enables us to have our
13 heads and our feet in the same space, so to speak, to live
14 in the moment, be aware of what is going on, and be aware
15 of what is not going on around us. And I've watched an
16 amazing change come over him. He was not very engaging,
l7 didn't seem to consider, you knovl, what vias even going on
18 around him at times. Just kind of caught up in his
19 thinking in his head, and that's not the case today.
20
Zach is very present and engaging, and he
21 shows up to his job every day. And he definitely has, you
22 know, we discuss, you know, the challenges of life. And
23 he has good cognitive ability to figure things out and
24 figure out the solution to problems.
25
Again, I'm not an attorney or a mental health
Page 80
1 would be more than a dozen people that you have been the
2 sponsor of?
3
THE WITNESS: I've clearly attempted to take
4 more than a dozen people through the steps. I'm currently
5 vlOrking Vlith four guys, Mr. Coughlin included right noVl,
6 and have several -- I don't knOVI. I mean, yes.
MS. JENKINS: You're experienced in this
7
8 process, would that be fair to say?
9
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
, 10
process?
, 12
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I have a sponsor, and I
13 continually Vlork the steps. So I've had a lineage
14 of sober men who have helped me to get and remain sober
, 15 and make my life happily and usefully whole, and I get to
! 16 share that Vlith Mr. Coughlin.
: l7
MS. JENKINS: ~Ir. Warsh, I'm going to assume
18 that you would do pretty much anything to assist your
19 friend and your colleague Mr. Coughlin in this matter -: 20
THE WITNESS: Anything that I think -21
MS. JENKINS: Excuse me. I want to ask you:
22 If you were to be able to look in your crystal ball and
23 see any pitfalls that Zach might address in the coming
24 months, what areas would you be most concerned about?
25
THE I'IITNESS: \~ell, gee, that's kind of a
ill
Page
1 hard -- that's a difficult question, and things that Vlill

1 practitioner, but I would call the change that I have seen
2 in t1r. Coughlin over the last six months, especially in
2 be difficult for me to quantify. But I would say that I
3 all of the action that he's taken, and seeking the counsel
3 know he's very concerned about resuming his career. So I
4 that was suggested by the court, I would think he's
4 would certainly be concerned about that. You know, I've
5 capable of anything. That's just my humble opinion.
5 watched Zach in a short period of time do some amazing,
MS. JENKINS: One final question from me,
6 make some really good repairs on relationships vlith the
6
7 although the rest of the panel may have questions. Well,
7 family and friends. And he's made amends with some people
8 make it two final questions, because you know how lawyers
8 he used to work with. I don't really see him having lots
9 are.
9 of distraction other than that he has been focused on
10
THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 trying to regain his ability to practice law.
11
MS. JENKINS: First. How many times or how
i 11
Pi tfalls, I mean, they're everywhere, you
12 many different people have you sponsored in your
12 knOVI. I've been sober a while, and I'm never more than an
13 experience?
13 arm's length away from taking a drink or a drug. But, you
14
THE WITNESS: Well, in my experience I have
14 know, Zach's doing the work that he needs to do to
15 sponsored quite a number of people. As I stated earlier,
15 maintain a fit spiritual condition. I see it. It's
16 most people don't get or stay sober. So I can't really
16 evidenced in our interactions on a daily basis, and I'm
l7 remember the absolute number. I can tell you that I
! l7 not looking for any reasons for him to fail.
18 sponsor a number of guys. I've sponsored a number of
18
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. I'larsh.
19 people for considerable amounts of time. A television
19
Panel, do you have any questions for this
20 producer, another attorney, a billionaire real estate
' 20 gentleman?
21 developer, another fella who when I first met him lived in '21
MR. DENNEY: I have nothing.
22 the bushes outside of a church where we attended a meeting 22
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Low?
23 together, and he's now a contractor, has his own
23
MR. LOW: Miles, my name is Keegan Low. I'm
24 contractor's license and -24 one of the panel members.
25
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, would you say there
25
THE WITNESS: Can you hold on for just a
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
735

Page 84
Page 82
1 moment, sir? I'm having difficulty hearing you for some

1 working part of his life and implemented it into his daily
2 routine.
2 reason.
i 3
So he has a plan of action. I know that's
3
MR. LOW: Can you hear me now?
4
THE WITNESS: I think I hear you alit tle
4 kind of an intimate detail between a sponsor and a
5 sponsee, but we have specific things we talk about, about
5 better.
6
MR. LOW: Just a couple of questions for you.
6 how to not come up with some silly excuse to take a drink
7 or a drug.
7 You are Mr. Coughlin's sponsor; correct?
MR. LOW: Thank you. Appreciate it.
8
THE WITNESS: Correct.
8
THE WITNESS: You're welcome, sir.
MR. LOW: And so how long has Mr. Coughlin
9
10
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Furman?
10 been sober?
11
THE WITNESS: Well, Zach was sober for a
11
t.ffi. FURMAN: No questions.
12 little I'lhile when I met him. But I think he's got to be
12
MS. FLOCCHINI: No further questions. Thank
13 at least since January, eight or nine months.
13
14
MR. LOW: He attends weekly meetings with you I 14 you.
15
15 at least, does he not?
16
THE WITNESS: Well, yeah. He attends meetings 16
MR. COUGHLIN: Just one, your Honor.
17 daily or almost daily. And then we get together at least
17
18 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
18 once a week at a meeting where we meet up. And he meets
19
Q Mr. Warsh, you referenced it briefly. Are you
19 also with other men in sobriety who I sponsor.
20 aware the Petitioner has been going to church?
20
MR. LOI'/: So if you had to put an approximate
21
A Yes.
21 number on how many meetings he makes a week, how many
22
Q How long? Approximately how often?
22 would you say?
23
THE WITNESS: Oh, I vlOuld say probably six or
23
A Well, I think you go every vleek. We talk
i 24 about it. And you started going, or at least I became
24 seven, including his religious observance.
25 aware of you going when I met you.
25
MR. LOW: How far along are you with the step
1 work with Mr. Coughlin?
2
THE WITNESS: Zach's on his 12th step. We
3 have completed the first 11 steps. And I don't know if
4 you are familiar with the process, but the 12th step is
5 where you go out and carry the message of hope and
6 recovery to other men who are struggling.
7
~ffi. LOW:
Does Mr. Coughlin sponsor any
8 people, to your knowledge?
9
THE WITNESS: Well, no, sir. He's just gotten
10 to that step. So that's the first 11 steps are where we
11 work on ourselves. And the 12th step, where we have just
12 recently in the last week arrived at, is I'ihere he I'lill go
13 out and try to help someone else.
14
MR. LOW: Have you had any discussions with
15 Mr. Coughlin about a plan of action should he be
16 reinstated here in Nevada, and come back to the Reno area
17 to practice. Have you talked about specifics about what
18 he ought to look out for, what he ought to do?
19
THE WITNESS: We have spoken in a general way.
20 And part of the thing that is really encouraging for
21 Mr. Coughlin is he's reconnected with some other attorneys
22 in that area who are in recovery. His dad is in recovery.
23 He's repaired his relationship with his mother and father
24 who live in that area. He's got, you know, safe places to
25 be. He knOl'ls vihat he needs to do. He's made recovery a
Q Has the Petitioner, to your knowledge,

2 atteIrpted to make amends -- I think you referenced this
3 earlier. But has the Petitioner atteIrpted to make amends
4 to varying individuals?
10
11
12
" 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
'24
: 25
A Yeah. Absolutely. The letters and

face-to-face meetings.
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
That's all, your Honor.
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, you're excused at
this time. We appreciate your investment in the
Petitioner, and your assistance with his recovery, and
your testimony before this panel today. Thank you very
much.
THE WITNESS: You're welcome. And I assure
you it's my honor and my pleasure. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, at this point I
would like to somewhat briefly call my mom, and then my
dad.
MS. JENKINS: We have 25 minutes at our
disposal. Would that be adequate for you to put on all of
your remaining witnesses other than you?
t.ffi. COUGHLIN: I think so.
MS. JENKINS: Let's try to do that.
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can just call my mom, Mary
Barker of Reno, Nevada.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
736

Page 86
Page 88
(The oath was administered to the witness.)

1 hearing for the Petitioner?
2
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I would be in favor
2
A I was not present. However, I was called
3 of allowing the panel or the Bar to pose questions to my
3 midafternoon and asked questions after taking an oath.
4 mother and father, if that's good.
4
Q Were you asked to attend the hearing?
5
MS. JENKINS: What's she going to say about
5
A Yes. And I came, but you were not here yet.
6 you, really?
6 And then Mom got a little annoyed and thought if he can't
7
MR. COUGHLIN: They weren't here at the last
7 be here, I'm gone.
8 one. They weren't here at the last disciplinary hearing.
S
Q Were you not very happy with the Petitioner at
9 that point in time? Were you concerned about his mental
10 Ms. Flocchini?
10 state?
11
It does muddy the record when we have just
11
A I was concerned about -- my belief is that
, 12 your mental state, other than being depressed clinically
12 narrative. However, Mr. Coughlin has the burden here.
13 And if you want to elicit specific testimony from this
13 depressed, was a result of drug and alcohol use.
14 witness, that might be helpful.
14
I don't know. How much should I say?
15
But, Ms. Flocchini?
15
MS. JENKINS: vie' re looking for your personal
16 opinion.
16
MS. FLOCCHINI: I don't have an objection to
17 Ms. Barker testifying. I appreciate the chair's concerns
17
THE WITNESS: My personal opinion. Zach never
18 that perhaps some guidance in testimony is useful. We
18 drank in high school, very little in college, and his
19 appreciate Miss Barker's presence here today.
19 problems with substances occurred in law school. And I
20
And of course it's your case.
20 think that he's put an inordinate amount of stress on
21
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
21 himself by taking the Nevada Bar, the Patent Bar, and the
22
MS. JENKINS: I will suggest, if I may, that
22 California Bar all within a short, short period of time.
23 there's been a line of questioning about the underlying
23 And he graduated from law school in 2 1/2 years. And I
24 disciplinary allegations, and that's not before the panel
24 think that that also caused a lot of problems.
25 today. Contrition is another story. But fitness,
25 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
1
87
1 character, and disability are your focus, and not

2 particularly restitution and other things like that.
3 Let's stay on track and note that any disciplinary
4 proceeding would be taken up after reinstatement if that
5 happens.
6
MR. COUGHLIN: Just to clarify, your Honor.
7 You said fitness, character and disability?
8
MS. JENKINS: The removal of disability, and
9 fitness to practice are the tlvO issues before this panel.
10
MR. COUGHLIN: With fitness including
11 character?
12
MS. JENKINS: I would say so. Just as you
13 explained in your opening.
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
15
MARY BARKER
16
l7
18
19
DIRECT EXAMINATION
20 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21
Q Ms. Barker, can you state your name and
22 residence for the record.
23
A Mary Barker.
24 Nevada 89503.
25
9450 \'lest 12th Street. Reno,
Q Were you present at the prior disciplinary
A Yes.
I'm sorry.
If I can stop you there.
3
Q -- and direct the question a little more
4 specifically.
5
Have you witnessed the Petitioner displaying
6 contrition for his past misconduct?
I
A Yes. Absolutely.
S
Q Have you witnessed the Petitioner seeming to
9 overcome a disability or chemical dependency and/or mental
10 disability in the last, say year?
11
A Yes.
12
Q Do you believe the Petitioner is fit to
13 practice law?
i 14
A Yes.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have.
: 16 Thank you, Ms. Barker. Mom.
17
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, if I may just give
18 you a little bit of encouragement in this realm. A yes or
19 no answer on examination is really -- it's a leading
20 question, and it's not particularly helpful to this panel.
21
\'Ihat is helpful to the panel is asking the
22 witness for her personal observations, her perception and
23 allo,l the witness to testify.
24
So if you want to go back to the three points
25 you wanted to make, because the burden is yours, and ask
.!
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
737

Page 90
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
this witness to explain how she came to those conclusions,

and do you agree that blank, and how do you come to that
conclusion, that would be more helpful to us.
Do you want to start over?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. Just to
clarify the three points. It is overcome the disability,
fit to practice law, and have the requisite skill and
learning or is it character, overcome disability?
MS. JENKINS: I would like to direct you to
Nevada Supreme Court Rule 117, Paragraph 4, resumption of
practice by disabled attorneys. I'm moving down in the
paragraph. It says, "The petition shall be filed with Bar
counsel's office, and should be set for hearing before a
five-member hearing panel which shall consider whether the
attorney has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence
that the attorney's disability has been removed, and that
he or she is fit to resume the practice of law."
Those are the only considerations before this
panel today.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
BY t4R. COUGHLIN:
Q Miss Barker, if you could take the suggestion
22
23 and direction the panel judge just made and comnent with
24 respect to those, your personal observations and opinions
25 with respect to those two points; i.e., whether the
Page 92
reviewing in my mind vlhen I believe he stopped all

2 substance. But I believe that at the end of 2014 he was
3 still using substances.
4
Q What substance are you aware of that he was
5 using?
6
A Adderall and alcohol. Now, let me say I did
7 not have firsthand -8
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can just in terj ect
9 quickly.
10
MS. JENKINS: Do you have an objection?
11
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, it is similar to an
12 objection.
13
MS. JENKINS: What's your objection to the
14 question?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Relevancy. I understand this
16 might be somewhat relevant, but the petition describes
17 behavior -- or it's always been somel'ihat unclear to me
! 18 what period of time is under review here.
The activity
19 detailed in the petition? Present day? Something that
20 happened three years after the petition?
21
So I think it's probably relevant what
22 Ms. Barker is testifying to. But just to preserve it for
23 the record, and maybe seek some clarification I would make
,24 a relevance objection.
25
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to alloVi the question
93
1 petitioner's disability has been removed, and whether he's

2 now fit to practice law.
1 because it asks for information after the disability

2 inactive determination and -3
MR. COUGHLIN: Actually, this is prior.
THE WITNESS: Before.
4
MS. JENKINS: I believe that I'm going to
5
6 alloVi it. Because it's relevant for the panel to knOVI at
7 what point the substance and alcohol use entered, and how
8 long it's been maintained.
9
MS. FIOCCHINI: Thank you.
, 10 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
11
Q Were you aware if Mr. Coughlin was using
3
A I think that there has been a tremendous
4 change from what I've seen in you that you have become
5 sober. And I think that a lot of your disability Vias the
6 result of alcohol and chemical use.
7
And I just -- I compare the way that you vlere
8 over a year ago to the way you are now. And I think that
9 you are fit, but I think that -- I think that, as I've
10 heard other people say, that under the direction of
11 another lawyer Vlho Vlill be a mentor, who Vlill be there
12 seeing Vlhat you are doing. It has to be frustrating for
12 marijuana in late 2014?
13
A I believe he was. But that is a mom's belief.
13 you.
14
MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have, your 14 I did not see anything. Even Vlhen Zach lived here, I
15 Honor.
,15 never savl him drink. I never saw him use. And I actually
, 16 thought because of his behaviors that he must be mentally
16
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you.
17 ill, and I went through a 13-Vleek program with the
CROSS-EXAMINATION
i 18 National Nevada Mental Health Institute for families of
18
19 people Vlith mental illness.
20
Q Mr. Coughlin was in San Diego -- or, I'm
20
And nothing seemed to fit that. He l'iasn' t
21 bipolar. He Vlasn't schizophrenic according to what I
21 sorry, was in Santa Barbara in late 2014; correct?
22
A Uh-huh.
22 learned. And then I came to realize that he was under the
23 influence, and that caused his behaviors.
23
Q Are you aware that Mr. Coughlin was using
24 substances when he was in San Barbara?
24
And I personally believe that it was a
25
A Yes. As his sponsor was talking, I was
25 combination of Adderall and alcohol. And he Vias under a
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
738

Page 94:
1 lot of stress. And I thought it caused him to behave in a

2 way that was not the son that I knew until his problems
3 began.
4
Q And you indicated before that you believe that
5 he has some depression?
6
A I believe so. I believe so. Now, what I know
7 that he's doing for depression is he exercises daily. He
8 goes to a 24 Hour Fitness. And I know that he realizes
9 that that is critical to his mental health to keep on an
10 even keel. And I don't think that he was -- I know he
11 wasn't doing that before when he was having all the
12 difficulties.
13
14
15
16
17
18
A Yeah.
24
Q -- getting work. But I just want to know if
25 you had had any experience or witnessed any occasions when
A Yes.
2
Q And that there was periods of time between
3 then and now that Petitioner was quite active in those
4 programs --
A Yes.
6
7
8
10
11
12
Q Okay.
13
A And that's it.
14
Q Are you aware of any stressful situations that 15
Mr. Coughlin has had in the last eight 1IIOnths?
16
A I suspect every day might be kind of stressful : 17
when you're getting sober.
18
Q I appreciate that. But there's nothing
: 19
19
20 significant? I recognize that Mr. Coughlin 1IIOVed to San
21 Diego, and I'm sure the panel knows that, and that 1IIOving
22 can be a stressful endeavor --
23
Page 96
-- ostensibly sober?
A Yes.
MR. COUGHLIN: That's all I have, your Honor.
MS. JENKINS: Anything from the panel?
MS. JENKINS: You're released. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can call my father,
Dr. Timothy D. Coughlin.
TIMOTHY COUGHLIN
having been first duly sworn, vias
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q Hello, Dr. Coughlin. Thank you for being here
20
21 today.
If you can state your name and residence.
22
A Tim Coughlin.
23 Nevada.
4263 Greenhorn Court. Reno,
24
Q Can you speak to the same questions that were
25 just asked to the previous witness, Ms. Barker?
A Yes. I've been sober 36 years. I'm one of

2 the founders of the Nevada Impaired Physicians Committee
3
A Right. And I think that this is stressful.
3 which was begun by Ken McLane who ran the Board of Medical
4 It would certainly be stressful for me, and I'm sure it's
4 Examiners here for many, many years. And he was sober for
5 been on his mind. And I think that he's handled it well. I 5 the last six or seven years of his life. It was one of
6 I think that less is oftentimes better than more. And I
6 the things he was proudest of.
7 think Zach in his efforts to do everything he possibly can
7
I've been the medical director for the McLane
8 to make things right, and to file what he needs to file
8 Center when it was at Saint Mary's. So I've been actively
9 for this, he probably went a little bit overboard; i.e.,
9 and intimately involved in alcohol and drug rehabilitation
10 this morning's email.
10 for a long time.
11
MS. FlOCCHINI: The State Bar appreciates you ! 11
I can say that Zach, as his mother has alluded
12 taking the time to be here.
12 to, was a complete straight arrow all the way through high
13
MS. JENKINS: Hang on. Rebuttal.
13 school. He was a National Merit finalist. He \'1as All
14
14 State basketball player of the year in the northern Triple
15 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
15 A. Didn't drink or anything.
16
Q Ms. Barker, are you aware the Petitioner had
16
I think he went off to college, and I suspect
17 not S1IIOked marijuana for seven years between 2007 and late 17 that some things happened there. He came back with three
18 2014, or does that seem plausible to you?
18 different colored hair, and he made the law review in lavl
19
A Yes. As I said, I never really knew that you
19 school. Passed the California Bar and the Nevada Bar and
20 smoked marijuana until I knew you smoked marijuana.
20 the Patent Bar all in one year before he graduated from
21
I do know that you went through years of
21 law school.
22 sobriety. But, I mean, the marijuana, I just really was
22
And sometimes the smarter you are, the tougher
23 not aware of that.
23 you are, the harder it is to get sober. We've been
24
Q So are you aware of the Petitioner entering a
24 estranged at times. There have been multiple periods
25 12-step recovery programs in approximately 2002?
25 where either -- we were both hanging up on each other all
1 there was a particularly stressful event in Mr. Coughlin's
2 life other than an every day just getting by?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
739

Page 98
1 the time.
I love Zach a great deal. His character is
3 good. I've seen him give a dollar to a homeless woman
4 when he had nothing himself. And I was surprised by that
5 at that point, because I thought, you know, you have
6 nothing, you have no business giving things away at this
7 point.
I feel very strongly that in the last year we
8
9 have seen recovery. Prior to that, it was becoming harder
10 and harder to remember what Zach was like as a young man.
11 And I felt like we had the old Zach back.
12
You know, we've had -- it's been difficult.
13 We've been -- we refer to these things as Zach attacks.
14 You get these emails in the middle of the night, that kind
15 of thing.
16
Adderall is an amphetamine, the same thing as
17 crank. No way around it. And it can have, depending on
18 what your makeup and genetic makeup is like, it can have a
19 horrible effect. He has -- in my family it would be
20 easier to list the people who didn't have alcohol problems
21 than the ones who do. And everybody goes to v/Ork every
22 day, and they've all got great big jobs, and they can't
23 quite figure out hovi things got all balled up.
24
My mother's father was one of first guys in AA
25 in Fort Wayne, Indiana, back in the '30s. If you showed
2
Page 100
I'
1 doctors in Nevada, and I've been involved in that forever.

2 With random urine drug screens, and required counseling,
3 all that. It's been very helpful. And Vle've had, you
4 knOVl, there is a huge success rate among doctors because
5 you have their license in your hands, and a real club over
6 them. If they screw up, their livelihood goes aViay.
7
The doctors' AA meeting meets in my office on
8 Wednesday nights, and there will be one or two or 25 guys
9 at that. 110st alcoholics are their oVin Vlorst enemy, and
10 Zach is certainly here.
11
Frankly, he hasn't been arrested in a long
12 time, and that speaks volumes. That means he's actually
13 improving. And Vie have good conversation noVi. And
14 there's no doubt in my mind he not only has chemical
15 dependency and alcoholism, but he has depression, and
16 certainly his share of anxiety.
17
My vieVi of this 500-page brief is his anxiety
, 18 took over, and he Vias just determined to dot every I and
, 19 cross every T and lost sight of the fact if you don't have
20 recovery it doesn't matter hoVi good your argument is.
,21 It's got to come from the heart. And you need a huge
! 22 spiritual conversion.
You have to have a totally, you
23 knOVl, a major upheaval in how you look at the ,/Odd and
24 hoVi you treat people and hoVi you behave. And I think he's
25 had that.
Page
1 up in an AA meeting in 1930, and you had a watch, the guys

2 would go, shit, he's not ready, he still has a watch. So
3 if you had anything, you weren't ready.
4
My dad's father was the mayor of a little
5 Germany farming community called Fort Recovery, if you can
6 believe that. And he hit somebody over the head with a
7 beer bottle during a city council meeting. So there was
8 room for the sensitive man in Fort Recovery.
9
Ego and self-centeredness are at the heart of
10 all our problems. And once you start drinking and using,
11 you're not you anymore. And that's what we were seeing.
12
And I've been a lightening rod for Zach. And
13 I think it probably made it harder for him to get sober in
14 a lot of "ays. I've seen this in AA before where people
15 have long-term sobriety, but their kids remember Vlhen it
16 Vlasn't that way. And so sometimes they, you know, they
17 have difficulty coming around to that.
18
I have no doubt in my mind that his recovery
19 is sincere at this point. I've seen him break dOVin and
20 cry and apologize for the things he's done and the Vlay
21 he's treated people. And I think he's sincere in that.
22 knoVi he's sincere in that.
23
But it is, you knOVl, it is a difficult road.
24 And I Vlould lobby for reinstating Zach, but I Vlould tie
25 him to a very tight contract, Vlhich is what we do loJith
But I think he's still early in recovery.

2 And, you know, if you have been using amphetamines, it can
3 take up to tViO years for your PET scan to come back to
4 normal. It can be tViO years before you begin to
5 experience pleasure the Vlay it should be.
6
But Zach has a good heart, and he is tenacious
7 if he's anything. Period. And, you knoVl, a Vleak person
8 would have quit a long time ago, but Zach Vlill push things
9 beyond being reasonable, and I think that's changed. That
10 to me Vie have got the old Zach back, and I can't tell you
11 hoVi thrilled I am Vii th that, because Vie had pretty much
i 12 felt like loJe had lost him.
: 13
14
Ms. Flocchini?
15
MS. FLOCCHINI: I Vlill only briefly ask a
: 16
17 question.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
18
,20
Q Do you have an example or can you give an
I 21 example of when Mr. Coughlin has had a particular stressor
22 outside of everyday life in this hearing -- I appreciate
23 that this hearing is stressful -- in the last eight months
24 during his term of sobriety at this point?
25
A I think he gets up every morning and is at
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
740

Page 102'
Page 104
1 work at 7: 00 0' clock to do vlhat' s manual labor. And

-0002 that's tough, you know. And living in a new town, he's
2
RENO, NEVADA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2015; 12:15 P.M.
3
-0003 made a lot of friends, which is remarkable.
But I think recovery has a dignity. And
4
4
5 people can see that. If you are not -- if you're blaming
5
MS. JENKINS: Back on the record.
6 everybody else in everything, and trying to wiggle your
6
Mr. Coughlin, vie' re still in your case in
7 chief.
7 way out of a whole bunch of stuff, they pick up on that.
8
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Besides
8 But recovery has a dignity. And I think I've seen that in
9 my own testimony, I would seek to put some of these
9 Zach. And I'm pretty much an expert at it. I've been
10 doing this for a long time.
10 exhibits into the record. I don't need this. If it would
11
And frankly, I don't pull my punches with
11 be useful to the panel to have the ability to pass around.
12 Zach. We have some pretty frank discussions sometimes.
i 12
MS. JENKINS: "This" for the record is?
13 know if we didn't reall y -- when Zach would get arrested,
13
MR. COUGHLIN: This is the filing I submitted
14 we didn't do anything because my dad wouldn't have. You
14 today.
15 would have sat there. That's all there was to it. And
15
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to deny the admission
16 hopefully you would learn from it.
16 of the filing as a whole. But if you vlOuld like to
17
I think the mental illness, and frankly the
17 introduce any of the exhibits to your filing as individual
18 drugs, are more powerful now than they were before. So I
18 exhibits and make a foundation for them, although
19 don't have any doubt that he's sincere in his remorse and 119 Ms. Flocchini, of course, can object to them, I don't
20 his trying to do better, and I think he is succeeding in
20 object to you attempting to introduce them into the
21 that regard. But he's dug himself an incredible hole, and 21 record.
22 it's going to require a lot of effort to dig himself out
22
MR. COUGHLIN: For Exhibit 1 I seek to
23 of that, and I think he's willing to do that.
23 introduce Dr. Earlson's progress review of August 13th,
24
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have no further questions.
24 2015.
25 Thank you.
, 25
HS. JENKINS: That's in the package that's
Page
1
2
MS. JENKINS: Panel members?

Mr. Coughlin?
MR. COUGHLIN: No further questions, your
4 Honor.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, sir. \~e appreciate
6 your testimony.
What do you have left other than yourself and
7
8 your documents?
9
MR. COUGHLIN: Just the documents, your Honor.
10 Which would -- I have this on the pdf. If this would be
11 useful to the panel to be able to have this -- this
12 represents the file and that every member of the panel was
13 sent a pdf electronic copy of.
14
MS. JENKINS: I understand. I would like to
15 take a break now until 12:00 o'clock. And we'll resume at
16 noon. And at that time I would like you to introduce any
17 documents that you would like to have part of the record
18 as well as provide us with your testimony, allow for
19 cross-examination, panel questions, and then we'll go into
20 closing statements. Sound like a plan?
21
We're going to, of course break at 1:40 for
22 probably an hour. So that's why we're going to limit
23 ourselves to a half-hour lunch.
24
(Recess taken at 11:37 A.H.
25
to resume at 12: 00 P.M.)
5
105
1 been delivered to the panel, Exhibit 1.

2
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
3
~B. FLOCCHINI:
No objection.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. It will be
5 admitted.
I 6
MR. COUGHLIN: Just for clarification, all
7 these exhibit numbers, all these exhibits are drawn
8 directly from what was admitted this morning.
9
Exhibit 2 would be selected progress notes by
10 Dr. Terry Pittinger who is a treating therapist at NNAHHS.
I 11
~~. JENKINS:
Any objection?
I 12
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar objects to the
13 admittance of Exhibit 2 because it's an incomplete record
14 of Hiss Pittinger's notes.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize. I don't know if I
16 misspoke. It's entitled Selected Progress Notes, so it is
117 not all the notes. I should've made that clear.
MS. JENKINS: Hr. Coughlin, the one I have
, 18
19 says Progress Notes for Coughlin, Zachary B. It's a
, 20 two-page document. I'm sorry, keep going. It's a
21 four-page document.
22
MR. COUGHLIN: But on my index to exhibits
23 do identify it as Selected Progress Notes. And if I may
, 24 approach. This might prove useful. Hs. Flocchini vlOuld
! 25 you object to allowing the panel to have this the index to
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
741

Page 106
1 the exhibits?
MS. JENKINS: What you call it is really
2
3 immaterial to me. Tell me what Exhibit 2 is, and why it
4 should be admitted.
MR. COUGHLIN: That is a few of the progress
5
6 notes by a psychologist at NNN1HS who I was treating with.
7 And it just provides support for the evidence that I
8 received counseling, certain types of treatment, cognitive
9 behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy,
10 transactional analysis. Things of that sort.
11
MS. JENKINS: The term of this treatment vias
12 between, let's see, May 21 of 2014, and approximately
13 September 12th of 2014?
14
MR. COUGHLIN: The NNN1HS treatment, I started
15 getting counseling at NNN1HS in March of 2013 originally
16 with a different therapist who turned out \;as a neighbor
17 of my mother's, so he got conflicted out. So then I
18 started treating with Dr. Pittinger, and so those dates
19 are a little more limited than the actual course of
20 treatment.
21
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask why is it that
22 we have selected progress notes?
23
MR. COUGHLIN: I believe because, one, to cut
24 down on the bulk of this filing. TvIO, because in these
25 particular notes it does identify the types of modalities,
Page 108
1
MS. FLOCCHINI: I know Mr. Coughlin will be
2
3 testifying directly today. I don't have an objection. I
4 think Mr. Coughlin's direct testimony is the best
5 evidence.
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to strike Exhibit 3 as
: 6
7 unnecessarily duplicative. And because the State Bar
8 hadn't had an opportunity, nor has the panel, to review it
9 before the testimony today, it's of no value. So let's
i 10 strike Exhibit 3.
, 11
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 4 is a letter from a
I
i 12 treating therapist, Bill Martin, MFC.
, 13
MS. JENKINS: Was Mr. Martin unavailable to
14 testify today?
i 15
MR. COUGHLIN: I just didn't ask him to
16 testify because I felt Dr. Nielsen would be able to relay
17 the information he received from Mr. Martin, and that
, 18 might be duplicative.
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. I have a hard time
, 19
: 20 switching between advocate and adjudicator. I'm going to
21 stop making objections. I'm going to allow Ms. Flocchini
22 to talk to us about Exhibit 4.
23
MS. FLOCCHINI: Based on this document was
24 available to the State Bar long ago as part of the
25 subpoena process, and based on the efficiency of this
Page 107,
1 I guess, that vlOuld be used such as CBT, cognitive

2 behavioral therapy, transitional analysis, and probably,
3 candidly, because the NNN1HS notes are somewhat lengthy,
4 and there's a fair amount of dysfunction detailed in those
5 notes, which I sought to limit.
6
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, other than
7 they're incomplete, what is it about them being incomplete
8 that you object to?
9
MS. FLOCCHINI: I think it was, as you say,
10 succinctly put, that they do not identify the full picture
11 from the treatment and the observations of the NN~BS
12 workers, different therapists and nurses over the course
13 between late 2013 through late 2014.
14
MR. COUGHLIN: It's not late 2013. It's March
15 of 2013, I believe, is when the treatment began.
16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Sure.
l7
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to not allOl; Exhibit 2
18 into the record. So panel please disregard Exhibit 2
19 that's been presented to us.
20
MR. COUGHLIN: This is, Exhibit 3 is a sworn
21 declaration by myself. I would say pretty much just
22 detailing what I will testify to here today, especially
23 with regard to contrition and remorse, and then continuing
24 to follow the recommendation of Dr. Nielsen, and continue
25 to have a relationship with a psychiatrist and therapist.
Page 109
' 1 proceeding, the State Bar does not have an objection to

2 Exhibit 4.
3
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 4 \;ill be admitted.
:
MR. COUGHLIN: Given I was seeing two
5 therapists, Exhibit 5 is from Dr. Hoar. It's pretty much
6 the same, just from a different person, as Exhibit 4.
MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection. This letter has
7
8 the same circumstances. The State Bar has been aware of
9 this letter since it was first issued.
10
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 5 is admitted.
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 6 is certificates of
:11
12 completion of 104 1/2 hours of CLE, continuing legal
! 13 education credits.
i 14
MS. FLOCCHINI: No obj ection.
15
MS. JENKINS: What is this being offered to
, 16 show?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: The CLEs? For the purposes of,
18 I believe in 116(4) beyond just saying Petitioner must
19 show he's no longer disabled and fit to practice law. A
:, 20 little bit later in the subparagraph a requisite
21 competency appears, learning in the law. And it's
122 intended to show that beyond some other evidence I'll
I 23 present today, shOl;ing I've actually done a lot of legal
I 24 work while suspended, it's all on my OI,n behalf, but it's
i 25 intended to show that I've maintained learning in the law
I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
742

Page 110 i
Page 112
1 and continuing to.

1 my admission file, and I had provided them a day or two
MS. JENKINS: I'll admit it.
2
2 ago in an email to Ms. Flocchini.
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. I think
3
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have a number of letters of
4 that's 6.
4 recommendation. I don't have reference to these. I can
5
Exhibit 7 is a paycheck stub detailing 700
5 confirm that I didn't receive them previously, but I don't
6 hours of subsistence employment that I have engaged in
6 recognize them.
7 pursuant to Dr. Nielsen's recommendation.
. 7
MS. JENKINS: I have question for you,
8
MS. JENKINS: I find this a little difficult
i 8 Ms. Flocchini.
Will the State Bar be bringing up
9 to read. Is anybody having a similar problem? Is there a
9 preinactive status behavior?
10 better copy that we can enter into the record if there is
10
~lS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
11 no objection from the State Bar?
11
MS. JENKINS: I'll admit them. They're in.
12
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't have a better copy on
12
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor.
13 me, your Honor, but I can probably find one.
i 13
Exhibit 9 is a certified prescription history
14
MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, is the $6,015 the
14 for myself. It's not for my whole life, but it is for
15 number you're trying to show us?
15 what I thought was the relevant period in question where I
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Basically, yeah, at $10 an hour 16 questioned Dr. Nielsen about this earlier, whether he saw
17 saying I had earned 6,000 since starting in that year. So 17 any causal correlation bet~leen me abruptly going off
18 plus that was from, I believe, early August. So adding up 18 Addera11 and 11ellbutrin, and thereafter being arrested
19 40 hours a week, it would imply that I have done 700,
19 tlvice in a couple of weeks.
20 because I continued working.
20
So this prescription printout history does
21
MS. JENKINS: My concern with this copy is
21 provide evidence that I did indeed quit filling my
22 that I can't determine the date. I do see 10 hours, 30
22 prescriptions for Adderall and Wellbutrin in that time
23 hours -- I'm sorry, $10 an hour, 30 1/2 for $35. But I
23 period just prior to -- it would have run out, my 30-day
24 don't know what the period, starting period, ending, and
24 supply would have run out just prior to my being arrested
25 pay date may be.
25 twice wi thin 17 days. The initial two arrests detailed in
Page
MS. FLOCCHINI:
Perhaps the pdf version is

2 better. Because I have seen this document already. And
3 my understanding was that the pay period was late July.
4 For some reason the pay ending date was a late July date.
5 I can't read it today, but I must have been able to read
6 it better on the computer.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: It was August 5th, from what I
8 remember. And I might have this in my vehicle at this
9 point.
10
MS. JENKINS: Let's say it will be admitted.
11 If we can find clarification or stipulate to the date,
12 approximate date, we'll admit number 7.
13
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 8 are letters of
14 recommendation. One is from Lawyers Concerned For Other
15 Lawyers, Coe Swobe. And another by a former sponsor of
16 mine, an attorney named Kelly Teslin, also from 2004.
17
MS. JENKINS: Relevancy?
18
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar would object
19 based on relevancy, and we have not seen these documents
20 before.
21
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I believe 14s. Flocchini
22 stated that the State Bar would perhaps be referencing
23 some of the materials from my admission, and she had
24 earlier information when she detailed Dr. Hunter's report.
25 These materials would, I would believe, ~lOuld have been in
113
1 the petition.
2
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar, I don't believe
3 the State Bar received this previously, and I will object
4 based on relevance.
5
MR. COUGHLIN: If I could speak to that.
6 That's a pretty, kind of a thing to me. Because the State
. 7 Bar did, in fact, receive this, and it received this two
i 8 weeks before the filing -- well, along with an email that
9 is attached to what would be Exhibit 15.
10
The State Bar received this -- not
11 Ms. Flocchini, her predecessor Mr. King, received this two
12 weeks prior to the filing of the instant petition on May
13 31st, 2015. Which is somewhat troubling to me, because
14 the petition indicates Mr. Coughlin has been approached by
15 the State Bar, and he indicates he has no mental problems,
: 16 no substance abuse problems, and he refuses to acknowledge
i 17 he has anything in that regard.
18
Which I found to be highly inaccurate
19 considering some of the materials I attached to -- I
20 provided Bar counsel, then I later attached to what is
21 deemed the additional response that the Court here
22 references in its disability order where it says
23 Mr. Coughlin has e-filed this initial response, which was
24 the IDS-page thing included in the prehearing packet.
25
But then the order references, it says, we're
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
743

Page 114
Page 116
1 finding him disabled based on Dr. Nielsen's report, and

1 admission and their admissibility by last Friday.
2 all the filings, all the materials on file in this matter.
MR. COUGHLIN: It's included in the record
2
So for me there was two. The initial thing
3
3 from the disability case.
4 June 18th, 2012. Then there was the additional response I
MS. JENKINS: I don't doubt that, sir. I
4
5 filed July 22nd, 2014. Which attached to it as an
5 asked you to identify documents you intended to introduce
6 exhibit, this email to Mr. King of May 14, 2012, vlhich
6 at this hearing by three working days before the hearing,
7 included what was brought up to Mr. King, this
7 last Friday. Or three calendar days, I'm sorry.
8 prescription history.
8
So while I don't doubt that the State Bar has
9
It's a lengthy email. Details what I saw as
9 seen it before, it Vias not seen in relation to the SCR 117
10 perhaps causal correlation between being arrested, the
. 10 hearing that Vie' re here to deal with today.
11 arrests occurring within a couple weeks after running out I 11
MS. FLOCCHINI: To the extent -- I apologize.
12 of those medications.
12
MS. JENKINS: I want to just say that your
13
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I am going to deny 13 state of mind and your behavior, the reasons for your
14 admission of this document. Your explanation for what you 14 behavior prior to the arrest, is really not Vlhat we're
15 might use it for in this proceeding was to show that you
15 considering today. That may be a consideration in any
16 went off of amphetamines, 30 milligrams, and Vlellbutrin,
16 further disciplinary hearings that may take place if
17 150 milligrams, shortly before your arrest. This report
17 you're reinstated.
18 doesn't say anything of the sort. Vlhether it says that
18
However, I think it's really attenuated to
19 you last filled them in April of 2012, and the report was
19 what we're here for. I'le' re talking about your current
20 issued a mere three or four days after the last filling of 20 status of your disability, and your current character and
21 your Vlellbutrin, I'm going to suggest that this does not
21 fitness, or fitness including character, to practice as an
22 provide any probative value as to whether or not you went
22 attorney.
23 off of these meds.
23
I'm going to deny admission.
24
MR. COUGHLIN: 2011 in August was -- the
Exhibit 10.
24
25 arrests at issue in the petition occurred in late August
25
MR. COUGHLIN: May I speak to that, your
1 2011 and early September 2011.
2
MS. JENKINS: Those drugs continued to be
3 filled by, according to this document. Until April of
4 2012.
5
MR. COUGHLIN: There is a gap though during
6 the relevant time frame. They ceased being filled in
7 August 2011. And then I don't start filling them again
8 until after the two arrests occurred. In fact, I don't
9 start filling the Vlellbutrin until April 2012. But I went
10 back onto the Adderall immediately after the second
11 arrest.
12
MS. JENKINS: That's amphetamine, 30
13 milligrams?
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
15
MS. JENKINS: It does show that.
16
Counsel?
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: I will speak more accurately
18 with respect to whether or not we have seen these
19 documents. The State Bar has seen these documents before
20 in preparation for the hearing today in response to the
21 chair's direction that any exhibits be exchanged. This
22 was not identified as an exhibit for today.
23
MS. JENKINS: I Vlill mention that while the
24 State Bar may have seen this before, I had directed the
25 parties to exchange documents and determine their
1 Honor, briefly?
2
MS. JENKINS: I think that you've had an
3 opportunity to argue why it should be admitted. So no.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: I've argued both ways that it
5 should and shouldn't. Exhibit-6
MS. JENKINS: 10, I believe.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: -- 10 is a report, a progress
I 8 note. They're not all the progress notes from that
9 psychiatrist. They are selected, I suppose you might say,
10 offered to show that I turned in a bottle of Vlellbutrin to
111 him and discussed Vlith him going off -- not Vlellbutrin,
I 12 Adderall -- the amphetamine, in April, early April. And
i 13 discussed going off that with him and then thereafter went
. 14 off that medication.
! 15
~!S. JENKINS: Counsel?
I 16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Similar to the records from
17 NNAMHS, the State Bar objects to the admission of these
18 documents because it is not a complete record of
19 Mr. Coughlin's history with the San Diego Behavioral
20 Health Services Agency.
I 21
And to the extent that it can support
; 22 Mr. Coughlin's statements that he has gone off Adderall, I
23 think Mr. Coughlin can make the statement to the panel,
24 and the panel can judge his credibility on that. That
25 assertion has been made by many witnesses already.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
744

Page 118'
1
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can briefly
1
2 just respond to that. In my file today, which is
2
3 approximately 26 pages, and some 400 pages attached, which
3
4 were largely, the bulk of that vias largely what was
4
5 necessitated by what was in the prehearing packet offered
5
6 by the State Bar in terms of failing to include what I
6
7 would think are essential documents from the record in the
7
8 corrpanion disability case.
8
9
There's case law that I detail in my 26-page
9
10 filing today, my supplemental prehearing brief, that says
10
11 courts are often going to expect more than just you coming 11
12 into court and saying something happened in these
12
13 contexts. The courts seem to want the stuff corroborated. 13
14
So while I can come in here and testify I quit 14
15 taking Adderall in April, I provided this for purposes of
15
16 showing not only that, but I gave the psychiatrist a
16
17 bottle of Adderall that I had ceased taking.
17
18
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to allow these as
18
19 being an incomplete record of the progress before
19
20 Mr. Boehner.
20
21
I'm also going to suggest that the Petitioner
21
22 had an opportunity to bring a witness to corroborate his
22
23
23 testimony that he gave a bottle of Adderal1 to someone at
, 24
24 this clinic and chose not to do that, to date at least.
25 And that while this is a business record, it seems to be
25
Page 120
response as to Exhibit 11.

MS. JENKINS: It's admitted.
Exhibit 13.
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 13 is various letters
of recommendation.
MS. JENKINS: Counsel?
MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection. vie have seen
them. Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: I will admit Exhibit 13. It's a
lot of pages.
t1R. COUGHLIN: Probably 30 pages. I should
have Bates stamped all these.
MS. JENKINS: Approximately 22 pages of
letters of recommendation for reinstatement of
Mr. Coughlin.
MS. FLOCCHINI: I apologize. As I was
reviewing this I stopped at Dr. Nielsen's progress revieVl,
vlhich is sort of included in this packet. And there are
some letters of recommendation that are dated back to
2009 -- I'm sorry, 2004, that were not previously
provided.
MR. LOW: Which exhibit are we on now?
MS. JENKINS: Number 13.
~ffi. COUGHLIN:
I believe they were provided in
the sense that they were submitted to the State Bar at the
Page
1 an incomplete one, and is hearsay. So I'm going to not

2 allow it.
3
Exhibit 11, sir.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Exhibit
5 11 is a nine-step men's letter, which is sort of a
6 recovery term for apology letters, essentially expressing
7 contrition and remorse to various individuals connected to
8 the behavior identified in the disability petition and
9 beyond.
10
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: The best evidence regarding
12 Mr. Coughlin's working of the 12 steps, I believe, is
13 Mr. Coughlin's testimony directly. Nonetheless, this is
14 not a voluminous exhibit, and for that reason the State
15 Bar does not object to Exhibit 11.
16
MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted.
17
18
Exhibit 12 would be attendance sheets for
19 12-step recovery groups showing roughly attendance on a
20 daily basis, I believe from as far as back as February to
21 the present day. It might not be totally complete,
22 because some of these slips would get lost from time to
23 time. In the immediate is -- that's roughly what it's
24 provided for.
25
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar has the same
1 time I was seeking admission, and Ms. Flocchini referenced

2 using the materials. They were submitted therevlith in
3 this hearing.
MS. FLOCCHINI: I appreciate that. I will
4
5 clarify again. The letters dated 2004 were not provided
6 to the State Bar in anticipation of this hearing.
MS. JENKINS: I think that the panel can
7
8 distinguish the relevance, the probative value, and the
9 hearsay value, if you Vlill, of the documents as a whole.
: 10 And just being aViare of the date it's probably a good
, 11 idea.
But I'll admit Exhibit 13 in its entirety, and
, 12
13 we'll go through and see what we have got, what
14 Mr. Coughlin would like to point out to the panel.
15
Do you have one more exhibit?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: A few more. Exhibit 14 will be
, 17 a couple orders from Reno Municipal Court Judge Nash
, 18 Holmes reversing the criminal trespass and contempt
19 convictions stemming from the traffic citation trial that
20 are referenced in the disability petition.
, 21
22 admission of Exhibit 14. The documents, these tViO orders
23 "lith the proof of service, doesn't exhibit what
24 Mr. Coughlin has referenced. I don't know why the matters
25 were dismissed, but there is no explanation in these --
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
745

Page 124
Page 122 I
MS. JENKINS: Documents.
1 enough to order the State Bar to respond to it a couple
2 weeks after I filed it.
MS. FLOCCHINI: -- documents.
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, can you explain to
3
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I don't doubt that
4 me hO;1 these might be helpful in some way in this case?
4 it was relevant in your disciplinary case. I'm going to
5
5 admit it conditionally. If during your testimony, during
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. I've argued this both
6 ways. In my filing last week I argued this stuff isn't
6 your presentation of evidence this becomes relevant in
7 relevant, but now I'm conceding it may be relevant because
7 some way, you're going to have to show us how it's
8 relevant at that time.
8 the prong under 117.2, fitness, I believe comes in,
9 possibly character. And the case la;1 I detail in my
MS. JENKINS: Now we're on to 15, I believe.
10 filing, my 26-page filing of today is, what is included in 10
11 character? And oftentimes I find the case says the level
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: It happens to be on the back.
MS. JENKINS: Is there any other documents you
12 of severity of the past misconduct goes to how much I need 12
13 to prove I've rehabilitated myself sufficiently to show I
13 would like to submit?
14 have character.
; 14
MR. COUGHLIN: Actually, your Honor, there
15 are. I 1'lOuld like to submit as Exhibit 15 my filing in
15
And if past misconduct or alleged misconduct
16 the disability case that's referenced in the disability
16 here was actually overturned, then that would be quite
17 strong evidence that there was no misconduct.
,17 order as the additional response I filed with the
18
MS. JENKINS: My problem with these documents, 18 petition. That was a filing I submitted in July of 2014.
19 And given it's referenced in the disability order, the
19 Mr. Coughlin, is that we don't have any information about
20 what case number 11 TR 26800 TI or case 11 CR 26405 might I 20 order placing on disability status. And given that the
21 case law I point out in the filing of today says well, in
21 have alleged, what they had to do with, and why they were
22 order to determine character you need to see this guy
22 dismissed. It could have been that any of a jillion
23 complied with the disability order or the disciplinary
23 reasons. So the documents don't appear to be helpful on
24 order, disability order.
24 their face.
25
Also I think it goes to whether or not -- what
25
Your testimony is, without additional
1
2
123
1 documentary evidence, is going to be your best bet with
2 regard to the -- your facts about your criminal
3 allegations. These documents don't help you in any way,
4 because on their face they say nothing.
5
MR. COUGHLIN: They're from the criminal
6 trespass case and the contempt case.
7
MS. JENKINS: There's nothing on here that
8 says this is a criminal trespass case. And there's
9 nothing on here that says that it's anything other than -10 the case is dismissed, and it doesn't say loJhy, what the
11 allegations were, or what have you.
12
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
13
MS. JENKINS: I'm at a loss to know how this
14 is going to be probative to this panel.
15
16 proceed under the assumption that this panel wants to see
17 everything in the disability case. If that's the case,
18 that is included in the disability case as an attachment,
19 along with a companion filing in the disciplinary case.
20
The Nevada Supreme Court -- so if this panel
21 does review everything in the disciplinary case, it will
22 come across that. And there will be support for where and
23 what that's from, why it's relevant. And, in fact, in the
24 companion disciplinary case, which was on appeal, the
25 Court -- I filed that. The Court found that relevant
1 the disability is, and whether or not I've overcome it.

2 Because I lias at somewhat of a loss. I think I know just
3 common sense what the Nevada Supreme Court ,lOuld probably
4 think my disability is, but no one's ever really quite
5 spelled it out to me. The Court certainly never entered
6 an order saying you have this, this is your disability or
7 this is your -8
So in order to figure out what disability do I
9 need to prove I've overcome, I need to understand what did
,10 they rely on in making their order. And in their order
11 they said we're relying on not only the doctor's report,
12 which frankly I think submitted alone wouldn't have gotten
13 me disabled, but what I filed in the case, which I think,
14 added with these reports, resulted in the Court
15 potentially doing that.
16
So what this ,lOuld be is my additional
17 response or second filing, second and only filing in that
18 disability case. And it's the one that I have been
19 referencing periodically throughout here where I say, no,
20 that prescription history, it's right. The State Bar got
21 it.
'22
It's a little bit dispiriting that thereafter
23 the Bar, the board two loJeeks later filed a disability
24 petition saying this guy says he doesn't have a problem.
25 When, in fact, I sent them a very lengthy email detailing
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
746

Page 126:
1 my problems, and my prescription history, and suggesting

2 cause and correlation, identifying vlhat I'm doing to
3 address my problems.
4
MS. JENKINS: I understand your concern and
5 your passion for this issue. I can only hope that I never
6 have to find myself in your shoes. But this proceeding is
7 independent of all of those other proceedings.
8
lihile your argument in the disability hearing
9 is completely relevant substantively to the reasons that
10 you were placed on disability inactive status, and that is
11 relevant to this proceeding because you have to overcome
12 that disability in order for us to find that the
13 disability has been removed, I'm going to allow that to
14 come into evidence as a filed pleading of the State Bar.
15 And really that's all it's good for, because it's
16 argument. It's not evidence. It's background.
17
So I don't want you to rely on it as evidence.
18 If there's a document in there that you think is important
19 to be a part of the file, I don't want to prejudice you in
20 any way by keeping it out. I don't think that this panel
21 requires copies of that at this moment, but I'll allovi it
22 to be added to the record.
23
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, your Honor. I appreciate
24 that. If I can just mention the filing of today points to
25 a case that says -- because someone in my position might
Page 128
'1 law in that 38 months. In fact, I probably practiced more

2 law in that 38 months than I ever did before, maybe more
3 than I ever did before combined.
4
MS. JENKINS: Are you going to give us an
5 exhibit? Because you can do your testimony later.
6
MR. COUGHLIN: That's the purpose of this
7 exhibit. If this point is conceded by the Bar, then
8 great, I don't need to show these, all the cases and
9 filings and documents, and many hours of court time I
10 spent litigating probably too many cases.
11
But nonetheless, they do establish, in my
12 view, that I remained diligent in establishing competency
13 and learning in the law, even during this suspension in
: 14 time.
, 15
MS. JENKINS: So those are -- Exhibit 16 is
16 vlhat you would like to offer, which includes documents
17 showing that you have been litigating outside of the state
18 of Nevada because you've been on inactive status here?
19
MR. COUGHLIN: No. That I've been litigating
20 pro se in Nevada representing myself in a variety of
21 contexts.
MS. JENKINS: So you have been keeping your
: 22
23 skills up by appearing in litigation on your own behalf?
24
MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah. Yes.
25
MS. JENKINS: Is that point conceded, Counsel,
Page 127
1 be saying, well, what was in the prehearing package

2 shouldn't be in here. That's from another case, it's not
3 relevant, it's prejudicial. And the case I cite to in
4 here says, Ivell , it's okay for the State Bar to put that
5 stuff in the prehearing packet because you have the
6 opportunity to do what I'm doing now, which is bring in
7 other cases. I suppose I can give it to the court
8 reporter at this point to be marked. This is the only
9 copy I have.
10
MS. JENKINS: That would be great. And when
11 Ms. Peters comes in, we can ask her to make a copy for the
12 record so you may have your copy back.
13
MR. COUGHLIN: Just a couple more, your Honor.
14 Quickly. Another prong in 117.4 is current competency in
15 learning in the law.
16
MS. JENKINS: Where does it say that?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: It's a couple sentences after
18 the disability has been removed, he's now fit to practice.
19 That the panel may order -- I'm hoping to avoid having
20 this panel order me to take the Bar exam again or
21 something like that. By doing that I'm trying to
22 establish that, yes, I've been suspended from the practice
23 of law in Nevada, not with the Patent Bar, but in Nevada
24 since June of 2012.
I did not go off and do nothing related to the
25
1 by the Bar? Do you know what's in Exhibit 16?

2
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have briefly reviewed
3 Exhibit 16. It is, frankly, pretty voluminous, so I've
4 not read directly everything that's in Exhibit 16 to know
5 exactly what the representations are and whether or not
6 you took these documents and specifically filed each of
7 these documents.
8
MS. JENKINS: Is there an objection?
9
MS. FLOCCHINI: I believe that it is
10 duplicative to testimony that Mr. Coughlin may have
11 provided to the panel. But I defer to the chair for a
, 12 decision.
13
What I'm seeing, there are documents that I
14 don't think are like the order that was conditionally
.15 admitted included in Exhibit 16. That's a concern.
16
MS. JENKINS: I don't see any reason that that
17 is helpful, Mr. Coughlin. Your representation about your
18 involvement with the courts is going to be perfectly
19 adequate for my purposes, and adding those exhibits when
20 the substance of those exhibits is not helpful, just the
121 fact of the activity is helpful, makes me exclude Exhibit
22 16.
23
24
MS. JENKINS: Anything else?
,25
MR. COUGHLIN: Can I clarify what the Bar's
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
747

Page 130 i
Page 132
1 position -- if I was to be deemed no longer disabled, fit

1 June in the disciplinary appeal, June of this year in the
2 disciplinary appeal, that vlere literally -- a week later I
2 to practice, would the Bar at this point be saying the
3 panel should order this or that be done by Mr. Coughlin to
3 was declared disabled after filing those.
4 establish competency and learning in the law? Or is the
4
MR. LOW: Sir, I don't understand what you are
5 Bar's position at this point if you do meet the first two
5 saying there. Are you implying that there was some sort
6 prongs, we're not going to suggest that you need to do
6 of retaliatory action taken by the Bar? What's your
7 anything further to establish competency and learning in
7 point?
8 the law?
8
MR. COUGHLIN: Not by the Bar, not
9
Basically I'm seeking to see if that point's
9 retaliatory. In fact, I should clarify. The discipline
, 10 case, not only was I declared disabled. And the Rule
10 conceded, we don't need to spend time on it.
11
MS. JENKINS: I'm not certain what your
11 117.2 says if you are declared disabled your disciplinary
12 question is, because that's not for the Bar to say.
12 case is paused.
13 That's for the panel to say. Whether we believe that
13
Not only that. After I filed these, and the
14 you're competent in your learning and the law is part of
14 Court declared me disabled, they submitted the
15 your fitness to practice, and you'll need to provide us
15 disciplinary case. All that work that I've been doing the
16 with clear and convincing evidence that you are.
16 last three years, we're throwing it out. You're disabled.
17
Representing yourself isn't necessarily the
i 17 Go prove you're not.
I'lere throwing it out. The Bar can
18 best way to do that. And your continued practice is
18 bring it up again if they think it's necessary, but we
19 probably at the same caliber as your prior practice. Who
19 think you finally get it. So we're going to stop seeking
20 knows? The fact is, those documents won't really help you 20 to disbar, and we're going to put you on disability
21 that much, and they don't appear to be relevant to this
i 21 status.
22 proceeding.
i 22
23
MS. FLOCCHINI: With respect to the status of
23
24
Exhibit 17 is a collection of filings and
additional matters that were pending before the
25 orders in the companion disciplinary case that has been on
supreme court. Upon entering a status of disability
1 appeal. I respect what you previously indicated in terms
2 of the slight, if any, relevance in that given the limited
3 focus here today. But it seems to me that this panel is
4 entitled to, and probably wants to know, kind of from my
5 point of view, the common sense, what really seems to be
6 the happening thing here.
7
From my point of view, I'm on -- I went to a
8 full disciplinary hearing. A recommendation was made for
9 discipline, and that was on appeal for quite a long time.
10 Then I filed a few things in that case. And then within a
11 week or two I'm declared disabled. Nothing was filed in
12 the disability case. But within a week or two of me
13 filing stuff in the disciplinary appeal I'm declared
14 disabled.
15
Basically it's tough. I have redoubled my
16 efforts in recovery in expressing some contrition. I
17 thought the panel would want to be able to judge, see that
18 in assessing maybe that's what the supreme court's really
19 seeing this guy's,disability, and they are glad he finally
20 is kind of rerecognizing that.
21
So in assessing whether or not I've overcome
22 the disability, I think this stuff might be relevant.
23
MS. JENKINS: What are you proposing to offer
24 as an exhibit?
25
MR. COUGHLIN: My filing of late May and early
inactive, the Court, for procedural purposes, dismissed

2 vlithout prejudice the other disciplinary matters that had
3 gone up for review before them on the recommendations from
4 disciplinary panels. Because upon a finding of
5 disability, Mr. Coughlin was then deemed unable to
6 adequately represent himself in those proceedings.
7
Those disciplinary proceedings continue to be
8 pending. And if he were to be reinstated, then they \'iill
9 proceed in due course from there. So the Court closed the
i 10 file, but didn't dismiss them.
11
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to stop all discussion
12 of disciplinary matters from this point forward. I don't
! 13 vlant the panel to be poisoned by knowing how many, the
i 14 nature, the status or other things with regard to
, 15 discipline and allegations or findings of discipline or
, 16 recommendations or pending matters that haven't even gone
17 to a panel yet with regard to Mr. Coughlin.
18
I think that's inappropriate in this case -19 and don't even speak yet. I want to be able to have a
20 clean consideration of this Respondent's status of his
! 21 disability and his fitness to practice law in this state.
22 And that's all.
23
I don't want to hear about allegations.
24 don't want to hear about conviction of disciplinary
25 matters. They are not relevant to the disability that
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
748

Page 134
1 we're here to adjudicate. And I understand that they're

2 inextricably woven, particularly when it comes to
3 discipline, but they are not when it comes to disability.
4
I think it will unfairly prejudice this case
5 to talk about the discipline matter. I don't want that to
6 happen for your sake or for the supreme count's sake when
7 they get to revie;1 this matter and determine whether to
8 follow the panel's recommendation.
9
So as far as exhibits, stay away from anything
10 that has to do with disciplinary matters or allegations.
11 As far as testimony, I'm cautioning you to do the same.
12 Does that make sense to you?
13
MR. COUGHLIN: It does, your Honor. And
14 that's essentially close to the argument I was making in
15 the filing last week. The problem is -16
MS. JENKINS; I thought that ,las a good tack,
17 but you changed.
18
MR. COUGHLIN: I did. The problem is I
19 imagined the panel was going to want to read Dr. Nielsen's
20 reports or the Bar ,las going to offer it or something.
21 When you read his report, it talks about inextricably
22 decline, it goes all into that sort of stuff.
23
Some of this is, you know, it might have been
24 good to get this stuff to the panel well in advance, but
25 then strategically it might not have been.
i
Page 136
I 1 these arrests that happened after the period he detailed
! 2 in the disability petition.
3
I believe ultimately the Nevada Supreme Court
,4 is going to want to know is this guy fit now, not is this
5 guy fit based on what happened three years ago. And to
6 determine if I'm fit now necessitates probably taking
7 somewhat of a look at some stuff that's not even detailed
8 in the disability petition.
MS. JENKINS: Do you have an exhibit to offer?
9
10
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I'm sorry, your Honor.
11 Did you just deny admission of Exhibit 17? I think you
12 did. Those rulings from the companion disciplinary
13 appeal?
14
MS. JENKINS: Your filing, protest filings
! 15 regarding the appeal of your disciplinary proceedings I
16 disallowed.
i 17
t1R. COUGHLIN: The next exhibit would be the
18 complete file in that disability case.
19
MS. JENKINS: The pleadings?
I 20
MR. COUGHLIN: Everything filed. Well, very
21 close to everything. Maybe there's some inconsequential
22 things not in there. But basically the Bar got to pick
23 and choose, basically, what it wanted to include in the
i 24 preheating packet pursuant to DRP 57. \mat to include in
25 the packet from that disability case that brought us here
Page
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to suggest to you that

2 strategically you've hurt yourself by not giving us the
3 opportunity to look at Dr. Nielsen's report before today.
Are you prepared to offer that into evidence
4
5 in your case, which has the burden of clear and convincing
6 evidence, that Dr. Nielsen's not only testified about your
7 status today, but his report, which is a hard copy, if you
8 will, of what he testified to, are you going to offer that
9 into evidence?
10
MR. COUGHLIN: This is the initial report?
MS. JENKINS: His report of your current
11
12 status.
MR. COUGHLIN: That is Exhibit 1.
13
MS. JENKINS: Okay. Good. Sorry. I missed
14
15 it.
16
MR. COUGHLIN: So my last exhibit will be his
17 initial report.
18
MS. JENKINS: That will be fine. Let's take a
19 look.
20
MR. COUGHLIN: I went back and forth on this a
21 lot. But it seemed to me displaying a cooperative
22 attitude to do these proceedings and recognizing judicial
23 economy argued in favor of more transparency here, and
24 deferral more. And Dr. Nielsen's testified to it earlier
25 that, in fact, when I went and met with him I detailed all
1 today.
And I'm saying, well then, it's my tight or
2
3 choice whether or not to say, 'Ihat about all this other
4 stuff that was in the disability case, shouldn't the panel
5 see that? So basically this is my -- for instance, the
6 prehearing packet doesn't have the eight exhibits attached
7 to the petition. It doesn't have my second response.
8
MS. JENKINS: You had an opportunity to
9 exchange the documents as of Friday last week after your
10 discussions earlier that 'leek. Why is it you were unable
! 11 to get your strategy together to do that before this past
12 Friday?
13
MR. COUGHLIN: One, they already have those
114 documents because they were the opposing side in that
i 15 disability case.
; 16
Two, I didn't get the preheating packet until
, 17 the 21st or 2nd, 'Ihich was past. In order to know what is
: 18 missing from the prehearing packet, and what I needed to
: 19 respond with, I have to get the prehearing packet first.
! 20 So only if I'm getting the prehearing packet and looking
i 21 at it, where are the eight exhibits to the petition?
: 22 Where is my response? I have to get it first in order to
, 23 know, yeah, I'm going to put those in as evidence.
24
i 25
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar inadvertently
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
749

Page 138'
Page 140
failed to include the eight exhibits to the petition. I

1 not recommend reinstatement, the matter does not go up to
2 have copies of those for the panel. Those should be
2 the supreme court.
3 included.
MS. JENKINS: So the final say is this panel,
3
4
The second response should have been included.
4 there's no appellate right?
MS. FLOCCHINI: If there's no recommendation
5 And I believe that it has been admitted as Exhibit 15 as
5
6 part of the record at this point.
6 of reinstatement. If there is a recommendation for
MS. JENKINS: That's the second response?
7
7 reinstatement, it goes up. I may not be correct, but that
8
8 is my understanding.
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
9
MS. JENKINS: And the eight exhibits to the
9
MS. JENKINS: Then I would like the court
10 initial filing -10 reporter to accept any documents that have not been
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
i 11 admitted and mark them as not admitted documents, put a
12
MS. JENKINS: Are available -12 rubber band around them or whatever you do, and keep them
13
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
13 with the record, and we'll determine what to do with them
14
MS. JENKINS: -- for the panel? What number
14 later.
15 exhibit would !tIe be proposing that it be?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Now-16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Mr. Coughlin has been marking
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I apologize for
16
17 exhibits in numerical order. If you'd like the State Bar
17 the irritation in my voice. But I \'/ill express once again
18 to mark them in alphabetical order.
i 18 how disappointed I am that these documents are being
19
MS. JENKINS: I would like the State Bar to
19 presented to the panel at the hearing rather than
20 offer them to Mr. Coughlin to introduce as his exhibits,
20 beforehand. I thought we had a really good understanding
21 if you wouldn't mind.
21 on the phone about how this was going to go. And we have
22
MS. FLOCCHINI: Not at all.
22 just spent a lot of time.
23
MS. JENKINS: Unless the State Bar has other
23
And it's really just you, me and Bar counsel
24 exhibits.
, 24 that could have been doing this rather than the other four
25
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar has two
25 members of the panel whose time is very valuable. Please
Page 139 +~
Page 14T
1 exhibits.
1 move on.
MS. JENKINS: Well, I still think that
2
MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize for that, your
2
3 Honor. I need to get the prehearing packet before I know
3 Mr. Coughlin just suggested that that be admitted. Just
4 vlhat to challenge it with.
4 because you have the copies doesn't mean it's your
5 exhibit. And Mr. Coughlin can go ahead and give that a
5
MS. JENKINS: This is the procedure we employ
6 number.
6 in every disciplinary board matter. And that is that we
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can -- though
7 premark exhibits and we submit to opposing counsel. And
8 it \vasn't admitted, can I have Exhibit 16 marked and
8 opposing counsel has an opportunity to respond and prepare
9 included in the record?
9 their case. And this is not the way it's supposed to go.
10
MS. JENKINS: As a disallowed Exhibit?
10
MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize. And I agree, your
11
MR. COUGHLIN: I think so, yeah.
i 11 Honor. My apologies.
12
MS. JENKINS: It can get marked for
So exhibit -, 12
13 identification, but it's not going to become a part of the 13
MS. JENKINS: I think we thought it was number
14 record because it's not allo!tled.
I 14 18 to be cons ide red next.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: But in the event that
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Just for the purposes of 16 and
16 hopefully -- and I don't even know if necessarily I have
i 16 l7 that you said to just include -17 an appellant right in this regard. But if it's ruled that I 17
MS. JENKINS: Put them on the table.
18 I'm not rehabilitated here, I might argue, well -- or that 18
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 18. I'm dravling to a
19 I don't have the requisite competency and learning in the
19 close here, your Honor. There is no Exhibit 19, just 20
20 law, I might argue, well, that might have been useful for
20 and 21.
21 them to see.
21
Exhibit 18 is a complete copy of the, not the
, 22 disability petition, but the whole file from that case.
22
MS. JENKINS: How do \'ie deal with this?
23
MS. FLOCCHINI: I admit that I am newer to the I 23 So Bar counsel just gave me copies for the panel \'/hich is
24 reinstatement, particularly in disability scenarios. But
24 helpful of the disability petition complete with the
25 I believe that the appropriate course is if the panel does 25 actual attachments to it.
I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
750

Page 144
Page 142 I
But also included in that file would be the

I
1 Exhibit 18?
2 additional response I keep referencing from July 2014, and
2
~1R. COUGHLIN: Sure.
3 would also be Dr. Nielsen's report, vlOuld also be not too I 3
MS. JENKINS: Let's do that.
4 much else really.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't have a cover page.
And I think the prehearing packet is in the
5
MS. JENKINS: It's okay. You can write 18 on
5
6 record? Because if it is, there's a I~S-page filing in
6 one of them and provide it to the reporter.
7 there that I could find -- if that's in there, it doesn't
7
Would you like to offer an Exhibit 19?
8 need to be in here.
8
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. This is
My only thing that I think should be included
9
9 drawing to a close very shortly here, this offering of
10 in some way from the whole file in the disability case is
10 exhibits.
11 that second response from me. Then I imagine the panel
MS. JENKINS: You said Exhibit 19 is nothing?
11
12 would say, Ivai t a second, we l'iant to see Dr. Nielsen's
12
MR. COUGHLIN: That's correct. I had to mark
13 that as blank.
13 initial report too. And that would be in that file as
14 well.
14
MS. JENKINS: No problem.
15
MS. JENKINS: So Exhibit 18 that you would
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Then exhibit -16
16 like to proffer is?
MS. FLOCCHINI: May we go off the record?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: For judicial economy it might
:17
18 just be easier to say -- and you've already ruled on this. 18
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 20.
19 I think you said or you said conditionally that the July
19
MR. COUGHLIN: Here it is, yes. Exhibit 20 is
20 2014 additional response by me to the disability petition, , 20 the order and the disability petition. There's a sanction
21 I Ivant to get that into evidence somehow, it vias included
21 in the family court case referenced. This is an order
22 as another exhibit. So I was probably a bit remiss in
I 22 showing that that was dismissed.
, 23
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 20 is a document setting
23 saying, well, let's make an exhibit that includes the
24 entire file.
24 aside the family court sanctions?
25
Instead of the entire file, maybe just the
I 25
t1R. COUGHLIN: The judge said I was sarcastic
Page
1 complete disability petition l'iith all the exhibits where
145
1 and some other things.
An attorney's fee award was

2 the exhibits were missing from the prehearing packet, plus
2 assessed against me personally. That award was
3 my additional response, plus Dr. Nielsen's report, his
3 referenced, I think it might have been attached even to
4 first report that the Court relied on.
4 the disability petition. And this is an order showing
5
MS. JENKINS: Counsel I can't see or imagine
5 that it was set aside ultimately.
6
6 what all of that means because you don't have a copy to
7 offer to me. vlliat you do have in your hands, as I
7
8 understand, are Exhibits 1 through 8 to the initial
8 admission of Exhibit 20 under the basis of relevancy. If
9 petition disciplinary -- I'm sorry, disability petition
9 you would like me to elaborate, I will.
10 response. Am I right?
10
MS. JENKINS: I'm guessing, not having the
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
11 document before me, that if the document is simply an
12
MS. JENKINS: The Exhibits 1 through 8 that
12 order setting aside a prior imposition of sanctions
13 you offered with your response to the State Bar's petition 13 without an explanation of why and what have you, it's not
14 that you be placed on disability inactive status or that
14 going to be particularly helpful.
15 you be adjudged to have a disability; is that correct?
15
And again, I've been trying to avoid putting
16
MR. COUGHLIN: That, plus -16 into this record any discipline-based arguments.
17
MS. JENKINS: No. Is that what you have in
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. To the extent that there
18 front of you in those copies?
18 was activity that resulted in grievances that may have
19
MR. COUGHLIN: These are five copies for the
19 then become disciplinary matters. The fact that there may
20 panel just of the petition with the attachments.
20 have been violations of Rules of Professional Conduct is
21
MS. JENKINS: It includes the petition or just 21 not the primary concern. The relevancy in the 117
22 the attachments?
22 petition of that conduct is that it exhibited a course of
23
MR. COUGHLIN: It includes the nine pages of
23 conduct that was detrimental to the profession and was a
24 petition.
24 basis for a finding that Mr. Coughlin was not in a
25
MS. JENKINS: \'Jould you like to mark that as
! 25 position to be practicing and should be rendered disabled.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
751

Page 146
1 Not so much that it was misconduct, but that it was not

2 appropriate conduct.
3
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, is this document
4 that you're offering, does it in any way show that your
5 current behavior or your behavior has changed since that
6 time such that you're more able to or fit to practice law?
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Only to the extent that to know
8 whether or not it's changed, 11e need to know what it was.
9 And whether or not there 11as in fact an order saying that
10 ultimately stood wasn't set aside, that I did this or
11 that, we need to know. Was there an order? Have you
12 changed from that order? Oh, there was no order in the
13 first place because it was set aside.
14
I agree it's still a red flag that the judge
15 is not happy with you. But to know whether or not it
16 changed you need to know ultimately did she stand beside
17 that order? Because if she did, I didn't -18
MS. JENKINS: Does the document say why the
19 order was dismissed or why the sanction was -- why you
20 were released of the sanction? Does the document provide
21 any evidence of the reasons for that?
22
MR. COUGHLIN: To the extent it awards the
23 alimony I was purported to be litigious in seeking, yes.
24 But to really know why she set it aside, I think Pat King
25 should have done in the first place, could have saved
Page 148
1
MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted as Exhibit
2 21, I believe.
3
MR. COUGHLIN: Lastly, your Honor. No more
4 exhibits. But when I was searching around for this
5 additional response, I couldn't find it because I think
6 you had conditionally admitted it earlier. And that would
7 essentially accomplish what my goal was, was to have the
8 entire disability file available to the panel if they
9 sought the entire file from that disability case if they
10 felt it was useful in their evaluation.
11
MS. JENKINS: Good. I'm not going to preclude
12 you from adding additional exhibits, but I will discourage
13 you greatly.
: 14
MR. COUGHLIN: No more exhibits. I promise.
15
MS. JENKINS: So we have 15 minutes. Would
, 16 you like to begin or .lOuld you like to do something else?
17
~1R. COUGHLIN:
I would like to begin, if I
18 may, your Honor. And really, there's not much more to it
i 19 other than to say I'm very, very sorry. And I recognize I
120 ate very poorly, and I'm sorry for that. I'm committed to
21 getting back on track. That's all I have.
22
~~. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, do you have a
23 cross-examination of this witness?
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes, I would like to ask a few
if I may.
Page
1 everybody a lot of trouble. Gone back, taken the sanction

2 order, gone and looked at this case, okay, what happened
3 there? Oh, it was ultimately set aside. This isn't a
4 grievance.
MS. JENKINS: I'm not going to allow the
5
6 document.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can -- one last thing. If
8 it was set aside because I filed a motion for
9 reconsideration, which I did, the review would probably
10 show that. That's all I 110uld have said there, your
11 Honor. Just to add to that.
12
And then lastly -- and I really apologize this
13 is taking so long. But this would be Dr. Nielsen's report
14 which came in the form of the State Bar, his initial
15 report.
16
MS. JENKINS: The 2014 report?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. Based on July 2014
18 evaluation. It was ultimately filed September in the form
19 of a status update by the Bar attaching his evaluation.
20
MS. FLOCCHINI: And the State Bar has no
21 objection to the admission of Exhibit 21?
22
I will reference to the panel that it was
23 inadvertently not included in the hearing packet, but it
24 was provided to the supreme court in September of 2014
25 shortly after it was issued by Dr. Nielsen.
1
2
3
CROSS-EXAMINATION
4 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
5
Q Mr. Coughlin, in 2002 you applied for
6 admission to the Bar of Nevada; correct?
7
A Yes.
8
Q And there was some concerns that the
9 admissions board expressed to admitting you at that time?
I 10
A That's correct. That's correct.
' 11
And I guess, your Honor, I'd just make a
12 relevancy objection.
i 13
MS. JENKINS: The concerns of the State Bar at
i 14 your admission in 2002 are not relevant to this proceeding
! 15 is your objection?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah.
17
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, why are they
18 relevant?
i 19
MS. FLOCCHINI: The concerns of the admissions
20 board are relevant because there was a concern at the
21 time, and I can go in more thoroughly upon further
22 questioning, about Mr. Coughlin's mental state and ability
23 to practice because of that.
24
So it shows an ongoing concern with his
25 ability to be stable while engaging in the stressful
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
752

Page 152
Page 150;
1 practice of law.
2
MS. JENKINS:
3
I'm going to allow it.
BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
4
Q Mr. Coughlin, the admissions board held an
S initial hearing in 2002; correct?
6
A Yes.
7
Q And at that hearing you admittedly had a bit
8 of a meltdown; correct?
9
A I don't know that I vlOu1d characterize it that
10 way. I would object that the transcript of that hearing

11 is the best evidence there.
12
Q Would you disagree that at the subsequent 2004
13 hearing you personally characterized it as a meltdown?
14
A I don't think I ever did. I was highly,
15 highly critical of it and characterized it in some graphic
16 terms.
Q Okay. You were critical of your participation
18 in the 2002 hearing?
17
19
A Not my participation, no.
20
Q Were you critical of the hearing at the time
21 that it was taking place. Is that what you are testifying
22 to?
23
A It took place the day after the Bar exam in
24 California. I took the Bar exam, drove home that night.
25 Then I had a hearing with the character and fitness
1 committee, and it was eventful. And the person chairing
2 it owned a strip club in Las Vegas.
Q So you attributed, it sounds like you
4 attributed your conduct at the hearing to stress
S associated with taking the Bar?
1 might not have been at my best. They might not have been
2 at their best. I don't know. And it was suspended.
3
Subsequently there was some stuff I prefer not
4 to go into, really, but where I was told I was going to
5 have a pro bono attorney appointed to me. I received some
I 6 calls telling me who to go to.
I went to him. It
7 ultimately wasn't pro bono. He went to the hearing and
8 said I came to him on a pro bono basis. He never
9 clarified that. He said, no, you've actually paid five
10 grand.
11
And so we had another hearing in June 2002.
, 12 And then I just waited like most people in that character
13 and fitness limbo do. I waited. And then I got -- there
14 was an abeyance order entered, I believe in December of
15 2002 that we're going to vlait until 2003, October 2003.
16 That came around. The pro bono took, quote un-quote, pro
I 17 bono attorney sort of stayed on the case.
It was hard to
: 18 tell if he was still on the case or not.
19
Ultimately I submitted something, basically a
20 status update, a request for reconsideration at the
21 expiration of that abeyance period in 2003. Trace Ikeman,
I 22 who'd been working for the State Bar, failed to forward
23 that to the supreme court. A year of my life went by, and
24 then these letters from Coe Swobe and Kelly Teslin and
25 stuff like that, and I think Keith Lee got involved, and
1 apparently I was given my license.
2
Apparently the decision was made to give me my
3 license in October of '04. I ultimately wasn't sworn in
4 for reasons I still don't understand until May of 'OS.
S
Okay.
Between the time of the February 2002
6
A Yeah. Taking the Bar exam, driving back from
6 hearing and the June 21st, 2002, hearing you met with a
7 counselor, Dr. Hunter; correct?
7 San Diego. I don't know what -- when you reference my
8 conduct, how I presented at the hearing would have been
8
A Yes. I forgot to mention I did meet with
9 influenced by that. It also would have been influenced by
9 Dr. Hunter for approximately, I think it was six sessions.
10 a multitude of other factors, including the anger of the
10 And that was down in Las Vegas. And then we had that June
11 hearing. But then ultimately I got -- I had to get a job.
11 individual mming the strip club in Las Vegas who was the
12 head of that committee.
I 12 Got fired by Perry and Spann. Three months went by.
13
Q Did the State Bar admit you to practice law
13 l'lhere is your license? You don't have it yet? We have to
14 following that hearing?
14 let you go.
15
A Conditionally.
15
Then I went out and passed the Patent Bar. I
16
Q What did they require you to do before
16 did a little work for Patton, piecemeal work. Basically
17 admitting you?
17 charity work for Patton, a firm down there, Anderson
18
A There was -- well, I mean, that was a stated
18 Morrissey. Then I got hired by a defense firm in
19 period of time. I passed the Bar exam after my second
19 Sacramento, a really good job for me. And I got there,
20 year of law school in the summer. I came back, I finished 20 and the week I got there I got the abeyance order, which
21 law school, graduated in December. So ostensibly I could
21 was highly upsetting to them because they didn't want to
22 have been sworn in at that time, January of 2002. I
22 fly up to Vegas and do calendar calls. That was why they
23 didn't have the hearing until, I believe it was after the
23 brought me in. So I vias let go from that.
24 February Bar exam. They did proceed with the hearing for
24
Then -- I bring that up because ultimately I
25 a while. It was interesting how it vias conducted. And I
25 said, okay, let's regroup. Let's go back to Reno. And I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
753

Page 154
1 started seeing -- I think this might have been per a

2 mandate of the Bar, it might have been in that abeyance
3 order of December '02 saying go get counseling. So for
4 the next three years I saw Dr. Paul Rossky, a
5 psychologist, once a month. Then I was admitted in '05
6 with a conditional admission I continue to see him once a
7 month for another three years.
8
Q Dr. Hunter believed that your behavior in
9 February 2002 was in part due to an adjustment reaction.
10 And we heard testimony from Dr. Nielsen about adjustment
11 reaction. Do you remember that?
12
A Sure.
13
Q And the readjustment reaction, Dr. Hunter
14 believed that was from a normal person undergoing
15 substantial situational stress. Does that sound familiar?
16
Page 156
Then I'd write down the codes on different

2 pieces of paper. Sometimes -- a few of the instances,
3 had some codes written on one piece of paper, codes I
4 gathered at work. And then another piece of paper was
5 codes I listened to at the mall or somewhere where there
6 was \~iFi. So then when I'd get a piece of paper full of a
7 bunch of codes on those different dates I would log on and
8 type in the codes to get the certificate of completion.
9
So no, it's not as though I completed 40 hours
10 of CLE in one day. It's just that that's when I finally
; 11 logged on, said here's all the codes. The tedious process
, 12 of listening to these codes interspersed one time in an
13 hour-long CLE.
14
Q Over what period of time did you take all of
15 these CLEs?
16
A Yes.
It would have been in the last approximately
17
Q With Dr. Hunter you identified -- and I think
17 six weeks. There \1ere a couple -- there was approximately
18 that there's been testimony before -- that the period
I 18 three or four CLEs that I also took in April when I went
19 going up to February 2002 was extremely stressful for you? 19 to the Other Bar retreat, which is an organization in
20
A Going up to the start of '02?
21
Q Up to February of '02 when you met with the
22 character and fitness panel on the hearing?
23
A Sure.
24
Q As it might be for anyone, it was a stressful
25 period?
_._-
20
21
22
23
" 24
j 25
California. I went to that retreat aboard the Queen Mary

in Long Beach in April. And I don't know -- those, I paid
for those and got credit for those, as far as I know.
They're reported to the CLE board of Nevada. The ones in
California, I don't think they were processed. They might
have been approved for Nevada credit, but there are only
~------~l
Page 155
A Yep.
1
Q And the concern was that you didn't react to
2
3 the stress well; is that ac=ate?
4
A Well, I passed the hardest Bar exams in the
5 country just prior to that. And then I went and
6 represented myself the day after the Bar exam at a
7 disciplinary hearing which noticed insufficiencies and
8 things of that sort at the State Bar of Nevada.
9
So I would say I would put that up against how
10 most people handle stress and say I performed adequately
11 in that regard. But I will say there was definitely some
12 aspects of my life that needed addressing.
13
Q You have sul:Jnitted as an exhibit to this
14 hearing documentation showing 104.5 hours of continuing
15 education in law. And my review of that shows that you -16 it appears that you have conpleted 13 hours on August 14,
17 20 hours on August 15, 21 hours on August 16, 40 hours on
18 August 18, and 11 hours on August 19th. Did you take
19 those CLE courses during that week?
20
A No. Those were all downloaded. Those were
21 just MP-3 files. Then you listen for a code,
22 participation code. And I did that -- some I did in my
23 free time, some I did while being a painter's assistant.
24 I do monotonous tasks that allow me to listen to audio all
25 day.
1 three of them.
2
Q So then 104.5 hours of CLE in approximately
3 six weeks?
Yes.
5
Q And you would have taken those courses perhaps
6 while you were working or hanging out at the mall or
7 whatever over a course of time?
8
A Uh-huh. Or yes.
9
11
Q Did you take any steps to address the
12 adjustment reaction that Dr. Hunter identified?
13
A This vlOuld have been -- you're saying prior to
14 that reconvening for the hearing in June of '02 after I

15 had seen him for six sessions?
16
17 '02. I
18 hearing
19
20 did you
Q I would imagine that it would be sometime in

don't know if it would have been prior to the June
or not.
But the identified adjustment reaction, what
do to try to address?
21
A Well, I know I didn't identify myself to the
22 State Bar as an alcoholic at that time. In fact, I only
23 did that probably sometime in, I would say, April of '03.
24
So I went to the sessions. I continued on
25 with my life. I started going to some AA meetings, I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
754

Page 158'
Page 160
1 believe sometime in '02. And that's about the time I met

1 got off probation. Which I was on probation, and I wasn't
2 allowed to leave until I got off that. And I was being
2 Coe Swobe, he gave me a phone call when I was down there.
But I think at that time it wasn't like, okay, I 3 drug and alcohol tested and had a travel restriction.
3
4 we have this hearing in June. Clearly your problem is you ' 4 Once I got off that, I decided to follow Dr. Nielsen's
5 have a substance abuse problem, so we're going to go to
I 5 recommendation and got a change of scenery.
6
Q And you went to Santa Barbara?
6 the hearing, put on a bunch of evidence about what you
7 have done to address that. That wasn't brought up at all
7
A Yes. There was a couple stops before that,
8 at the hearing really.
8 but yeah.
9
I just unden1ent an adjustment disorder
9
Q Are you currently taking Wellbutrin?
10 reaction. And I did some therapy with Dr. Hunter. And
10
A Yes.
I 11
Q Are you taking any other medication?
11 some time passed. So I guess what I'm getting at.
12 There's been an evolution. I was 25 years old at that
12
A No.
, 13
Q What steps have you taken to address your
13 point, and I had gone straight through college and law
14 school and passed the Bar and never had much trouble in
14 depression besides taking Wellbutrin?
15 the traditional kind of juvenile delinquent sense of the
15
A Well, the 12-step work I think is pretty good
16 word trouble.
16 in that regard. I've read books on and done some
17
Q Are you still working for Gary Teen Painting?
17 vlOrkbooks on cognitive behavioral therapy and the
18
A Yes.
18 dialectical behavioral therapy that they were -- that
19
Q After the hearing today will you go back to
19 Dr. Nielsen's referenced as being the foundation or the
20 San Diego to continue working at Gary Teen Painting?
i 20 chief emphasis of Dr. Hoar's treatment approach. As well
21
A Probably.
21 as on the acceptance and commitment therapy that
22
Q Dr. Nielsen's im tial report identified a
22 Dr. Pittinger was more emphasizing.
23 dependent personality disorder, you have a dependent
23
I've gone to church. Restarted attending
24 personality disorder, and Dr. Nielsen discussed that
24 church. And I work out regularly now. Swimming, doing
25 briefly in his testimony.
25 something I've adopted as a fitness activity I do more.
Page
1
What steps have you taken to address that
2 particular issue?
3
A I'lell I studied it. I pulled up the Wikipedia
4 page for dependent personality disorder, and I read some
5 associated articles on it. And there was five subtypes of
6 it, amongst which I think he listed the depression,
7 anxious subvariety dependent personality disorder.
The steps I've taken is the therapy I've done
8
9 and continued to do after. That diagnosis was based on a
10 July 2014, two evaluations over about eight hours, I
11 think. And from that point in time I've continued seeing
12 Dr. Pittinger who works on the CBT, DVT, RAVT, and TA. So
13 I worked on that, that step with Dr. Pittinger through
14 some sessions, and then I continued on.
15
I'm sorry. Your question was what I have I
16 done to?
17
Q To address the dependent personality issues?
18
A See, I didn't even get that until September of
19 2014. So-20
Q In September, approximately September 2014,
21 you began to withdraw from the work you were doing with
22 NNAMHS; correct?
23
A Yes. I had been on -- I did -- I vias Ivanting
24 to follow Dr. Nielsen's recommendation to leave the area
25 for a while, get a change of scenery. And then I actually
1 And I reach out to people in recovery programs, try to

2 force myself to have more of a social network or sphere,
3 trying to avoid isolation that's so associated with people
4 in recovery.
5
Q What do you do at this time to handle stress?
A All of those things I just mentioned, plus
7 trying to maintain perspective, trying to constantly be
I 8 aware of the extent to which ego and fear and self-seeking
I
9 dishonesty and self-pity contribute so much to stress .
10 And if I can get out of myself and my own wishes and think
! 11 of other people, that helps me to have some perspective
12 and not feel that stressed. Which I found the stress was
13 often associated with my own self-conceptions, and needing
14 to be this ultra-high-achieving person. And whenever I
15 fell short of that was a real dissonance in me that was
16 very discomforting and reSUlting in stress.
: 17
Just basically realizing that whether or not I
18 get this or that job or this or that material possession
19 or have this or that affirmation directed toward you by
20 this or that person is not that important. It's not a
21 basis to get so stressed out. And it's not a basis to get
22 so stressed out to the peint where you need to go -- or I
23 need to go start using substances or doing any other
, 24 number of activities. Self-defeating, self-seeking type
25 of activities. Whether it be vlOrkaholism, engaging in
I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
755

Page 162'
1 anger, things of that sort.

2
Q can you identify a tiJre in the last eight
3 months when you have had a very stressful situation,
4 identifying that going into recovery is stressful. I
5 understand that. But an occasion when there was a highly
6 stressful moment, and how you handled it?
7
A Well, this proceeding would be a very good
8 example of that. Because my initial approach to this
9 proceeding was more one based in I would say fear.
10 Whereas my filing of last week very much wanted to limit
11 what this panel was able to see and have access to and
12 insisted this was not a misconduct reinstatement hearing.
13 And I have a much lower standard. I have to meet here
14 because I got the gift of being declared disabled, so I'm
15 not subject to the stringent approach of 116. Or if I get
16 the kinder, gentler approach of 117.2.
17
That was very stressful because I thought it's
18 highly likely the panel is going to be aware of a good
19 deal, not all, but maybe some of all this stuff. And so I
20 just I went to my meetings, continued to go to recovery
21 meetings and talk to people whose opinions I value,
22 including my parents, and my sponsor. And I had several
23 conversations with Mitch Cobeaga, who took over for Coe as
24 the director for Lawyers Concerned With Lawyers.
25
In fact, I called Mitch on Sunday, Ivhich I
Page 164
1 Because I think Mr. King had some really good traits, and
2 I wish that that entire prior process from the inception
3 of the initial contact from Mr. King in March of 2012 on
I 4 through a full-blown disciplinary hearing in November, I
5 vlish that entire process could have been more, more
6 replete with the sort of approach to handle some of the
7 stress that I have just detailed here.
MS. FLOCCHINI: Those are all my questions.
9
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to call a time out for
10 our hearing until Mr. Denney is able to rejoin us at
: 11 whatever time that is, approximately an hour from now.
12
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can just
, 13 interject. If the Bar is in agreement with this, I don't
14 have anything further to offer, and I don't intend to put
15 on a lot of closing argument. To be respectful of the
16 panel's time, if the Bar is done, I've made my argument
17 here, and I would submit that this panel at this point can
18 assess how it feels without any further -19
MS. JENKINS: I appreciate that. I want to
20 give Ms. Flocchini an opportunity to review her notes and
! 21 make sure that there's nothing further that she wants to
22 present to the panel. And I would like to hear a closing
23 statement. Doesn't have to be argument, remember,
24 regarding what this panel should look at and be very
25 specific and focused when we return.
Page 165
163
felt pretty bad about, but he got right back to me. And
2 we hashed it out. And he actually -- he liked the
3 approach. And I had been -- I sent him the filing I did
4 last week on the 21st, the 10-page thing saying it's very
5 limited, the panel can't consider all this other stuff. I
6 sent him that, and he liked that approach.
7
In fact, that filing last week didn't mention
8 recovery at all. He liked that approach, and he thought
9 it was probably a good tack to take. But ultimately
10 because I think he didn't have a grasp of all the ins and
11 outs of both the disciplinary case and the disability
12 case, he didn't have quite the grasp of everything. So
13 ultimately I decided, no, I think it's better to go with
14 the transparency and allow the panel to get more
15 information.
16
As a consequence I've seen, in my view, this
17 hearing has gone much differently than it went in the past
18 in my previous disciplinary hearing. I won't get too into
19 it, but that same fear viaS attendant to that. And
20 unfortunately, it caused me to present at that hearing in
21 a very defensive and perhaps an overly antagonistic way.
22
And that's probably consistent, that's
23 probably a consistent description of most of my
24 interactions with Mr. King, former Bar counsel, in that
25 regard. And I apologize for that. And I regret that.
(Recess taken.)
2
MS. JENKINS: Back on the record. It's just
3 before 3:00 o'clock.
Bar counsel, do you have additional evidence
4
5 to present to the panel?
MS. FLCCCHINI: Before we get back into the
6
7 substance, I vlOuld like to present a little bit of
8 information. The first of which is that on the break I
, 9 rereviel'led Supreme Court Rule 117, consulted more
10 experienced Bar counsel, and I do believe that whatever
11 recommendation the panel has, the panel's decision is
, 12 required to be submitted to the supreme court, whatever it
13 is.
14
Under 116 it's only if the recommendation is
15 for reinstatement does it go up. But under 117 it makes
16 no distinction between a written decision that recommends
17 reinstatement or a written decision that does not
i 18 recommend reinstatement.
19
MS. JENKINS: So in either event, this record
20 is going up to the supreme court for consideration because
21 it's just a recorrmendation anyway.
. 22
MS. FLCCCHINI: True that.
MS. JENKINS: Good to knOVI
. 23
24
MS. FLOCCHINI: Then also with that in mind,
25 as we were discussing the process of submitting a
1
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
756

Page 166'
1 recommendation, the denial of reinstatement then -- or

2 the request for reinstatement, if that were to happen,
3 would ultimately be by the supreme court. And as we
4 discussed earlier, you're only allowed to petition once a
5 year for reinstatement under SCR 117.
6
In that case that year, I believe, would not
7 start running until the supreme court denied the initial
8 request, which is a longer delay than we even envisioned
9 because of the ;Iay that the wheels turn.
10
MS. JENKINS: That doesn't seem fair.
11 However, thank you for that input.
12
MS. FLOCCHINI: In addition, the State Bar
13 would like to have the hearing exhibit marked as Exhibit
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 168
I can't recall, but that sounds right.

2
Q Then again in 2011 when some of the issues
3 that resulted in the disability petition being filed
4 occurred, that also coincided with the end of a long-term
5 relationship for you; correct?
6
A That's correct.
7
MS. FLOCCHINI: I just wanted to make sure
8 that that information was included. It was in the
9 documents. And that is the end of questions I have.
10
~1S. JENKINS:
Are there any questions from the
, 11 panel of Mr. Coughlin?
12
MR. DENNEY: No.
13
MR. LOW: No.
MR. FURMAN: No.
A.
14
~1S. BRETERNITZ:
No.
MS. JENKINS: The State Bar would like to have 15
~1S. JENKINS: Great. Let's do some closing
the hearing exhibit?
16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. The hearing
17 statements.
Ms. Flocchini.
packet.
18
I
MS. JENKINS: The prehearing packet that was
19
MS. FLOCCHINI: As the State Bar indicated at
distributed to the panel?
20 the beginning of this hearing, we're recommending that
21 this panel hold Mr. Coughlin's request for reinstatement
MS. FLOCCHINI: True. Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Marked as Bar Exhibit A?
22 in abeyance. We're proposing six months, a six-month
23 hold, at 11hich time then a status hearing could be held.
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
24
And the basis for the recommendation and the
MS. JENKINS: Any objection, Mr. Coughlin?
25 evidence, I believe has borne out here, that Mr. Coughlin
Page
Page 169
1 is only at approximately eight months of sobriety at this

MS. JENKINS: It 11ill be admitted.
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. And the Bar is not
2 point. He has had approximately four months of therapy,
3 offering, as the panel is maybe accustomed to seeing, an
3 meaningful therapy. I believe that he engaged in therapy
4 affidavit of admission to the Bar, and an affidavit of
4 prior, but it appears that the last eight months, during
5 which time he's had that therapy, this new therapist, and
5 discipline in this case, because there is no discipline
6 committed himself to the 12-step program has been
6 that is unrelated to matters that the panel chair has
7 meaningfully different than his prior attempts.
7 identified are not under consideration here.
So there are some decisions that are related
And the State Bar recognizes that, and doesn't
8
I 9 question the credibility of the witnesses at this point
9 to disciplinary proceedings that are not before you, not
10 for your consideration.
10 that have testified to his engagement in the process.
11
And the only other order that would be
11
Nonetheless, probably to paraphrase
12 relevant is contained in the hearing packet, which is
I 12 Dr. Nielsen, because I don't want to say I'm quoting him
13 Exhibit A before you. And so for keeping information all
13 directly, the evidence is that Mr. Coughlin can stand on
14 his own two feet, but he's not finished yet. And the
14 in one place and not duplicating, we're not presenting an
15 State Bar's concern is that standing on your own two feet
15 affidavit, and I wanted you to kn0\1 why.
16 is not engaging in the practice of law and submitting
16
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have had a brief opportunity 17 yourself to the stress that's involved in every day
18 to look over the questions and review the testimony that
, 18 practice.
i 19
The evidence is that the situation is better,
19 we've had so far. I only have two more questions for
" 20 but he has not yet exhibited a fitness to practice law.
20 Mr. Coughlin.
21 The evidence before you is that there is -- there's been
22
Q Mr. Coughlin, in 2002 it was identified that
22 no stressful situation akin to trial or a heavy motion
23 one of the reasons for the adjustment reaction that
23 practice which he has yet to weather except for the
24 Dr. Hunter identified was the end of a relationship; is
i 24 hearing here. And it's safe to say that this process has
25 been better than the process of the character and fitness
25 that correct?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
757

Page 170!
1 hearing in 2002, and it's better than Mr. Coughlin's

2 behavior in court in 2012.
3
But the State Bar still has some concerns,
4 because some of Mr. Coughlin's conduct is similar to that
5 which he engaged in previously. For example, not
6 following the direction of the court with respect to
7 exhibit exchanges, and instead engaging in some pretty
8 voluminous briefing that wasn't anticipated, including
9 submitting a 26-page brief this morning. There may be
10 good work in there, but it's an indication of not being
11 ready to take on the stress of the practicing yet. The
12 fact that it was submitted this morning and not at some
13 point prior, or even anticipated as of last week.
l4
The State Bar's recommendation for the status
15 hearing would be something to the effect of submitting
16 evidence of continued attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous
17 or maintaining the 12-step program.
18
Evidence of continuing to \.,ork during the
19 time, whether that be at the painting job, which shows an
20 ability to stay within the profession or another job that
21 would be reasonable under the circumstances.
22
And also a submission by ~!r. Coughlin of a
23 clear defined plan on how he would intend to enter back
24 into practice. And that kind of plan may include
25 identifying resources, personal insight on triggers which
Page 172
1 proceeding. And then after the status hearing if you

2 deemed it appropriate to then make a recommendation to the
3 supreme court, then it would go up.
4
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, would it be your
5 guess about how it might work that this panel would be
6 reconvened in its current form to hear those narrow
7 updates that you just described and not to rehear the
8 entire case or would we start from zero at that point?
I
9
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar's recommendation
: 10 vlOuld be to only obtain status information. Our
11 recommendation is directed toward these particular
12 categories. If the panel felt there were other categories
13 other areas that they wanted to make sure they had
14 sufficient information regarding before making a decision
i 15 on reinstatement, then just those limited areas, not a
i 16 full rehash of the hearing.
: 17
And at the time of deciding, if the panel felt
18 at that point that they had sufficient information to
19 decide whether or not to recommend reinstatement, they
20 would consider the information presented here today, and a
21 full transcript would be available, but we would not redo
22 that.
23
24
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. I appreciate the
25 panel taking the time to be here today, especially on a
Page 171
1 I believe Mr. Coughlin -- the State Bar believes the

2 evidence has shown Mr. Coughlin has started down that
3 path, but may not be fully there and ready to identify the
4 triggers as they happen.
5
In addition, a plan, a proposed plan, may
6 include a potential mentor and really steps on how to
7 transition back to Nevada to practice or alternatively
8 not, hOI., to practice outside of Nevada, and that there is
9 a clear plan in place for engaging in the practice of law
10 if he were to be reinstated.
11
I think it's also important, knowing the fact
12 that there are outside stressors not just the practice of
13 la\." that have affected Mr. Coughlin's ability to practice
14 in the past that there also be an identified plan for
15 handling life stressors beyond just exercising daily,
16 which we all have the intention to do, but does tend to
17 fall by the wayside as stress increases. And if that's a
18 particular outlet for you or you need that, then you need
19 to figure out hOI., to maintain that and show that you can
20 continue it.
21
So that is the State Bar's summary of
22 evidence, and our recommendation for your recommendation
23 to the supreme court. And I believe if the panel held the
24 matter in abeyance, it would not go up for review to the
25 supreme court, it would just sit in status in an open
1 volunteer basis all day. Very commendable.

2
My over arching sentiment here is contrition
3 and remorse for what went on, what happened, how I carried
4 myself. I feel very poorly about that. I still have a
5 great deal of regret about that. I truly do. And it's
6 something beyond just feeling bad for how I behaved toward
7 other people. And it's also very troubling to me in the
! 8 sense that I just don't want to go back to being in these
9 contentious situations, especially \.,ith entities that are
10 so much more powerful than I am.
11
That being said, I've been out, unable to
12 practice law in Nevada for quite some time now. And that
13 is -- you'll feel that. I don't know if anybody in this
14 room has ever been suspended for a day. But I've been
15 suspended for 38 months now either through an indefinite
16 temporary suspension that issues automatically upon a
17 conviction having any element of theft in it. Mine was
18 theft of $14 of cough syrup from a Walmart.
19
I wasn't given a disciplinary suspension for
20 three years. I was placed on automatic suspension, which
21 is what SCR 116.6 says. Anytime you're convicted of any
! 22 crime, if you steal a grape, it involves theft, you're
23 automatically suspended. Then you get referred to a
! 24 panel, and they issue a, you know, you're referred to the
25 panel for the purpose of determining the extent, nature
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
758

Page 174
1 and extent of your punishment.

2
I got referred to a panel, and instead of
3 having a hearing on that, and I appreciate the extent to
4 which the panel chair today has been diligent making sure
5 this hearing is focused on what rules it's supposed to be
6 focused on. Because earlier the referral to the panel
7 resulted in a disciplinary hearing on what's the
8 punishment for the cough syrup theft.
11e had a full-blOlvn disciplinary trial that
9
10 included allegations for things like the divorce attorney
11 fee award sanction thing that was set aside, and other
12 things that were either set aside or just ultimately
13 didn't pan out in any sort of finding of misconduct.
14
I go into that because that's a lengthy time
15 to be out of the practice of law, out of being able to
16 practice your chosen profession. I would submit anyone
17 here who's put in that situation it would be unfair to sit
18 back and say, okay, so, whatever it is, 29 months in, you
19 smoked some pot 29 months into that? Okay, that's going
20 to set you back another couple of years because nOlv we
21 want to see two years of established sobriety.
22
I don't think that's fair. I've had years of
23 sobriety before. I wasn't cured. You don't get cured.
24 It's a chronic lifelong thing you manage. It's not you
25 establish you are cured, and that's a guarantee to you
Page 176
suspended for over five years.

2
I think you have to compare -- to have
3 consistency in disciplinary proceedings you have to
compare other cases. We had a case here that involved the
5 same testifying expert. The case was the Stephen R.
6 Harris case. HI. Harris admitted to misappropriating
7 $800,000 from clients. Hr. Harris never had a disability
8 petition filed against him.
9
Dr. Nielsen testified at his proceeding that
! 10 he was diagnosed, Harris was diagnosed "lith, I believe
11 it's significant anxiety disorders, and I believe it was
12 substance abuse and sex addiction. Mr. Harris never had a
! 13 disability petition filed against him.
[ 14
The Nevada Supreme Court suspended Hr. Harris
15 for three months. Granted, Hr. Harris paid back all the
16 money to the clients, self-reported his misconduct. He
17 did a lot of things right. You have to give him credit
i 18 for that.
And I knOll! Mr. Harris and respect him. And I
19 can tell you I've been impressed with his efforts in
20 recovery.
21
Nonetheless, the misconduct we have here is
i 22 $14. Cough syrup from a Walmart. It's not 800 grand from
23 a client. So to suggest another six months needs to be
24 added on to this I would submit is hard to rationalize
. 25 "lhen considering that Mr. Harris had three months
1 you're never going to drink or use again.

1 suspension. Granted, it "las three years. Two years and
2 nine months of it was suspended provided he submit to a
2
Frankly -- so the Bar's concerned -- I would
3 monitoring program. But it was three months of actual
3 not support an abeyance of another six months. I don't
4 think there is even support for that in the rules at all.
4 suspension imposed.
5 I think the rules require this panel to issue a
5
So I've already been suspended for 38 months.
6 Suspended -- or I'm not suspended now, I'm on disability
6 recommendation within 30 days. I don't think it has the
7 inactive status. And that's what my filing from last week
7 jurisdiction to enter an abeyance for another six months.
8 went to some length to point out the distinction, and how
8 And I would submit that I don't want it to. I want a
9 decision within the allotted time under the rules, and
9 that is, in my view, supposed to auger for a lesser
10 then I will go from there.
10 standard in terms of what I need to show for
11
In reality an abeyance would, particularly
I 11 rehabilitation here.
And I've gone into some of the
12 given what Hs. Flocchini said earlier about how the time
. 12 relevancy issues with respect to how much can I go into
13 from which I can file another -- in her view the time in
13 past misconduct, or lack thereof, to prove character, but
14 I can't. So this is an odd kind of awkward setting, the
14 which I can file another reinstatement petition would be
15 measured from the date of denial rather than the date of
15 disability setting in terms of relevancy.
16 my filing of the previous one.
16
But I can submit to you truthfully that I have
17
So if that's the case, then we do an abeyance
17 learned a great deal from this. And I've grown a lot, and
18 for six months, and then that one, let's say then this
18 I'm solid now. I'm well. I'm ready to practice law. In
19 panel makes a decision and says okay, reinstate. Granted, 19 fact, I think if I'm not reinstated soon, one, it's going
20 the court "lOuld probably follow suit and reinstate me at
20 to send a poor message out. Considering the pUblicness of
21 that point. But if they didn't, then we're talking I've
21 this proceeding, it's going to send a poor message to the
22 been suspended for over five years, and that invokes you
22 other attorneys in the public, and it's going to do a
23 have to take the Bar exam again rule. And at that point I 23 disservice to me.
24 would be surprised if I even was interested in practicing
24
The poor message it will send out is look at
25 law in Nevada anymore if it got to be where I had been
25 how Mr. Coughlin came to this proceeding, was extremely
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
759

Page 178 i
Page 180
1 transparent and cooperative in this proceeding. In fact,

1 of misconduct. vie don't have misconduct findings here.
2 Dr. Nielsen's initial report, which you will now have the
2 We don't have offensive collateral bars preventing me from
3 benefit of being able to review, and I think it's better
3 saying there vlasn' t misconduct, because the whole
4 that way than if I had given it to you two weeks ago. I
4 disciplinary case was thrown out.
5 think looking back at this you might agree with me that
5
Nonetheless, I'm not looking at that saying,
6 some of the annoyance you feel at not having the exhibits
6 hey, I don't have to change anything about my life. Far
7 and all this stuff two vleeks ago, you'll have much the
7 from it. I have had a very, very difficult time, there's
8 same take that my therapists said.
8 been a lot of guilt and remorse and contrition. And
9
Because I only gave them this report after
9 that's useful to me going forward.
10 they had met with me a couple of times, and they both said 10
And I fear that being out of the practice of
11 if they had gotten that report up front before they had
11 law for even longer is going to pose the threat of
12 known me, they'd probably not want me as -- that's a
12 lessening my momentum. And I speak from personal
13 little severe, but they would have been scared of me or
13 experience with that. I know in 2002 to 2005 what that's
14 something. Or just they would have developed preconceived 14 like. Freud says to work is one of the most important
15 notions about me.
15 things in somebody's life. So when you take a lawyer, and
16
But I get back to how transparent I've been
16 you say you're not going to have your license for two or
17 here, and hOI'! -- or the level of transparency I've offered 17 three years, I submit there should be a really, really
18 here in terms of providing this panel with that which the ; 18 profound argument and rationale for protecting the public
19 Bar did not in its prehearing packet and beyond, and the
; 19 to justify that. And that's not present here.
20 level of cooperation I've evidenced.
120 Particularly vlhere I didn't misappropriate $800,000 from
21
The cooperation is underscored by the fact
21 clients.
22 that Dr. Nielsen's report, his initial evaluation, the one 22
So to take away any further my ability to
23 vlhich the court referenced in its disability order as one
23 practice my chosen profession is going to pose a threat to
24 of the bases for finding me disabled. His initial report i 24 my momentum, and I think it's going to send the I'lrong
25 doesn't say I have a substance abuse problem at all. It
I have great respect for the
1 says I have -- or it says it's in full remission. It says
2 that I have a dependent personality disorder and mild
3 depression.
4
So that report's filed. My level of
5 cooperation in willingness to be transparent to the panel
and the Bar as evidenced by my subsequently going back and
7 filing with the court in the related disciplinary case,
I'm going back to AA again, I'm addressing the stuff,
9 getting off the Adderall. He didn't say I had a problem
10 with Adderall in the report. He said dependent
11 personality, mild depression. Go get therapy.
12
I've gone above and beyond, pointed out the
13 things I can do to get better and improve myself. And I
14 shouldn't be punished by saying, let's look at you for
15 another six months. That should be rewarded. Otherwise,
16 it's discouraging attorneys from taking an honest look at
17 their life and being cooperative with the Bar, and taking
18 steps necessary to avoid some of the things that happened
19 here.
20
But I would just close by saying that I do
21 truly feel remorse for what happened, all the things that
22 happened. I know this panel maybe said what happened?
23 You don't even know. And that's some of the relevancy and
24 some of the -- but some things happened. I don't believe
25 in the vast majority of instances they rose to the level
1 panel, and I appreciate you taking the time to be here.

2
Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Counsel.
3
4
Is there anything the panel wishes to ask or
5 add to our information before we go into recess and
6 deliberations?
7
MR. LOW: No.
i 8
MS. JENKINS: Great. Then we'll stand
9 adjourned -- or not adjourned, but in time out, because
10 we're going to go into deliberations. We need to clear
11 the room, including our court reporter.
12
And if the parties wish to hang around. If we
13 come to a determination we will go back onto the record to
,14 make that finding. So you're welcome to hang out in the
; 15 lobby for as long as we're here. If we do not come to a
16 determination today, we can meet again to deliberate. But
17 if we do finish today, we'll do an open placing on the
! 18 record of our findings.
19
(Recess taken.)
20
118. JENKINS: Let's go back onto the record at
: 21 4:12 P.M.
! 22
The panel has considered the testimony today
23 and the evidence that was presented, and in very short
! 24 order came to unanimity about how to address the
125 circumstances presented in the petition.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
760

Page 182!

2 and our charge. And \ve found that there was a great deal
4 today.
5
6 a bit more information from you, sir. And that is, we
9 before it issues its opinion. And that reinstatement plan
11
13 order appropriate based upon the hearing today, as Ivell as
14 your proposed plan. And that plan should be submitted to
16
18 it to the remaining panel members. I'm going to send it
19 to them an~,ay either way, but with my determination about
22
24 appropriate order as quickly as possible. I'm hoping to
Page 184
1 talking the talk but not walking the walk. So those

i 2 people we're asking to report quarterly to the Bar about
3 your progress.
4
We want to hear from you your plan to attend
5 three meetings a week, as vlell as an additional three
6 hours a week with a sponsor or equivalent in the 12-step
7 program separate from your mentor. So adding people to
8 your support network is critical.
9
We would like your plan to include your
10 ability and your steps toward obtaining independent
: 11 therapeutic counseling of not less than twice per month
i 12 for that two-year period. Someone you're comfortable with
; 13 I,ho is licensed in some way. So that means that while we
14 have testimony that it may not be a psychologist or a
15 psychiatrist or whatever, an MST would be fine, but we
16 prefer that it not be a religious practitioner or some
, 17 other counselor. We're talking about mental health
18 counseling.
19
We would like for you to submit to and include
, 20 in your plan your ability to pay for drug and alcohol
21 testing as requested by the Bar. And will be informing
22 your two mentors who are attorneys that they can request
23 that the Bar request your alcohol or drug counseling, as
! 24 well as the State Bar doing it based upon any reports or
25 concerns that the State Bar might have.
Page
1 because I have plans. Much, much incentive there.

We would like to hear from you your ideas
2
3 about your reinstatement, removal of your disability
4 status, and your return to the practice of law in the
5 following areas.
Number one. Your plan to obtain and determine
6
7 an appropriate attorney within the 12-step program to be
8 your sobriety mentor. That's in addition to any sponsor
9 you may have, in addition to any colleague that you might
10 have supporting your sobriety, but an attorney in the
11 program who will agree to work with you for a two-year
12 period.
13
We would also like for you to identify an
14 attorney who will mentor you in your law practice in
15 Nevada for that same two-year period. And we will ask
16 those attorney mentors to work with you closely and
17 support your success and report by letter or email to the
18 State Bar for that two-year period on a quarterly basis
19 reporting challenges and successes and your progress.
20
To you, it is up to you to find those
21 individuals, and they must have been active in the
22 practice of law for not less than 15 years. Because we
23 feel like having a much more experienced attorney is not
24 going to let anybody get away with anything. He's going
25 to be able to see through an awful lot of shenanigans, and
MR. LOW: You said drug counseling. You mean

2 drug testing.
3
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry, drug testing, alcohol
4 and drug testing.
We would like to have your reinstatement plan,
5
' 6 how you might achieve that, pay for it, what have you.
7
And then we would like for you to identify
8 more substantively in this plan where you hope to
9 practice. How are you going to support yourself until a
10 practice brings you the financial compensation required to
i 11 support yourself? Identify what triggers there are in
: 12 your life that cause you to be either stressed or to want
13 to return to alcohol or substance abuse.
! 14
And frankly, we want your plan to include any
! 15 other information that you think is going to be critical.
16 Not helpful, not interesting, critical, to the panel's
17 determination that your plan is a plan for success.
18
Do you have any questions about what this plan
19 might look like and how to present that to us?
20
MR. COUGHLIN: You mentioned November 15th is
21 a deadline by which -I 22
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
23
MR. COUGHLIN: -- referring the plan could be
24 submitted earlier than that?
25
1
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
761

Page 186'
Page 188
1 information? It seems to me there was a point made about

1 it's going to take some time to find these individuals and
2 get them up to speed about I-Ihat their obligations might
3 \ole should have gotten this earlier. Yet what I filed this
3 be, for you to determine where you're going to reside, and
4 your plan to do all of these things that I've asked you to
5 outline.
I'm not guessing that that can be done by the
rules.
6
7
7 end of this week, although I'm sure you want to submit the
8 plan by the end of this week. What I would like you to be
9 is very thoughtful and considered about the information
10 you're going to share with us.
11 letters of recommendation. Seems there's already
11
If that can be submitted to us in a shorter
12 monitoring. There's already this plan. It's been laid
12 period, I'll accept it. But I want it to be complete and
13 comprehensive, because the panel also believes that a plan 13 out in what I filed.
14
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, if you would like
14 is the best path away from stress. And it's been the
15 panel's determination that stress is a huge one of your
16 triggers that causes behavior that puts you on disability
17 inactive in the first place.
18
MR. COUGHLIN: My wish would be for this panel
18
So if you can develop a very thorough, and I
19 know you can be thorough, a thorough and \olell-considered
20 filed, and then make a rUling. I did not anticipate that
20 plan in less time, feel free to submit it. I don't want
21 this to be your life work, and I don't want it to be 300
22 pages. I want it to be a brief overview. And certainly a ! 22 from today, so I might need -23
MS. JENKINS: While I appreciate your
23 plan is subject to changes. But I want to see a
24 thoughtful investment of steps to succeed in your
125 of the hearing's conclusion. This hearing will not be
25 reinstatement.
Page 187

3 information. And we will enter our order, the panel will
7
10 a different outcome here. But it's my hope that you will
14
Questions?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I do, your Honor.
16
MS. JENKINS: You can do whatever you need to
17 do.
MR. COUGHLIN: SCR 117.4, I believe, requires
18
20
MS. JENKINS: It says the panel shall render a
22 conclusion. And the hearing will not conclude until that
24
MR. COUGHLIN: If I submit that -- how could
1
2
3
4
5
concluded until the panel receives that additional

requested information. And if it's not received, then at
the end of November 15th the panel will reconvene at that
time and issue its decision.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And if I submit it
tomorrow, will it then -- will a decision be made within
8
115. JENKINS: If your submission is received
, 10 it will not be -- will not contain the amount of
i 12 necessary. But if it does, the panel I-lill meet at its
I 13 earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude this
14 matter.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: So then a decision -- it would
116 conclude?
i 17
MS. JENKINS: I t would.
18
MR. COUGHLIN: I guess I just ask because the
: 19 way it's being presented here this could be not concluded
. 20 for years.
21
MS. JENKINS: 11r. Coughlin -i 22
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm not suggesting -23
MS. JENKINS: 11r. Coughlin, I've expressed now
, 24 several times that you have until November 15th. If
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
762

Page 190
Page 192
conclude with a conference call and an issuance of an

,lith our decision is not enuring to your benefit here. So
2 I hope you understand that, sir.
3
3
MR. DENNEY: I'd echo those comments.
4
DR. TIM COUGHLIN: Can we get a specific list
5 panel will reconvene and issue an appropriate order. And
5 of what you want so we don't ignore anything?
6
MS. JENKINS: I'm certain that the transcript
7 of the proceedings will be available.
8
MR. LOW: You can get a copy of the
9 transcript, that portion that talks -In no event do I envision that the reconvening
10 of this panel ,lill happen a great deal after November 15th 10
DR. TIM COUGHLIN: All right. vle'll go ahead
11 of 2015. That simply won't happen. This panel will
11 and spell it out.
12
MS. JENKINS: That will be available how
13 quickly?
14 happening of November 15th and issue an appropriate order. 14
THE REPORTER: Tomorrow morning.
15 And that's all.
15
MS. JENKINS: Tomorrow morning emailed to the
16 parties?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: I just anticipate indicating,
17 and certainly due care and respect will be taken to what I 17
THE REPORTER: Yes. I just need email
! 18 addresses.
19 what they would like to see in this plan. This plan I
19
MS. JENKINS: We're standing in recess until
20 think largely follows what the panel, if it hasn't already 20 the reconvening upon receipt of the materials.
21 read Dr. Nielsen's updated report, would largely assent or 21
(Proceedings concluded at 4:30 P.M.)
22 indicate a willingness to comply with that. But I don't
22
~~23 believe I need three months to do that.
23
24
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, there is no
24
25 testimony at this point. It's simply the order is to
25
Page
1
2 reconvene. That's all there is.
2
MR. COUGHLIN: If I may ask that the panel
5 I file the brief tomorrOl'l, to use that time to review the
5
7 together -7
8
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, rest assured the
8
9 panel will give you your due process. There is nothing
9
10
11
11
MR. LOW: May I say something?
12
12
t~S JENKINS:
You may.
13
MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, I hope you understand ! 13
14
15
16
: 17
17
Imat' s been asked of you is not what's in
18
19
19 It's a very specific request for very specific information 20
20 about your intent, what you're going to do here in Reno or 21
! 22
22 years.
23
23
We are giving you your best and last shot here 24
24 to make this right. And we have accommodated your wish to
25 have this happen quickly. And I find that your difficulty 25
STATE OF NEVADA )
55.
COUNTY OF WASHOE)
I, CAROL Hut1MEL, a notary public in and for
the County of vlashoe, State of Nevada, do hereby certify:
August, 2015, at the offices of Nevada State Bar, 9456

Double R Boulevard, Reno, Nevada, personally appeared
witnesses who were sworn by me and Here deposed in the
matter entitled herein;

hereinbefore was taken in verbatim stenotype notes by me,
a Certified Court Reporter, and thereafter reduced to
writing by means of computer-assisted transcription as
herein appears;
Pages 1 through 192, inclusive, is a full, true and
correct transcription of my stenotype notes of said
proceedings;
counsel for any of the parties, nor a relative or employee
of any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor
financially interested in the
actio~~
'
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
763
Exhibit 8
764
Kait Flocchini
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Phillip Pattee
Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:18 AM
Kait Flocchini
FW: courtesy copy of Supplemental Petition for Rehearing
9 2115 60975 Supplemental Petition for Rehearing NRAP 40 NVSCT with one
exhibit.pdf
Here's another one.

Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6: 10 PM

To: Ingersoll, Amanda
Cc: Phillip Pattee; Doug Rands Nv Atty Nndb
Subject: courtesy copy of Supplemental Petition for Rehearing
Dear Chief Deputy Clerk Ingersoll,

Please find attached a courtesy copy of my Supplemental Petition for Rehearing.
realize there is no electronic filing in these confidential matters and am merely
providing this electronic copy should it be of use to the Court and or lessen the use
of Court resources due to this matter. I placed a hard copy of this in the mail
today for filing as well.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
cell 775 276 0779
765
Exhibit 9
766
Kait Flocchini
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>

Friday, October 30, 2015 9:16 AM
Kait Flocchini
Laura Peters
Requested stipulation
Dear Assistant Bar Counsel Flocchini,

I am writing to indicate that I will not be filing any opposition to the Panel's Recommendation and to seek a
stipulation, if you are amenable, that may allow for my case to make up the 30 days just lost to the Panel's
taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion to issue a Recommendation. The Chair indicated the
hearing would conclude when I provided the proposed monitoring plan to the Panel. I provided such on
8/26/15. SCR 117 requires the Recommendation to be issued within 30 days ofthe conclusion of the
hearing. The Recommendation was filed 10/26/15.
The record is due to be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court within 30 days of that 10/26/15 filing ofthe
Recommendation. Both parties would then have 30 days to file any opposition thereto, and, should none be
filed, the matter would be submitted for decision.
I am writing to request that the record be filed at your earliest convenience and accompanied by a stipulation
of some sort indicating that both parties choose not to file any opposition to the recommendation and request
for the matter to be submitted at the time the record is filed with the Nevada Supreme Court.
Please consider:
SCR 117: "The panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the hearing's conclusion, which shall be filed with bar
counsel's office and served pursuant to Rule I 09( I).
Bar counsel shall forward the record of the hearing panel proceeding to the supreme court within 30 days of the decision's entry.
Receipt of the record shall be acknowledged in writing by the supreme court clerk. The parties shall have 30 days from the date the
supreme court acknowledges receipt of the record within which to file any objection to the panel's recommendation. If none is filed,
then the matter shall be submitted for decision".
Thank you for considering this request. Also, if it is not too much trouble, would you mind emailing me the pdf containing the file
stamped Recommendation?
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.

ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Tele: 775 2760779 Fax: 9496677402
Registered patent attorney before the USPTO
767
The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing Motion for
Reconsideration Based on Additional Information Obtained After Presentation of
Evidence Concluded in Hearing was placed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, in
Reno, Nevada, addressed to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W 12th Street,
Reno NV 89503. The document was also served in electronic form to
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com and justcci@gmail.com
Dated on
thi~ day of November, 2015.
10
~ur
eters, an employee of
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
768
2
3
4

945 W. 12th St. Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
wit
h
r6
7
8
9
10
IN RE ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. )

Nevada Bar Number 94 73,
Petitioner
Case No: RIl5-0804
)
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully submits the

above titled document. The undersigned would like to hereby personally apologize to Assistant
11
Bar Counsel Flocchini for not having communicated to her directly with regard to his filing a
12
13
NRAP 40 Petition and Supplemental thereto in NVSCT case 60975. Especially where the Bar is
14
an ann of the Nevada Supreme Court, a higher level of deference is owed to Bar Counsel, and
15
the undersigned recognizes he failed to meet that obligation here, and hereby expresses profound
16
remorse and asks for leniency. The undersigned has a great deal of respect for Assistant Bar
17
18
Counsel Flocchini, whom has always conducted herself in the most professional of manners in
19
this matter, and takes to heart the warning inherent to the Motion for Reconsideration, especially
20
where being an attorney is among the most gravest and serious of all endeavors. The
21
undersigned recently attended The Other Bar's 2015 annual Fall Men's Retreat in Yosemite and a
22
message integral to a presentation there is very applicable here. That message was that one must
23
24
25
strive to go beyond that which is merely required of him by the rules, and, instead, meet a higher
standard of morality.
26
769
On August 26th, 2015, the Panel concluded the hearing or trial in this matter, upon
Asst. Bar Counsel Flocchini's Motion
receiving Coughlin's proposed Reinstatement Plan.
alleges two distinct instances of conduct here amounted to violations of the Rules of Professional
Conduct. 2 One is quite arguably not a misrepresentation on its face, but, regardless, a sentence at
page 8:3-8 of that same Petition of 8/27/15 by Coughlin in NVSCT case 60975 strongly plays
wit
h
r6
7
against Bar Counsel's assertion that a misrepresentation was made. The other allegation is show
to be false given the attached exhibit showing Coughlin did email such Petition on 8/27115,
exactly as attested to in the Certificate of Service included in such filing.
The documents filed by Coughlin the Bar takes issue with were filed in a separate case,
9
10
with a separate case number, and in a different court than the Reinstatement case in which Ms.
II
Flocchini is attorney of record, and were not filed until after the conclusion of the hearing in the
12
instant reinstatement case. As such, nothing relative thereto comes within the purview of a
13
motion for reconsideration a la NRCP 59. Ms. Flocchini recently indicated she views NRAP as
14
applying in this NNDB case, however, a close review ofSCR 119(3) would seem to make clear
15
16
NRCP applies before the NNDB, except where the SCR provide otherwise.
17
Without waiving such objection to the consideration of such subject matter outside
18
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Panel and where SCR 117(4) and SCR 119(3) do not allow for
19
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Bar here, Coughlin did not make misrepresentations
20
in those filings or the correspondence referenced in Bar Counsel's Motion, nor did he interfere
21
with the administration of justice. 3 SCR 119(3) makes NRCP inapplicable here where SCR
22
23
24
25
26
1 REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 187:18 to 187:23).

Flocchini alleges a violation where Coughlin allegedly misrepresented the Panel's
"intent" (see page 3: 16 thereof) and with respect to Coughlin allegedly misrepresenting when
he mailed or emailed his Petition on 8/27/15 (see page 4:8-9).
3
In the vast majority of instances in quotations or excerpts from the transcript, filings,
rules, and statutes, emphasis has been added.
2
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA nON
770
117(4) expressly provides for procedure following the issuance of the Recommendation by the
Panel. Even ifNRCP 59 4 did apply here, such provides no basis for granting the Bar's Motion.
Rather, SCR 117(4) expressly provides a mechanism for the Bar to pursue such, albeit, here, the
subject matter there of is in violation of the dictates within such rule against pursuing a
prosecution (allegation) and investigation while an attorney is on disability inactive status.
wit
NRCP RULE 59. NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS

(a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or
part of the issues for any of the following causes or grounds ... (4) Newly discovered
evidence material for the party making the motion which the party could not. with
reasonable diligence. have discovered and produced at the trial;"
h
r6
It is law of the case here that the hearing concluded upon Coughlin SUbmitting the
8
9
10
proposed Monitoring Plan. However, even if the hearing or "trial" here were deemed to have
continued on through the 10/26/15 issuance of the Panel's Recommendation, Bar Counsel failed
11
to produce such prior to such timeS, despite the very emails attached as exhibits to the Motion for
12
13
Reconsideration between Bar Counsel Pattee and Bar Counsel Flocchini, wherein Ms. Flocchini
14
is apprised of Coughlin's filing such Petition in NVSCT case 60975 on 9/14/15, clearly showing
15
that Bar Counsel can not demonstrate that it "could not, with reasonable diligence, have
16
discovered and produced at the trial." See, NRCP 59(a)(4).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Even ifNRCP 59(a)(2),(4) did apply here, jurisdiction over this matter cUlTently rests
with the Nevada Supreme Court. There is no basis not to transmi the record to the Nevada
Supreme Court by 11125/15. Asking the trial court to consider any other issues pending
review means first asking the appellate court to relinquish its jurisdiction over the case to
allow the trial court to do so. Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 575 P.2d 585,94 Nev. 79 (1978),
provides a methodology to allow a district court to modify its own judgment under NRCP 59
or NRCP 60, after the judgment is under appeal and the district court no longer has
jurisdiction. Ms. Flocchini's tact here in not transmitting the record, in violation of SCR
117(4), is costing Coughlin his place in line to have his matter adjudicated by the Nevada
Supreme Court. The line in these Reinstatement cases is cUlTently approximately nine
months long.
5
And, obviously, the email by Coughlin of 10/30/15 came after the issuance of the Panel's
Recommendation on 10/26/15, so such can not be considered to have been in existence at the
time of trial either.
3
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
771
"Newly discovered evidence" refers to evidence offacts existing at time of trial,

not facts occurring subsequent to trial. Fox v. First Western Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 1970,
470 P.2d 424,86 Nev. 469. It is also settled practice that the phrase "newly discovered
evidence" refers to evidence in existence at the time o/trial but of which the moving
party was excusably ignorant. Brown v. Penn. R.R., 282 F.2d 522 (3rd Cir.1960).
Furthennore, the new information may be considered only ifit could /lot have
been presented prior to the final disposition o/the case. Bordelon v. Chicago School
Reform Bd. of Trustees, 44 233 F.3d 524,529 (7th Cir. 2000). See, Burr v. Burr, 611
P.2d 623,96 Nev. 480. (1980).
2
3
4
5
wit
To whatever extent the Motion here could be read to include NRCP 59(a)(2) Misconduct
r6
of the jury or prevailing party, the alleged misconduct here had no impact on the hearing or trial,
and therefore, does not provide a basis for reconsideration.
To warrant reversal and a new trial on grounds of attorney misconduct of the

prevailing party's attorney, the flavor of misconduct must sufficiently permeate an
entire proceeding to provide conviction that the jury was influenced by passion and
prejudice in reaching its verdict. DeJesus v. Flick, 7 P.3d 459, 116 Nev. 812 (2000).
Newly discovered evidence on a matter collateral to the issues is seldom ground for a
new trial. Whise v. Whise, 131 P. 967, 36 Nev. 16 (1913).
9
10
11
12
Whether Asst. Bar Counsel's claims of two instances of misrepresentation actually
13
14
occurred after the trial or hearing here is a collateral issue, at best, considering the relevant
15
inquiry in this case is whether Coughlin's disability has been removed and if he is fit to
16
practice (SCR 117(4)), especially where SCR 117(4) mandates that "any pending disciplinary
17
proceeding or investigation against the attorney shall be suspended" while an attorney, like
18
19
Coughlin, is on disability inactive status. It is law of the case here that disciplinary allegations
20
are not relevant to the SCR 117(4) analysis here. 6
21
22
23
24
25
26
REINSTATEMENTHEARING,(Pages 133:11 to 134:11) "MS. JENKINS: I'm going

to stop all discussion of disciplinary matters from this point forward. I don't want the
panel to be poisoned by knowing how many, the nature, the status or other things with
regard to discipline and allegations or findings of discipline or recommendations or
pending matters that haven't even gone to a panel yet with regard to Mr. Coughlin. I
think that's inappropriate in this case -- and don't even speak yet. I want to be able to have
a clean consideration of this Respondent's status of his disability and his fitness to practice
law in this state. And that's all. I don't want to hear about allegations. I don't want to hear
about conviction of disciplinary matters. They are not relevant to the disability that
we're here to adjudicate. And I understand that they're inextricably woven, particularly
4
772
The Bar's Motion for Reconsideration here indicates that: " .. .In the Petition he stated that
at the August 25, 2015 Hearing, the Panel affirmatively stated its intent to recommend his
reinstatement once he submitted the requested Plan." See Page 3:4-6 thereof. While the Panel
arguably did so "affirmatively state" its intene, Coughlin's Petition, in fact, does not so assert
5
that. Coughlin, rather, in an abundance of caution, provided the Nevada Supreme Court (in the
wit
h
r6
7
8
9
10
Petition filed on 8/27/15) with a copy of the rough draft transcriptS of the relevant section of the
Reinstatement Hearing and wrote what is clearly not a misrepresentation:
"An excerpt from the rough draft transcript provided by the court reporter of the
conclusion of the Reinstatement Hearing on 8/25/15 is attached as Exhibit 1. Such
reveals the intent of the NNDB to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license
to practice law to the Nevada Supreme Court given the Monitoring Plan Coughlin
submitted to the NNDB Panel on 8/26/15. which is attached at Exhibit 2."
One, it is important to point out what Coughlin wrote in such Petition at page 8:3-8,
11
which thoroughly undermines Bar Counsel's assertion that a misrepresentation was made, where
12
13
14
15
16
such reads:
"the state supreme court may remand the disciplinary proceeding to the grievance
board with a request that it cause a hearing panel to conduct a further hearing in
the case. Mich.-In re Albert, 389 Mich. 153,206 N.W.2d 729. (NOTE: this has
essentially been done in Coughlin's case at this point, and the NNDB seems to
indicate it will recommend the reinstatement of Coughlin's law license in the
near future)."
17
Two, Coughlin's writing that a review of a transcript excerpt he attached "reveals the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
intent of the NNDB to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license to practice law to
when it comes to discipline, but they are not when it comes to disability. I think it will
unfairly prejudice this case to talk about the discipline matter. I don't want that to happen for
your sake or for the supreme count's sake when they get to review this matter and determine
whether to follow the panel's recommendation. So as far as exhibits, stay away from anything
that has to do with disciplinary matters or allegations. As far as testimony, I'm cautioning you
to do the same."
7
(especially considering when viewed in conjunction with Panel Chair Jenkin's email of
8/26115, which wrote: "I hope you take careful note of these attempts to assist and shepherd
your re-entry into the practice of law in Nevada")
8
(and later, in his September 21'\ 2015 Supplemental thereto, a copy of the transcript in its
entirety)
5
773
the Nevada Supreme Court givell the Monitoring Plan Coughlin submitted to the NNDB Panel
on 8/26/15" is plainly not the same thing as indicating that the Panel "affirmatively stated its
intent".
Three, Coughlin's use of the word "givell" in the qualifier phrase in the sentence Bar
Counsel takes issue with defeats the Bar's assertion that Coughlin indicated the Panel
wit
h
r6
7
"affinnatively stated" anything, especially where the transcript excerpt is denoted as coming
from an 8/25/15 Hearing and the Monitoring Plan referenced (and attached thereto as an
exhibit) is denoted as having been provided the Panel on 8/26/15.
Coughlin's inclusion of a proposed Monitoring Plan in such Petition that not only
9
10
included everything the Panel instructed him to include in ie, but goes a step further JO makes
11
even stronger Coughlin's contention the transcript he provided "reveals the intent of the NNDB
12
to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license givell the Monitoring Plan Coughlin
l3
submitted to the NNDB Panel on 8/26/15". It is important to note that the very lines quoted by
14
Bar Counsel in such Petition make clear the excerpt of the transcript referenced took place
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(compare REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Pages 182:5 to 185:19) to the Monitoring

Plan included in the exhibits attached to the Reconsideration Motion)
10
Such proposed Monitoring Plan submitted by Coughlin does indeed go a step further
where such reads:
" ... 7. I have identified as other information that may be critical to the
Panel's determination that this plan is a plan for success the following: I am very
remorseful for the negative attention I have brought to my profession and
for unnecessary expenditure of court time and resources brought about by
my behavior and actions.
I agree to abstain from takillg. even with a valid prescriptioll. allv
stimulant medications. such as Adderall (amphetamine) or narcotics. or other
controlled substallces commonly considered to be addictive. If, in the event I
must take some such medication, be it for surgery or something similar, I will
notify my Law Practice Mentor, my Attorney Sobriety Mentor, and the State Bar
of Nevada." Page 3:22-4:7 of proposed Monitoring Plan Coughlin provided the
Panel.
6
774
(8/25/15) a day prior to the submission of the proposed monitoring plan immediately referenced
2
thereafter (8/26/15).
3
4
Four, providing the Court the transcript of the Reinstatement Hearing and Coughlin's
proposed Monitoring Plan provided the Court opportunity to draw its own conclusions from the
text thereof. Further, one may have the "intent" to do something, without actually doing it.
wit
h
r6
Regardless, the Panel did recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's law license. The
Panel's use of the phrase "finalize our decision"ll also lends credence to Coughlin's assertion that
its "intent" is "revealed" via a review of the transcript.
RPC 3.3 requires one "knowinglv make a false statement of fact or law". Further, a
10
"mischaracterization "12 is not tantamount to a misrepresentation or to "knowillglv [making] a
11
false statement of fact or law". Bar Counsel's choice of words here alone seems to concede such
12
is not an RPC violation.
13
Bar Counsel then writes: "First, Coughlin knew on August 27, 2015, that Mr. Clark was
14
no longer Bar Counsel." Bar Counsel includes nothing in her affidavits or motion to indicate
15
16
upon what such assertion is based. Perhaps that is due to the prohibition against Bar Counsel
17
conducting any investigation while an attorney is on disability inactive status. See SCR 117(2):
18
"Anvpending disciplinarvproceeding or investigation against the attorney shall be
19
suspended." SCR 117(2)'s prohibition there actually makes Ms. Flocchini's making two
20
distinct, specific, accusations ofRPC violations here unsupportable. Regardless, Ms. Flocchini
21
22
23
24
25
26
stops short of alleging sending such filing to Mr. Clark, even if Coughlin knew Clark was no
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 182:22 to 182:24): "And ifit does meet the
outline, we'll convene in a conference call, Jinalize our decision, and issue an appropriate
order as quickly as possible."
12
Or "misconstrued" as the term is used in Bar Counsel's 1115115 email. See Exhibit 4. Or
an "overreaching misstatement" as Bar Counsel alternately describes Coughlin's writings in
her Motion.
II
7
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA nON
775
longer Bar Counsel, is any sort of violation of any RPc. Further, Ms. Flocchini fails to cite to
any cases or authority to support her at least implicit assertion that the responsibility would be on
the adverse party's attorney to coordinate the filing of a new notice of appearance or substitution
of counsel upon the exit of a Bar Counsel from his position. Regardless, where any such
wit
h
r6
7
responsibility upon Coughlin here, his serving these filings upon Assistant Bar Counsel
Pattee would satisfy such. Assistant Bar Counsel Flocchini fails to allege any facts to support
her assertion that Coughlin "knew" she was "handling" "this matter", where she necessarily
must be referring to NVSCT case 60975.
Bar Counsel fails to cite to any rule that would be violated by such a circumstances or
10
any authority for the apparent implicit assertion that, were such even the case, Mr. Clark and the
11
State Bar would not somehow be capable of, or even expected to monitor the inbox for an email
12
address 13 they know is still being used to electronically serve Mr. Clark in those cases he remains
13
listed as attorney of record in. Regardless, Mr. Clark is still listed as attorney of record 14 on the
14
SCR 117 case in question here, Case 60975, through at least 11/9/15.
15
Here, Asst. Bar Counsel fails to allege such is some sort of misconduct or RPC violation,
16
17
but, rather characterizes such as "gamesmanship". To make a summary disciplinary "hearing"
18
out of a motion for reconsideration would fail to accord the office of an attorney the respect such
19
13
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Or check such prior to making an accusation that a fellow attorney misrepresented

whether he emailed a filing thereto on 8/27115.
14
SCR 117(2) places the jurisdiction for such relief sought in the Bar's 5/30112 Disability
Petition with the Nevada Supreme Court. NRAP applies in NVSCT Case 60975. NRCP
applies in NNDB case RI15-0804 where DRP fails to cover matters. SCR 119(3); NRAP
1.
NRAP (l)(e)(5) "Party," "applicant," "petitioner" or any other designation ofa party
include such party's attorney of record. Whenever under these Rules a notice or other paper is
required to be given or served on a party, such notice or service shall be made on his
attorney of record if he has one." David Clark, Esq., was still listed alone as the attorney of
record in NVSCT case 60975 upon Coughlin inquiring as to such with Chief Deputy Clerk
Ingersoll on 11/10/15. Clark and Pattee were electronic filers with the Nevada Supreme
Court at all relevant times herein.
8
776
deserves, much less the procedural due process guarantees required by SCR 117(4), SCR 105,
2
3
4
SCR 110, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Further, the Certificate(s) of Service in question here make clear: "I certify that on
August 27th, 2015 1 mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of this PETITION ... " Page
9: 1-2 of such 8/27/15 Supplemental. Bar Counsel's Motion concedes that emailing such
wit
h
r6
7
8
"served" such upon the Bar. See page 4: 15 of a Bar's Motion for Reconsideration.
Alternately, here, Asst. Bar Counsel writes: "He also failed to properly serve the State Bar
with the documents filed in the Nevada Supreme Court matter and misrepresented his
method of service on the State Bar." Page 2:1-3.
9
10
It is telling that Ms. Flocchini fails to write that Coughlin failed to serve her documents
11
filed in such Nevada Supreme Court matter. Such is consistent with Ms. Flocchini's failure to
12
expressly state Coughlin knew she was handling that matter, much less make any factual
13
allegations to support such a claim. Further, Ms. Flocchini fails to delve into just what SOli of
14
service was required upon electronic filers (ie, those whom have consented to electronic service
15
16
17
18
19
in Nevada Supreme Court cases) David Clark, Esq., and Phil Pattee, Esq., or cite to any rules to
support such a claim, which she fails to even allege is an RPC violation.
The Bar's Motion incorrectly asserts that: " .. the Petition was not received bye-mail on
August 27,2015. See Declaration ofR. Kait Flocchini, Esq., Exhibit 5." However, Asst. Bar
20
Counsel Flocchini's Affidavit actually only asselis that she did not receive such via email on the
21
22
23
24
25
date Coughlin's Certificate o(Service (correctly) claims to have emailed such to David Clark,
Esq" whom was, and still is, listed as attorney of record in such matter, NVSCT case 60975.
Attached in Exhibit 1 is a copy ofthe email to davidc@nvbar.org of 8/27/15 in
which was attached the Petition for Rehearing that Ms. Flocchini's Motion asserts was not
26
OPPOSITION TO MOTION
777
received via email on such date. Ms. Flocchini was simply wrong here. Coughlin did, in fact,
email davidc@nvbar.org on 8/27/15 with a copy of such Petition in case 60975. The
undersigned has never received any indication that such email was not successfully transmitted.
But all ofthis is especially irrelevant where Coughlin also provided the Petition and
Supplemental in NVSCT 60975 to Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee. So that makes at least
wit
h
r6
somewhat salient Assistant Bar Counsel's claim that Mr. Pattee is somehow an "unrelated
Assistant Bar COllnsef' vis a vis NVSCT case 60975.
11
The Bar's Motion then states: "Counsel Phillip Pattee received it by email on
September 12,2015. See Email String, dated September 12-14,2015, Exhibit 6 ....
Coughlin knew that Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini was handling this matter
and he e-mailed documents to her Oil August 26,201515 Yet, she did not receive an email from Coughlin regarding the Petition. See Declaration ofR. Kait Flocchini, Esq.,
Exhibit 5. Coughlin's aqirmatioll o(mailing (or em ailing) was false. This is a violation
ofRPC 3.3 and RPC 8.4(c)."
12
Neither Ms. Flocchini's Motion nor any of the Affidavits or exhibits attached thereto
8
9
10
13
14
provide any support for this contention that "Coughlin knew that Assistant Bar Counsel Kait
Flocchini was handling this matter". On what date, exactly, did that become so? Given that Ms.
15
16
Flocchini was referencing the Petition in Nevada Supreme Court case 60975, one must assume
17
she is referring to that matter, which has a distinct case number, and is in a different venue, with
18
a different set of court and procedural rules, than the Reinstatement case that Ms. Flocchini is
19
actually listed as attorney of record on in RI15-0804. Coughlin was never provided any
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15
Bar Counsel's Motion for Reconsideration fails to distinguish between the NVSCT case
60975 and the Reinstatement case before the NNDB in RI15-0804. This allusion to what was
emailed to Ms. Flocchini on 8/26/15 fails to indicate that such "document" attached was the
proposed Monitoring Plan requested of Coughlin by the Panel just the day before in the
Reinstatement case, NNDB RI15-0804. Emailing Ms. Flocchini a document submitted in
such Reinstatement case, with the case numberfor such Reinstatement case in the caption
thereof(where her actually filing a document therein and appearing in open court necessarily
make her attorney of record) hardly makes Ms. Flocchini attorney of record in the Disability
case before the Nevada Supreme Court in NVSCT 60975, nor does such mean Coughlin
"knew" Ms. Flocchini was handling such case.
10
778
indication, written or otherwise, by the State Bar of Nevada or Ms. Flocchini that she was
attorney of record in, or even appearing in that mater, Nevada Supreme Court case 60975. Ms.
Flocchini alleges such, but fails to state any basis for such claim or contention. To the extent
Ms. Flocchini now becomes a witness in this matter, she may have an obligation to withdraw as
counsel.
wit
h
Why would Coughlin serve Ms. Flocchin given the failure of the State Bar to ever point
r6
out to Coughlin that it, apparently, given Ms. Flocchini's filing, did not feel Bar Counsel Pattee
was an appropriate recipient of the Petition or Supplemental thereto. Ms. Flocchini's admission
of having received Coughlin's Petition and Supplemental thereto in NVSCT case 60975 and
9
10
yet never having filed anything in opposition thereto (much less communicate with
11
Coughlin in any way with regard to such) would seem to indicate that no prejudice would
12
have issued even had the State Bar not received such from Coughlin.
13
If the Panel or Bar would like for Coughlin to answer to the allegation unsupported by
14
any assertions of facts that he knew David Clark was no longer employed as Bar Counsel at the
15
16
time he filed his Petition on 8/27/15, Coughlin will do so, and make no attempt to hide behind
17
SCR 117(4)'s mandate against prosecution and investigation while an attorney is on disability
18
inactive status. However, even if such were to be the case, it is hardly manifest that Coughlin
19
committed some misconduct here by serving such on Mr. Clark, especially where such was then
20
served on Mr. Pattee (and Mr. King) as well. Mr. Clark's ceasing to be employed as Bar
21
22
Counsel hardly alleviates his and the State Bar's duty to coordinate the covering of his cases, and
23
attendant thereto would be to monitor the email addresses used for electronic service.
24
25
Where the State Bar characterizes Coughlin as engaging in "gamesmanship" here, it is

hard to understand what to make of the State Bar failing to mention to Coughlin it felt he was not
26
11
779
sending the filings to the right attorney, much less the State Bar's failing to bring such to the
Panel's attention until after the Panel issued its Recommendation, despite having from 8/27/15
until such was issued on 10/26116 to do so. The mere fact that Ms. Flocchini was handling
NNDB case RIl5-0804 does not mean she is attorney of record or in any way attached to
wit
Nevada Supreme Court case 60975, especially where David Clark is still listed as attorney of
record on the docket therein, and where Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee had filed the most
r6
recent filings made by State Bar of Nevada therein in the summer and fall of 2014. See
7
8
Exhibit 2, Bar Counsel Pattee's 9/29114 filing in NVSCT case 60975.

Further, Coughlin had corresponded with Mr. Pattee via email about Nevada Supreme
9
10
11
12
13
Court case numerous times throughout 2014 and 2015. See Exhibit 3, emails to Coughlin from
Bar Counsel Pattee regarding NVSCT case 60975.
Given the above, the undersigned respectfully disagrees with Bar Counsel Flocchini's
assertion that "".Further, Coughlin's attempt to e-mail fonner employees of the Office of Bar
14
Counsel and an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel, but not the Assistant Bar Counsel handling
15
16
his Reinstatement matter, is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Asst. Bar Counsel
17
Pattee is hardly "an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel" when it comes to NVSCT case 60975, and
18
David Clark, Esq., is still listed as attorney of record therein, and Patrick King, Esq., filed the
19
Disability Petition in NVSCT case 60975. Likewise, Ms. Flocchini fails to actually even state
20
that NVSCT case 60975 was her case, and noticeably absent is any affidavit from Phil Pattee
21
22
23
24
25
stating that he reassigned the matter to her, much less communicated such to Coughlin.
What this seems to come down to is the fact that Coughlin did not simply serve such on
Mr. Clark, but went above and beyond and served such on Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee, as
well. The attached documentation and Ms. Flocchini's failure to allege any specific basis for her
26
12
780
contention that Coughlin "knew" she was handling this matter make unsupported the claim that
2
3
4
Mr. Pattee was somehow an "unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel".

Finally, Bar Counsel asserts that Coughlin emailed her requesting a stipulation to "make
up the 30 days just lost to the Panel's taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion
to issue a Recommendation" noting that Coughlin asserted that the Panel Chair "indicated the
wit
hearing would conclude when I provided the proposed monitoring plan to the Panel." Bar
r6
Counsel argues that such is "directly contradicted by the Panel Chair's statements that "if your
submission is received tomorrow ... the panel will meet at its earliest convenience, deliberate,
and conclude this matter."
10
Bar Counsel's argument does not account for the difference between a "matter" and a
11
"hearing". A "matter" refers to something broader than a hearing, and such may continue past
12
the conclusion of a "hearing". Regardless, Bar Counsel, in contrast to earlier in her Motion
13
where she pronounces Coughlin's writings respecting whether the Panel intended to recommend
14
for Coughlin's reinstatement to "violate" an RPC, here, no such claim that such email did.in
15
16
fact, "violate" an RPC is made. Rather, such seems to have been included merely for prejudicial
17
effect. That effect borne of Coughlin coming across as someone who lacks the appropriate level
18
of gratitude to the Panel, and, instead, is whining about enduring a longer wait than he
19
envisioned for the Panel to issue its Recommendation. The undersigned agrees such email, sent
20
only to the Bar and in an attempt to obtain a stipulation that would serve judicial economy,
21
22
23
24
25
contained a lack of perspective and gratitude and hereby apologizes for such.
Bar Counsel concludes with a bit of a non-sequitur where she writes "the
misrepresentation is particularly troubling when the Panel Chair rejected Coughlin's assertion
that the Panel's decision must be issued within 30 days of August 25. 2015 ... Coughlin's
26
13
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATlON
781
assertion in his October 30, 2015 email is a misrepresentation of what happened at the
August 25, 2015 Hearing."
Such is a non-sequitur given that Coughlin's email concerns whether SCR 117 requires
the Panel to issue its Recommendation "30 days from the hearing's conclusion", whereas Bar
wit
h
r6
7
Counsel proceeds to base her argument on whether such 30 days runs from "August 251", 2015",
claiming that is what Coughlin indicated in his email. A careful reading of Coughlins' email of
10/30/15 and the transcript of the Reinstatement Hearing reveals that Coughlin correctly relayed
that the 30 days mentioned in SCR 117 runs from the conclusion of the hearing, and that the
Panel Chair at least arguably indicated to Coughlin the hearing would conclude upon receipt of a
10
proposed Monitoring Plan from Coughlin. 16 Coughlin submitted such monitoring plan on
11
8/26/15.
12
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 187:18 to 187:23): "MR. COUGHLIN: SCR

117.4, I believe, requires this panel issue its findings within 30 days. MS. JENKINS: It says the
panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the hearillg's conclusioll. And the
hearillg willllot conclude until that additio1lal information is received."
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Pages 188:23 to 189:18) "MS. JENKINS: While I

appreciate your disappointment, perhaps, the rule requires within 30 days of the hearing's
conclusion. This hearing will not be COllcluded until the panel receives that additional
requested illformation . ... MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And if I submit it tomorrow. will it then -will a decision be made within 30 days oft011l0rrow? MS. JENKINS: Jfyour submission is
received tomorrow, ... the panel will meet at its earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude
this matter. MR. COUGHLIN: So then a decision -- it would conclude? MS. JENKINS: It
would."
20
Under the undersigned's understanding of that portion of the hearing, the hearing
21
22
concluded upon Coughlin's submitting such proposed Monitoring Plan on 8/26/15.
23
24
25
26
16
An 1115/15 email to Coughlin from Bar Counsel seems to indicate that the hearing's
conclusion would occur. in her yiew. upon the Panel reconvening to deliberate outside of
Coughlin's prese11ce. The ulldersigned did Ilot illterpret these matters ill that way givell
such would seem to result ill all exparte hearing process (not to suggest the Bar would be
present during such a reconvening, but merely that Coughlin would not be).
14
782
Nonetheless, out of great respect for and deference to the Panel Coughlin made no
attempt to press the point and instead waited for the Panel's Recommendation. Perhaps the
disagreement here relates to just what iJ. was Coughlin was referring to when he was asking if "iJ.
would conclude". 17 The entire point of Coughlin's question to the Panel Chair (see pages 187-
wit
h
189 of the transcript from the Reinstatement Hearing) related to the interplay between the
conclusion ofthe hearing and the issuance ofthe Panel's Recommendation under SCR 117(4),
r6
and whether Coughlin may do anything to bring about the conclusion of the hearing. Not the
conclusion of the matter. 18 The undersigned respectfully disagrees with any assertion that his
email of 10/30/15 contained any sort of misrepresentation or other reason for reconsidering the
9
10
Panel's Recommendation. 19
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 189:15 to 189:17) MR. COUGHLIN: So then a

decision -- it would conclude? MS. JENKINS: It would.
18
This interpretation of pages 187-190 of the Reinstatement Hearing transcript is made
even more plausible by the Honorable Panel Chair's indication to Coughlin in an email sent to
both Coughlin and the Bar on 8/26/15 wherein the Panel Chair wrote: "I received and have
reviewed your emails and attachments. I fully expect that the panel will find an acceptable
time to reconvene the hearing within 2 weeks to consider the evidence presented and your
submission. Thereafter, I will prepare and circulate a draft Order among the members, gather
their input, make needed changes, and sign and submit the final Order of the Panel, which
then will be distributed to the Office of Bar Counsel and to you. The process may not meet
your desire to have everything done immediately, but is will be accomplished within a
reasonable time, and within the Rule." .
19
Please further consider the following: "REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 191:3 to
191 :9) MR. COUGHLIN: If! may ask that the panel take what I believe is 30 days (rom
today or tomorrow, if! file the brief tomorrow, to use that time to review the materials I
spent a great deal of time and effort putting together -- MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, rest
assured the panel will give you your due process."
15
783
2
3
4
VERIFICA TIONIDECLARA TION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

deposes and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct: 1. I am
subject attorney in the above-referenced matter, have personal knowledge of the facts contained
herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I hereby declare that all assertions I have made
herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Everything I have attached hereto is a
true copy of what it purports to be.
wit
Dated this November 23rd, 2015,
h
r6

Petitioner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
16
784
2
3
I certify that on November 23rd ,2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of
this OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon the following by
5
wit
h
r6
7
Dated this November 23rd, 2015
8
9
10

Petitioner
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17
785
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
3
Description
Exhibit 1
Coughlin's email to the State Bar 0[8/27115 in which was attached the Petition
for Rehearing that Ms. Flocchini's Motion asserts was not received via email on such date.
Exhibit 2
Bar Counsel Pattee's 7111114 filing in NVSCT case 60975
wit
Exhibit 3
Emails to Coughlin from Bar Counsel Pattee regarding NVSCT case 60975
Exhibit 4
1115/15 email to Coughlin from Bar Counsel
r6
Exhibit 5
10122115 NVSCT Order Denying Coughlin's Petition in 60975
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
18
786
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
787
11/10/2015
NRAP 40 or Request for Hearing

Sent: Fri 8/28115 4:12 PM
To:
aingersoll@nvcourts.nv.gov (aingersoll@nvcourts.nv .gov); tlindemann@nvcourts.nv.gov
(tlindemann@nvcourts.nv .gov); davidc@nvbar.org (davidc@nvbar.org)
1 attachment
827 15 NRAP 40 60975 In Re Coughlin seeking to set aside order placing on disability
inactive status with
exhibits. pdf (3.3 MB)

Please find attached a copy of my submission for filing in case 60975. Please
let lTIe know if I am required to submit a check for $250 with it, or, if, due to
such being a "Bar Matter" there is no such requirement. I may not technically
be a Petition for Rehearing given the crux of my argument is that I never got a
hearing anywhere prior to being placed on such disability inactive status.
I know one can not typically electronically file in confidential cases, but, a
review of the 6/18/12 filing attributed to me in case 60975 SeelTIS to indicated
that such was accepted electronically.
Thank you for your assistance when I spoke with you last week.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
cell 775 276 0779
https:/lbay176.mail.live.com/oi/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1/1
788
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
789
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADf
)
IN RE: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. )
3 BAR NO. 8789
)
JUL 11 2014
2 REPORT OF BAR COUNSEL
ILED
Case No. 60975
TRAC!E K, LINDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME CO RT
BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLER
--------------------------)
STATUS REPORT BY BAR COUNSEL

1.
On April 23, 2014, this Court entered its Order of Referral For

8 matter, which originated with a Petition of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
9 requesting that attorney Zachary Coughlin ("Coughlin"), Bar No. 8789, be transferred
10 to disability inactive status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 117.
11
2.
The Order directed the State Bar of Nevada ("State Bar") to, within thirty
12 (30) days:
l3
a.
Arrange for an examination of Coughlin by a Nevada-licensed
14
psychologist or psychiatrist for determination of Coughlin's capacity
15
to practice law; and
16
b.
File with this Court a status report regarding the status of this matter.
17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
790
3.
On June 30, 2014, this Court entered an Order which noted that a status
2 report had not been filed by the State Bar. This Court, therefore, directed the State Bar
3 to, within ten (10) days, file a report regarding its efforts to arrange for Coughlin's
4 examination by a medical expert. Pursuant to that Order, Assistant Bar Counsel is
5 hereby informing this Court regarding the status ofthis matter.
6
4.
On the afternoon of July 8, 2014, the Office of Bar Counsel ("OBC") in
7 Reno was informed that this Court's Order of June 30, 2014, had arrived, apparently by
8 mail, at its office in Las Vegas. It was shown to Bar Counsel David Clark and was
9 forwarded immediately to Laura Peters ("Peters"), the OBC's paralegal/investigator in
10 Reno, and the undersigned Assistant Bar Counsel, who happened to be in the Reno
11 office at that time.
12
5.
Prior to July 8, 2014, Peters had no knowledge of either of the Orders.
13 (See attached Exhibit 1, Affidavit ofLaura Peters, Paragraph 1).

14
6.
Shortly thereafter, Bar Counsel informed the undersigned that the Order
15 dated April 23, 2014, had in fact been received by the Las Vegas office and routinely
16 forwarded by mail to the Reno office. However, the Reno office apparently did not
17 receive the Order and, accordingly, did not provide the requested status report to this
18 Court.
19 III
20 III
2
791
7.
Within an hour of receiving a copy of this Court's Order dated June 30,
2 2014, Peters located a clinical psychologist, Earl Nielsen, Ph.D. ("Dr. Nielsen), who
3 conducts forensic psychological examinations in Reno, Nevada. The undersigned then
4 left a message with Dr. Nielsen requesting that he contact the OBC's office in Reno.
5
8.
Dr. Nielsen contacted the OBC on the morning of July 9, 2014, and
6 indicated that he was willing to evaluate Coughlin. Dr. Nielsen advised that the OBC
7 should contact Coughlin and request that he call the psychologist's office to schedule an
8 appointment. (Exhibit 1, Paragraph 3).
9
9.
On July 9, 2014, the OBC sent a letter, a copy of which is attached hereto
10 as Exhibit 2, to Coughlin by regular and certified mail, and to the email address
11 provided by Coughlin to the OBC.
The letter provided Coughlin with contact
12 information for Dr. Nielsen and directed him to contact the psychologist directly.
13 Copies of this Court's Orders were enclosed with the letter.
14
10.
At approximately 1:30 p.m. on July 9, 2014, Peters also telephoned
15 Coughlin and left him a message regarding the above-referenced letter and its contents.
16 (Exhibit 1, Paragraph 5).
17
11.
The OBC shall follow up with Dr. Nielsen next week regarding the status
18 of the evaluation of Coughlin.
19 III
20 III
3
792
12.
The OBC shall, by July 21, 2014, provide this Court with a supplemental
2 status report regarding the progress of this matter.

3
DATED this loth day of July, 2014.
6
7
8
9
10
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

ffil

BarNo. 4021
Reno,NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4
793
Exhibit 1
794
AFFIDAVIT OF LAURA PETERS

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
2
STATE OF NEVADA
3
COUNTY OF WASHOE
)
) ss:
)
LAURA PETERS, under penalty of perjury, being first duly sworn, deposes and
5
says as follows:
6
That Affiant is employed as a paralegal/investigator for the discipline department

7
of the State Bar of Nevada and in such capacity is a custodian of records for the State
8
Bar of Nevada;
9
1.
On the afternoon of July 8, 2014, the Reno Office of Bar Counsel was
10
made aware of two Orders from the Nevada Supreme Court, one filed April 23, 2014,
11
and the other filed June 30, 2014, in Case No. 60975. Affiant did not have any prior
12
knowledge of either Order.

13
2.
The above-referenced Orders directed the State Bar to arrange for a
14
psychological evaluation of temporarily suspended attorney Zachary B. Coughlin.

15
3.
On the morning of July 9, 2014, Affiant spoke with Dr. Earl Nielsen, Ph.D.,
16
and asked what the doctor recommended with regard to setting an appointment for Mr.
17
Coughlin. The doctor advised that the State Bar give Mr. Coughlin the doctor's contact
18
information and have Mr. Coughlin call to schedule an appointment for an evaluation.
19
4.
On July 9, 2014, Affiant caused the attached letter to be sent to Mr.
20
Coughlin with the doctor's contact information (telephone number and mailing/physical
21
address) via first class mail, certified mail and e-maiI.Mr. Coughlin was also sent
22
copies of both the aforementioned April 23 rd and June 30 th Orders for his ready
23
reference.
Mr. Coughlin was further advised that the State Bar would pay for the
24
evaluation with Dr. Nielsen.
25
795
5.
At approximately 1:30 p.m. on July 9, 2014, Affiant left a voice mail
message asking Mr. Coughlin to call her at the State Bar Office.
Coughlin at the phone number on file with the State Bar: (949) 667-7402.
4
5
Affiant called Mr.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Dated this 10th day of July, 2014.
6
7
9
10
11
12
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to

before me this 10th day of
July, 2014.
N~~~B\3GQ ~J ~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
796
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
July 9,2014
Via First Class and Certified Mail:

7012 2920 0002 4909 0520
600 Wt CharlestOn Blvd.

la5 V<g;I.!, NY 89104-1563
phon. 702.382.2200
taU frc,8oo.254.2797
u702.385.2878
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E, 9th Street
Reno,NV 89502

Reno, NY 895215m
phon< 775.329.4100
u775.329.0522
RE:
Supreme Court Case No, 609751 In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. www.nvbar.org
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

Enclosed are Orders filed April 23 and June 30, 2014, propounded by the Nevada
Supreme Court directing the State Bar to 1) Arrange for an examination by qualified medical
expert and; 2) file a report regarding the status of its efforts to arrange for said examination,
We have made contact with Dr. Earl Nielson, Ph.D., and have advised him that you
will be contacting him directly to set an appointment for an examination. Dr. Nielson's
telephone number is (775) 742-1259. His office address is 834 Willow Street, Reno, NY
89502. The State Bar will be responsible for payment.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation,
Phillip J. Pattee
PJP/lp
c::J
(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)

,
.,
.
ru
c::J
IT"
c::J
IT"
ru
..
I.Cl
::T
Enclosure
U.S. Postal ServiceTM

CERTIFIED MAILM RECEIPT
0 FFICIAL US E
Postage
CarliNod Fee
c::J
Rslum Receipt Fa.
c::J (EndOflemont
Rsqulred)
c::J
Posbnark
Here
R lr1cled Dolivoli' F..
c::J (Endoroement Raqulrod)
ru
IT"
ru
Total Po.l8ge & Feo.
~ I1siOi:ifl:,'O:-;;{-N-f-:::-....:::-o-..-~...---:-~-;
.. ~::.. !"-..-..-.::-.h-~-=...-.......,.-....'~~.. -..-.. - ..-.....,..
['-
;;,~~~;j;;;i*.~~.~.~...k~.
PS Form 3800, Augus! 2006
See Reverse for Ins!rucllons
----------------------_
...._...
797
_--
Exhibit 2
798
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
July 9, 2014
7012 2920 0002 4909 0520
600 Eut Chuleswn Blvd.

Los Vegu. NY 8910+1563
phon. 702.382.2200
"'U r... 800.254.2797
fu702.385.2878
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street
Reno,NV 89502
9456 Double R Blvd., See. B

Reno. NY 895215977
pho .. 775.329.4100
fu775.329.0522
RE:
Supreme Court Case No. 609751 In the Matter a/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. www.nvbar.org
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

Enclosed are Orders filed Apri123 and June 30, 2014, propounded by the Nevada
expert and; 2) file a report regarding the status of its efforts to arrange for said examination.
telephone number is (775) 742-1259. His office address is 834 Willow Street, Reno, NV
Phillip J. Pattee
PJPllp
Enclosure
u.s. Postal ServicenA

CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT
t::!
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
nJ
LrJ
t::!
0t::!
0=to
nJ
."
"
".
"
OFFICIAL USE
Poalllgo
C.rtHlod F
t::!
Rerum Receipt Fe.
t::! (Endoraemonl Roquirod)
t::!
t::!
Poltmark
He",
Re.lrlclid O.Vv.ry F
(Endommenl Requlrvd)
nJ
0-
nJ
Tolal PoBlage & Fe..
~ro---~--~~--~~~----~
~ !;;:::F;'~ O~~0.:..::~~~.~~
CJtY.sw;:zrp+r..
PS Form 3800, August 2006
.m..
~..........k~.
See Reverse for Instructions
799
2
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Status Report
by Bar Counsel was deposited in the United States Mail at Reno, Nevada, postage fully pre-paid
thereon for first class mail addressed to the following:
5
6
7
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno NY 89505
DATED this 10th day of June, 2014.
8
9
10
:Caura ters, an employee of

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
800
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
801
11/1612015
RE: SC Case 60975

From: Phillip Pattee (philp@nvbar.org)
Sent: Tue 7/22114 12:36 PM
To:
Thank you.
Phil
Phillip J. Pattee

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Office: (702) 382-2200
Fax: (702) 382-8747
1/4
https:llbay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
802
11/16/2015
Sent: Tuesday, July 22,201411:48 AM

To: Phillip Pattee
Dear Mr. Patee,
I am now scheduled to be evaluated on Friday, July 25th, by Dr. Nielsen at his office on Willow
st.
Sincerely,
From: philp@nvbar.org
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:46:40 +0000
htlps:/lbay176.mail.live.com/olimail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
214
803
11/16/2015
Zach,
Thank you for your message, and for your efforts. I shall keep the Supreme Court
informed.
Phil
Phillip J. Pattee

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Office: (702) 382-2200
Fax: (702) 382-8747
3/4
804
11/1612015

Sent: Monday, July 21, 20149:30 PM
Dear NV Bar,
I have been trading voice mails with Dr. Nielsen and finally just asked him to
tell me a date and time and indicated I would be sure to show up for such for
the evaluation, and asked if he would let me know of any releases or records
he would like to have in connection with the evaluation. I left him another
message today.
Sincerely,
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:14:31 +0000
Laura Peters
Paralegal
https:/Ibay176.mail.live.com/oi/mail.mvC/PrintMessages?mkr-en-us
4/4
805
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
806
--------------------~---
11/16/2015
RE: Requested stipulation

From: Kait Flocchini (KaitF@nvbar.org)
Sent: Thu 11105115 10:03 AM
Laura Peters (laurap@nvbar.org); Brian Kunzi (briank@nvbar.org)
Dear Mr. Coughlin-
Your representation regarding the deadline for the Panel to file its Recommendation is troubling. The
Panel Chair stated that they would re-convene after you submitted the requested Mentoring Plan not on the
day that you submitted it. They did reconvene after August 26, 2015 not on August 26, 2015. Their
Recommendation was subsequently filed.
The State Bar will not stipulate to not oppose the Recommendation. I anticipate that I will be filing a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Panel's decision citing the filings with the Nevada Supreme Court that
misconstrued the Hearing Panel's position and that you e-mailed to people you knew did not work for the State
Bar (and Phil Pattee in the Las Vegas office) and not me. I anticipate that I will be raising these issues with the
Supreme Court in opposition to the Recommendation, if the Panel does not revise its Recommendation.
Sincerely,
Kait Flocchini
R. Kait Flocchini
1/3
https:/lbay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
807
11/16/2015
State Bar of Nevada

Reno, Nevada 89521
Main Line: (775) 329-4100
Department Fax: 775-329-0522
www.nvbar.org
Notice of Confidentiality: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and
may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any
action in reliance upon, this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is not authorized.

Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Kait Flocchini <KaitF@nvbar.org>
Cc: Laura Peters <Iaurap@nvbar.org>
Subject: Requested stipulation
I am writing to indicate that I will not be filing any opposition to the Panel's Recommendation and to
seek a stipulation, if you are amenable, that may allow for my case to make up the 30 days just lost to
the Panel's taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion to issue a Recommendation. The
213
808
11/16/2015
Chair indicated the hearing would conclude when I provided the proposed monitoring plan to the
Panel. I provided such on 8/26/15. SCR 117 requires the Recommendation to be issued within 30 days
of the conclusion of the hearing. The Recommendation was filed 10/26/15.
The record is due to be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court within 30 days of that 10/26/15 filing of
the Recommendation. Both parties would then have 30 days to file any opposition thereto, and,
should none be filed, the matter would be submitted for decision.
I am writing to request that the record be filed at your earliest convenience and accompanied by a
stipulation of some sort indicating that both parties choose not to file any opposition to the
recommendation and request for the matter to be submitted at the time the record is filed with the
Nevada Supreme Court.
Please consider:
SCR 117: "The panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the hearing's conclusion, which shall be filed with
bar counsel's office and served pursuant to Rule 109(1).
Bar counsel shall forward the record of the hearing panel proceeding to the supreme court within 30 days of the
decision's entry. Receipt of the record shall be acknowledged in writing by the supreme court clerk. The parties shall have
30 days from the date the supreme court acknowledges receipt of the record within which to file any objection to the
panel's recommendation. Ifnone is filed, then the matter shall be submitted for decision".
Thank you for considering this request. Also, if it is not too much trouble, would you mind emailing me the pdf containing
the file stamped Recommendation?
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.

ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Tele: 775 2760779 Fax: 949 667 7402
https:llbay176.mail.live.com/olimail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
3/3
809
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
810
--------------------------~
811
Case No: R115-0804
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
IN RE:

BAR NO. 9473
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
11
12
13
Respondent.
14
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OBTAINED AFTER PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE CONCLUDED IN HEARING
15
16
17
The State Bar of Nevada, through Assistant Bar Counsel, R. Kait Flocchini, replies
18
in support of its request that the Hearing Panel reconsider its recommendation that Zachary
19
Coughlin, Esq.'s Nevada law license be reinstated to active status.
20
This reply covers three points raised in Coughlin's Opposition: 1) whether the Motion
21
for Reconsideration is procedurally appropriate, (2) the relationship between R115-0804
22
and Supreme Court Case No. 60975, and (3) how to characterize Coughlin's post-hearing
23
conduct.
24
25
//I
1
812
1
2
Legal Authority for Reconsideration.
Supreme Court Rule (USCR") 119 (3) provides that U[e]xcept as otherwise provided
in these rules, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and the Nevada Rules of Appellate
Procedure apply in disciplinary cases."
Although the Panel's Recommendation is not exactly a judgment, it could be
reasonable to apply the provisions of NRCP 59. Pursuant to NRCP 59, the information
provided in the Motion must be material to the State Bar and was not available prior to the
hearing. The information is material, not collateral, because Coughlin's representations to
10
the Supreme Court regarding this Panel's Uintent" and his service of documents on the
11
State Bar are similar to his conduct which resulted in the State Bar, through Northern
12
Nevada Disciplinary Board Chair Thomas Susich, filing the Petition Seeking a
13
Determination of the Attorney's Competency Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117(2). The
14
information was not available at the time of the hearing because it occurred post-hearing.
15
Nonetheless, it is relevant and should be considered by the Panel before being submitted
16
to the Nevada Supreme Court for its consideration in whether to approve the Panel's
17
recommendation.
18
Alternatively, the Motion can be deemed procedurally appropriate because
19
substantially different evidence is being introduced subsequent to the Panel's initial
20
Recommendation.
21
Jolley, Urga & Wirth LTD., 113 Nev. 737, 741 (1997) (UA district court may reconsider a
22
previously decided issue if substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced or
23
the decision is clearly erroneous.") Here, Coughlin's post-hearing conduct is substantially
24
different evidence that may change the Panel's decision on whether Coughlin is fit to
25
resume the practice of law.
See Masonry and Tile Contractors Assoc. of Southern Nevada v.
813
Under either standard, it is appropriate for the Panel to reconsider its
Recommendation
and
to
account for Coughlin's
post-hearing
reconsideration.
R115-0804 is a result of Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 60975.
conduct in that
On May 31, 2012, the Petition Seeking a Determination of the Attorney's
Competency Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117(2) was filed under Nevada Supreme
Court Case No. 60975. In that same case, on June 18, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court
issued an order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status.
On June 23, 2015, Coughlin filed a Petition for Reinstatement to Active Status
10
Pursuant to SCR 117(4).
Coughlin's Petition was given matter number RI15-0804.
11
Coughlin's Petition referenced the State Bar's Petition and Order from Nevada Supreme
12
Court Case No. 60975. But for Case No. 60975, R115-0804 would not have existed.
13
Moreover, Coughlin's August, 27, 2015 and September 12, 2015 filings in Case No.
14
60975 essentially sought to undue the order which then necessitated the reinstatement
15
matter and this Panel's hearing.
16
Flocchini regarding the reinstatement matter, but not communicate with the same Assistant
17
Bar Counsel regarding the Nevada Supreme Court matter that could have a direct effect
18
on the reinstatement matter.
19
All Conduct Referenced in Motion for Reconsideration is Post-Hearing Conduct.
It is unclear why Coughlin would communicate with
20
The State Bar defers to its original arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration
21
regarding the characterization of Coughlin's statements to the Supreme Court in the
22
Petition for Rehearing and Supplement thereto and in his October 30, 2015 e-mail to
23
Flocchini. The State Bar clarifies its position on (i) Coughlin's service of documents filed
24
with the Supreme Court and (ii) why his post-hearing conduct is relevant to the Panel's
25
decision.
3
814
III
Service of Supreme Court filings
Coughlin argues that he did e-mail serve the Petition for Rehearing on former Bar
Counsel David Clark on August 27,2015. See Opposition at 9:3-10:3. The documents
that Coughlin references to support his position show (i) an affirmation that David Clark
was "mailed and or emailed" the Petition for Rehearing at the State Bar's Las Vegas office,
with no reference to an e-mail address and (ii) Coughlin e-mailed the Petition for Rehearing
to "davidc@nvbar.org" on August 28, 2015. See Motion, Exhibit 1 and Opposition, Exhibit
1. This is after Flocchini personally discussed with Coughlin on the phone, in late July,
10
2015 or August, 2015, that David Clark was no longer Bar Counsel. Further, Coughlin's
11
"courtesy copy" of the Petition for Rehearing was sent ten judicial days after it was filed
12
with the Supreme Court.
13
Coughlin's Post-hearing Conduct is Akin to his Pre-Disability Conduct
14
The petition which requested that Coughlin be placed on disability referenced his
15
behavior in court when he was "disorderly, contemptuous or insolent" and "questioned the
16
judge's authority" in Reno Municipal Court and was "rude, sarcastic and disrespectful" in
17
Judge Gardner's courtroom during a divorce trial.
18
Nevada Supreme Court do not rise to this level of inappropriateness, but they are indicative
19
that he still does not have a firm grasp on what is appropriate adversarial behavior.1
20
/II
Coughlin's recent statements to the
21
22
/II
23
24
25
1 Coughlin argues that conduct that has a potential disciplinary result is irrelevant. See Opposition at 4: 1320. But, conduct that could be found to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct is also indicative of a
lack of fitness to resume the practice of law. This is exactly what the Panel is considering in this
reinstatement matter, and thus, Coughlin's post-hearing conduct is relevant.
815
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing and the Motion for Reconsideration, the State Bar
respectfully requests that the Panel reconsider its recommendation that Coughlin be
reinstated pursuant to SCR 117.
6
7
DATED this --'="-=--_ day of November, 2015.

STATE BAR OF NEVADA
STANLEY C. HUNTERTON, BAR COUNSEL
8
9
10
11
12
By:~J~
R. alt Flocchlnl, NV Bar No. 9861

Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
816
The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of
Motion for Reconsideration Based on Additional Information Obtained After
Presentation of Evidence Concluded in Hearing was placed in a sealed envelope,
postage prepaid, in Reno, Nevada, addressed to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W
12th Street, Reno NV 89503. The document was also served in electronic form to

~.
;1
#~"O( ,...,--
Dated on this, .).
10
LaUra Peters, an employee of

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
817
CASE NO. RI15-0804

2
3
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF

LA WAND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
TO ACTIVE STATUS FOLLOWING A
PERIOD OF DISABILITY INACTIVE
STATUS
In Re ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,

ESQ.
Nevada Bar No 9473,

10
11
Respondent
12
13
14
15
This matter, involving attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq. ("Respondent"), Bar No.
16
9473, initially came before a designated Formal Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada
17
Disciplinary Board in the State Bar offices in Reno, Nevada. The Panel consisted of Chair Caren
18
Jenkins, Esq., Marilee Breternitz, Esq., Craig Denney, Esq., and Keegan Low, Esq. and lay
19
20
21
22
23
member Dr. George Furman. Assistant Bar Counsel R. Kait Flocchini, Esq. represented the State
Bar of Nevada. Respondent represented himself.
As the burden of proof rested with Respondent, he began the proceedings and presented
materials consisting of documents and pleadings offered as Exhibits 1,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13,
24
14, 15, and 21 which were admitted into evidence. Respondent offered Exhibits 2, 3, 9, 10, 16,
25
PAGE 1
818
17, 18, and 20 which were not admitted into evidence. The State Bar offered documents admitted
2
into evidence as Exhibit A.
The Panel heard statements from both parties and testimony from Senior Nevada District
4
Court Judge Charles McGee (a well-known 12-step participant and advocate), Dr. Nielsen (the
independent medical examiner selected by the State Bar), Miles Warsh (Respondent's AA
Sponsor in San Diego CA), Respondent's mother Mary Barker, Respondent's father, Timothy D.
Coughlin, M.D., and Respondent.
Based upon the evidence presented and testimony received, on October 26, 2015, the
10
11
12
13
14
Panel unanimously issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for
Reinstatement to Active Status Following a Period of Disability Inactive Status.
On November 9,2015, the State Bar filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The State Bar
requested that the Panel reconsider its recommendation to the Nevada Supreme Court because of
15
Respondent's post-hearing conduct.
Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for
16
17
Reconsideration on November 23,2015. On November 30, 2015, the State Bar filed a Reply in
18
Support of the Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion was granted on December 16,2015 and
19
a supplemental hearing regarding the matters raised in the Motion for Reconsideration was set
20
for January 6, 2016.
21
On January 6, 2016, the Panel, consisting of Chair Caren Jenkins, Esq., Marilee Bretemitz,
22
23
Esq., Craig Denney, Esq., and Keegan Low, Esq. and lay member Dr. George Furman,
24
reconvened. Assistant Bar Counsel R. Kait Flocchini, Esq. represented the State Bar of Nevada.
25
Respondent represented himself.

PAGE 2
819
The Panel admitted the Motion for Reconsideration, the Opposition thereto and the Reply
2
in support of the motion, as Exhibits 1-3, respectively. The Panel heard statements from both
parties and testimony from Respondent and Ms. Flocchini.
The Panel asked questions of
Respondent and Ms. Flocchini as well.
Based upon the evidence presented and testimony received at the hearing on August 25,
2015 and the supplemental hearing on January 6,2016, the Panel unanimously revokes its initial
recommendation for reinstatement to active status and hereby issues these Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to Deny Petition for Reinstatement to Active Status
10
11
Following a Period of Disability Inactive Status.

FINDINGS OF FACT
12
13
14
1. IOn June 7, 2012, Respondent Attorney Zachary Barker Coughlin was temporarily
suspended pursuant to SCR 111.
15
2. On June 18,2015 the Supreme Court issued an order transferring Respondent to disability
16
17
18
19
20
inactive status, due to the effect of various addiction- and stress-related factors on his behavior
that impeded his ability to engage in the profession in a responsible and appropriate manner.
3. On June 23, 2015, Respondent submitted an application to the State Bar of Nevada for
reinstatement from disability inactive status.
21
22
23
24
25
1 Findings 1-11 were part of the October 26,2015 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Recommendation.
PAGE 3
820
4. On August 25,2015, a Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board heard
2
evidence on his application.
5. Respondent testified and brought documentary evidence regarding his work to reduce or
4
6
7
eliminate his addiction-related behaviors, re-establish family and community relationships and
minimize the personal triggers that had led him to act on his addictions.
6. He also brought witness testimony in-person and telephonically regarding his current
sobriety, his involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous (hereinafter "AA") and completion of 11 of
the 12 "steps" of the AA program, and his attempts to address his emotional and physical health,
10
11
take responsibility for his actions and reduce situational stressors.
12
7. Almost universally, witnesses offered that Respondent has been sincere in his work with
13
AA and has had successes, but that his recovery is in its early stages, and Respondent must be
14
diligent to maintain his sobriety, reduce his compulsive response to stress and curb his tendency
15
toward manic, voluminous and/or hostile oral and written communications.

16
17
8. In particular, Dr. Nielson's testing revealed Respondent's "dependent personality
18
disorder" and addictions; however, the psychiatrist testified that Respondent had made great
19
efforts to take control of his life, and to remove the impediments to his practice. However, the
20
doctor emphasized that to re-shape these lifelong patterns, Respondent will require assistance,
21
and that his efforts and modifications were somewhat early in the process to allow unsupervised
22
23
practice.
24
9. At the conclusion of its initial deliberations, the panel requested additional information
25
from Respondent, which Panel Chair Jenkins received via email the next day, on August 26,2015.
PAGE 4
821
10. On September 22, 2015, the Panel resumed the hearing, considered the additional
2
information and continued its deliberations.
11. On September 22, 2015, the Panel unanimously found that Respondent's disability had
4
5
6
7
been removed and that he should be returned to active status, but must actively and persistently
pursue and maintain his recovery to remove the behaviors that caused his disability.
12. Unbeknownst to the Panel, on August 27,2015, Respondent filed a Petition for Rehearing,
or Motion to Set Aside Order Placing on Disability Inactive Status Where no Hearing was
Afforded Prior Thereto, with the Nevada Supreme Court, (the "Petition").
10
11
13. The Petition sought to have the Nevada Supreme Court reverse its order placing
12
Respondent on disability inactive status, which had initially formed the basis for this Panel's
13
hearing held just two days before the filing.
14
14. Respondent's certificate of service for the Petition stated that he had "mailed and or
15
emailed" a copy to State Bar of Nevada, David Clark, Esq., Bar Counsel. Transcript of the
16
17
Proceedings, January 6,2016, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 1 thereto. Respondent testified that he thought
18
he only emailedthePetitiontoMr.Clark.buthadnotmailedservicetotheStateBaroffice.ld.
19
at 22:10-23:24.
20
15. When Respondent sent the service email to Mr. Clark, he was aware that Mr. Clark was
21
no longer employed by the State Bar of Nevada as Bar Counsel. See id. at 43:10-12.
22
23
16. On September 12,2015, Respondent emailed a "courtesy electronic copy" of the Petition
24
to Mr. Clark; former Assistant Bar Counsel in Reno, Patrick King; and Assistant Bar Counsel
25
Phillip Pattee. Transcript of the Proceedings, January 6, 2016, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 6 thereto.
PAGE 5
822
Respondent testified that he emailed those attorneys, and not current Assistant Bar Counsel in
2
Reno, R. Kait Flocchini, because they were listed, but she was not listed, as counsel of record in
the appellate matter.

4
17. When Respondent sent the September 12, 2015 emails, he was aware that Patrick King
was no longer employed by the State Bar of Nevada as an Assistant Bar Counsel. Transcript of
the Proceedings, January 6, 2016, at 18:14-23.
18. On September 21, 2015, Respondent filed a Supplemental Petition for Rehearing
(hereinafter "the Supplement") with the Nevada Supreme Court. Transcript of the Proceedings,
10
11
January 6, 2016, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 7 thereto. Respondent emailed a "courtesy copy" of the
12
Supplement to the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court, Assistant Bar Counsel
13
Phillip Pattee, and Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board Chair Doug Rands. Transcript of the
14
Proceedings, January 6,2016, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 8 thereto.
15
19. Respondent testified that he believed filing the Petition and Supplement with the Nevada
16
17
Supreme Court after this Panel held a hearing on whether he should be reinstated to active status
18
was appropriate advocacy. He viewed several ofthe Panel's comments in the hearing as positive.
19
See id. at 65: 15-66: 1. Respondent hoped to leverage those positive comments and asked the
20
Supreme Court to rely on excerpts from the transcript of the August 26,2015 hearing as a basis
21
to reconsider "its original act" placing him on disability inactive status. See id. at 63 :22-64:6.
22
23
20. Respondent also testified that he did not expect the Nevada Supreme Court to grant his
24
Petition; but that he filed the Petition and Supplement "as a matter of self-respect." See id. at
25
64:25-65:5.
PAGE 6
823
21. Respondent testified that he believed it would be appropriate advocacy to not provide
2
another counsel with notice of filing in which she would be interested because "his client would
not want it" and technically it was not required by the applicable rules. See id. at 62:15-63:10.
4
22. Respondent testified that prior to filing the Petition he "might not have" consulted with
5
6
any attorney or even one of the attorney mentors the panel had asked him to identify as a practice
resource as a condition of reinstatement. Transcript of the Proceedings, January 6, 2016, at 15:2-
7.
23. Finally, the Panel is concerned by Respondent's attempt at the hearing to invoke the
10
11
12
attorney-client privilege in response to a Panel member's query about his reason for sending or
not sending an email toAssistantBarCounseIFlocchini.Seeid.at 32:4-24.
13
14
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Panel hereby issues the following
15
Conclusions of Law:
16
17
1. The Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and the
18
subject matter of these proceedings pursuant to SCR 99.
19
2. Venue is proper in Washoe County Nevada.
20
3. Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the disability that caused
21
him to be placed on disability inactive status has been removed and that he is fit to return to the
22
23
practice oflaw in Nevada. SCR 117(4).
24
4. The Panel hereby finds that the foregoing Findings of Fact prove by clear and convincing
25
evidence that Respondent's disability which caused him to be placed on disability inactive status
PAGE 7
824
has been abated for a period. However, without a comprehensive plan to provide reality checks
2
and balance in his law practice and without adequate support systems to keep Respondent in an
environment offering minimal stress and reduced personal triggers, and which offers significant
4
5
6
7
structure and support, Respondent might return to the addictions and behaviors that caused him
to be placed on disability inactive status.
5. Despite Respondent's progress, the Panel also hereby finds that the foregoing Findings
of Fact show that Respondent has failed to meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he currently is fit to return to the practice of law. Respondent's actions after the
10
11
August 26, 2015 hearing indicate that he continues to exhibit poor judgment and improper
12
advocacy similar to that in which he engaged prior to being placed on disability inactive status.
13
Two days after this Panel held its hearing on Respondent's Petition for Reinstatement,
14
Respondent chose to file the Petition and Supplement with the Nevada Supreme Court without
15
an expectation of success.
Respondent attempted to use this Panel's preliminary hearing
16
17
transcript - before the Panel issued its final decision - to influence the Nevada Supreme Court
Respondent chose to serve these filings, both officially and as a
18
to alter its prior ruling.
19
"courtesy", on attorneys that he knew were not employed by the State Bar of Nevada, but did not
20
even serve a "courtesy" copy on the attorney at the State Bar of Nevada with whom he had the
21
most recent contact. Respondent admits that his actions were a result of his impatience with the
22
23
process and that they were made without significant consultation with others who are more
24
experienced in the practice of law. These actions show that Respondent is not yet prepared to
25
maintain the high standard of integrity necessary for our profession.

PAGE 8
825
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings ofF act and Conclusions of Law, the Panel hereby revoke
the recommendation issued on October 26, 2015 and recommends that:

4
Respondent remain on disability inactive status.
7
8
Dated this '"
(ii,t"
ofJanuary, 2016.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAGE 9
826
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to deny Petition
for Reinstatement to Active Status Following a Period of Disability Inactive
Status were placed in a sealed envelope and sent by first class mail from Reno,
Nevada, postage fully prepaid thereon for first class regular mail addressed to:
7
8
9
Zachary Coughlin
945 W. 12th Street
Reno,~ 89503
And served electr~nically to zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
_d
10
DATED this ~y of February, 2016.
11
12
Laura Peters, an employee of the State

Bar of Nevada
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
827
1
2
3 STATE BAR OF NEVADA
4 NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD
5
6
7 IN RE: )
8 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ., ) Case No. RI 15-0804
9 )
10 ===================================================
11
12
13 REINSTATEMENT HEARING
14 Tuesday, August 25th, 2015
15 Reno, Nevada
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Job No. 255647
23
24 Reported by: CAROL HUMMEL, RPR, CCR #340
Transcription --- Computer --25
828

Page 2
1
2
3
4

5

6

7

8
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Craig Denney, Esq.
Bruce C. Hahn, Esq.
9 ALSO PRESENT:
R. Kait Flocchini
10 Deputy Bar Counsel
11
12 Respondent
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Litigation Services | 1.800.330.1112

829

Page 3
1
I N D E X
2
3 PETITIONER'S WITNESSES: DE
Charles McGee 22
4
Earl Nielsen 34
5
Miles Warsh 70
6
Mary Barker 87
7
Timothy Coughlin 96
8
Zachary Coughlin
9
CE RDE RCE
55 66
73 84
91 95
149
10 DEFENSE WITNESS:
NONE
11
12
13
14 E X H I B I T S
15
Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21 marked
18
19
STATE BAR EXHIBITS:
20 A - Marked and admitted into evidence.
21
22
23
24
25

830

Page 4
1 -oOo2 RENO, NEVADA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 25TH, 2015; 8:38 A.M.

3 -oOo4
5 MS. JENKINS: This is the time and place set
6 for a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing regarding
7 the reinstatement, or possible reinstatement of Zachary B.
8 Coughlin, State Bar number 9473.
9 It is August 25th, 2015, at approximately 8:38
10 A.M. I have never started a hearing on time in my life,
11 and I'm really working on that, but I haven't quite gotten
12 there yet.
13 This is Case Number RI 15-0804.
14 Are the parties ready to proceed?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
16 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin says yes.
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. Thank you.
18 MS. JENKINS: Just as a matter of procedure,
19 we had a prehearing conference last week by telephone. At
20 that time I denied Mr. Coughlin's motion for change of
21 venue to southern Nevada.
22 Mr. Coughlin was placed on disability inactive
23 status in northern Nevada. He practiced in northern
24 Nevada. As a result he maintains the venue for this
25 matter here in northern Nevada, mostly because the panel

831

Page 5
1 had already been appointed, and I felt that all of those

3 We also at the status conference -- we did a
4 status conference earlier in the matter where I offered
5 the parties the ability to do peremptory challenges.
6 Because of the nature of this matter I thought that was
7 appropriate. Not typical in a reinstatement hearing, but
8 we're all here for the interest of justice and fairness
9 and what have you. And so this designation of panel
11 I understand that just this morning at
12 approximately 8:10 Mr. Coughlin has served each of the
13 panel members with a rather lengthy, over 500-page
15 received because, of course, I was already here.
16 I haven't had an opportunity to read that, and
18 either in transit or what have you. So I don't know
20 time.
21 In the interest of fairness, Ms. Flocchini
24 Would you like to at this time make an

YVer1f
832

Page 6
1 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor.

2 Good morning, panel. Thank you for being
5 strategy.
6 What you got last week from me basically
7 arguing, well, this is a disability reinstatement hearing,
8 not a misconduct reinstatement hearing was one tack.

13 So what was missing from the Bar's prehearing
18 Based on our review of all the documents on
20 this panel certainly was entitled to everything the Nevada
22 So the length of it is maybe a little

YVer1f
833

Page 7
1 Then the exhibits attached thereto are

7 which, my understanding, amounted to setting aside an
8 attorney fee award. These were ones referenced in the SCR
9 117 petition.
10 So I apologize for not getting that to the
19 extent.
20 But I think just in the spirit of cooperation
21 with the Bar it makes a lot more sense to just address
25 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.

YVer1f
834

Page 8
1 Ms. Flocchini.
2 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar appreciates the
13 And therefore the panel should consider
16 To the extent that there is a substantial
20 extent that those are important, we can make copies of
23 I just flipped through the supplemental
24 prehearing brief. Some of this I recognize, some I don't.
25 To the extent that there's exhibits attached that

YVer1f
835

Page 9

4 prehearing brief.
5 I think at this point, because of the
7 prehearing brief is to give a synopsis to the panel, to
8 the parties, about what's going to be happening. I think
10 And to the extent that Mr. Coughlin can address what's in
14 panel.
15 MS. JENKINS: Any rebuttal to Ms. Flocchini's
16 statement?
17 MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. Just perhaps it would be
19 prehearing brief.
20 MS. JENKINS: Before we do that. Let's just
23 MR. COUGHLIN: I think it would just be

YVer1f
836

Page 10

2 laws cited there which basically is just from CJS's review
5 me understand what to address.
6 With respect to why should the exhibits be
10 stuff. So I think -- I don't believe a decision is going
16 A lot of work went into that with respect to
18 Bar some time in terms of producing the record, forwarding
19 the record on to the Nevada Supreme Court should that need
20 to take place.
21 The underlying thing is I think it's just
22 stuff the panel would want. I think the panel -- if I was
23 on the panel I would want everything within the disability
24 case.
25 MS. JENKINS: I have what I need. Thank you.

YVer1f
837

Page 11
1 Mr. Coughlin, during our telephone conference

2 last week I asked the State Bar and the Respondent
4 hearing today.
5 My understanding is that the materials you
9 correct?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: (Nonverbal response.)
11 MS. JENKINS: Were those provided to the State
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. All of them were
17 regard.
18 But I would reference DRP, just in the spirit
20 says, I believe, the prehearing packet to be served on the
25 try to make as much use of this precious time for a panel

YVer1f
838

Page 12
1 that's volunteer -2 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, my concern is that

5 at that and studying it and preparing for this hearing.
6 You may not be aware that regularly decisions
10 time to consider 500 pages of material today.
11 It is troubling to me that you chose to change
12 your approach so late in the game. This circumstance
16 waiting for the hearing to happen is just -- it's a very
18 I believe that it was clear to both the State
19 Bar and to you during our telephone conference that
22 we could stipulate to the entry of evidence prior to
23 getting here. And I'm very, very disturbed that that
24 didn't happen.
25 So we're going to be wasting some time today.

YVer1f
839

Page 13

5 I am not going to rule about the admissibility
11 then provide copies to this panel. We're not going to be
13 If you don't have hard copies, I'm certain
14 that Ms. Peters will be able to make a reasonable number
15 of copies for you. I'm not talking about reproducing 500
16 pages five or six times, because the record needs one as
20 I would like to move forward with the hearing
24 MS. FLOCCHINI: Nothing that I can think of.
25 Thank you.

YVer1f
840

Page 14
1 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin?

2 MR. COUGHLIN: Nothing.
3 MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
4 Then I would like to ask the panel to
6 left.
7 MR. DENNEY: Good morning. I'm Craig Denney.
8 MS. BRETERNITZ: Marilee Breternitz.
9 MR. LOW: Keegan Low.
10 MR. FURMAN: George Furman.
11 MS. JENKINS: I'm Caren Jenkins, and I'm the
12 chair.
13 Counsel are present. Mr. Coughlin, the
18 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, please.
19 Do we need to swear Mr. Coughlin or is he here
20 as an attorney?
21 MS. FLOCCHINI: You're representing yourself.
25 oath. I'm sure Mr. Coughlin is going to be forthwith with

YVer1f
841

Page 15
1 the panel.
2 MS. JENKINS: Do you have an objection,
3 Mr. Coughlin?
4 MR. COUGHLIN: No.
5 (The oath was administered to
6 Mr. Coughlin.)
7 MS. JENKINS: Please be seated.
8 MR. COUGHLIN: I appreciate the panel being
12 disability reinstatement hearing, to whatever extent those
13 are different.
14 What I filed last week on the 21st needs more
18 With SCR 116.2 spelling out some standards
21 disability statement context, the rule is SCR 117.4 which

YVer1f
842

Page 16
1 Where I got a bit caught up was in that fit to

6 that probably does include character, and probably would
10 Regardless, I see this as an opportunity, a
16 But I think it would be foolish for me not to
19 intend to do that today by -20 Well, first I intend to address the fact I'm

YVer1f
843

Page 17

5 After that, meeting the fitness prong showing
8 There might be other stuff that will be worthwhile
11 economy.
12 It's interesting to note the disability
14 believe that's about 38 months ago. There was some things
20 But I think I'm not conceding the point on
21 appeal, but I want to use this hearing as well as
22 possible.
23 Judge McGee will also be testifying, the
25 testify, whether as to fitness or disability being

YVer1f
844

Page 18
1 removed.
2 And then I'll put on evidence related to
3 showing current competence and learning of the law.
4 But it seems to me the bulk of the time should
7 of what it would like me to focus on, I certainly will.
8 But from my review of the case law, addressing
13 The majority of it, if not all of it, is just
17 case law that supports doing that, looking beyond the
20 But the underlying sentiment is just that I
21 was wrong. I was not well. Kind of a combination of
23 responsibility here, and I was not behaving appropriately,

YVer1f
845

Page 19

2 Thank you.
3 MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you for your time here
5 The panel has been provided with a copy of
12 The focus on fitness is appropriate in this
15 Mr. Coughlin that we're not prepared at this time to
20 At this point the State Bar is not supporting
24 And the State Bar's recommendation or the

YVer1f
846

Page 20
1 that the panel hold the matter in abeyance for six months,
8 law.
9 Our request, or our recommendation, is based
10 on, will be based on the brevity of Mr. Coughlin's
11 compliance with Dr. Nielsen's recommendation. And the
13 disability.
14 Also the anticipated issues with starting up
17 the State Bar.
18 And then thirdly, the State Bar recognizes
25 And recognizing that perhaps that's longer than is

YVer1f
847

Page 21
1 necessary, perhaps, that's why we would request that the

5 basis for returning to the practice of law.
6 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, presentation of
7 evidence.
8 MR. COUGHLIN: I would first like to put on
9 some witnesses. If Judge McGee would like to go first.
10 would like to do that unless you would like to hear the

11 doctor's testimony.
12 I will call Judge McGee.
13 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, was this witness
16 MS. JENKINS: Objection?
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: I am considering the
18 representation that Judge McGee was disclosed. I believe
19 that Judge McGee may have been referenced in conversation.
21 testimony today.
22 But I wanted to give some input on the order
24 that Dr. Nielsen was available, prepared to be available
25 from 8:30 until 10:00, and that he will not be available

YVer1f
848

Page 22
1 after 10:00 o'clock. So I wanted to make sure that that

3 CHARLES McGEE
4 called as a witness in said case,
5 having been first duly sworn, was
6 examined and testified as follows:
7
8 THE WITNESS: I may be very, very brief,
11 The reason that I put this judicial
18 recently made.
19 So if he wants me to limit my testimony to
20 just character testimony, then I will say a few words, and
22 MS. JENKINS: Would you please identify
24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Charles M. McGee.
25 And I live at 4930 Turning Leaf Way in Reno, Nevada. I've

YVer1f
849

Page 23

2 years.
3 May I go ahead?
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. Unless you
8 THE WITNESS: I'll do that.
9 MR. COUGHLIN: For whatever purpose.
10 THE WITNESS: It's really interesting for me
15 Let me state briefly my qualifications.
16 Is this a confidential hearing?
17 MS. JENKINS: No.
18 Ms. Flocchini, would you like to respond to
19 that?
20 THE WITNESS: Is this a public hearing?
21 MS. JENKINS: It is a public hearing. The
22 public is invited to attend the hearing, and the record, I
23 don't believe, is sealed in any way. But depending on

YVer1f
850

Page 24
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you for that guidance.

2 There is no secret that 12 years ago I was
5 one of the venues in which I was able to observe Zach.
6 I've read Dr. Nielsen's report. I've talked
10 I have -- I don't envy your position, because
16 I am something of a pseudopsycho
19 parts of the addiction world because of my personal
20 experience, and because of my studies.
21 This 90 days they talk about, for example, has
23 brain chemistry begins to change. And my anecdotal
24 experience anyway is it's about a year for somebody who is
25 addicted to a substance. You can't state with any

YVer1f
851

Page 25

2 Zach is a brilliant young man as the State
7 a time.
8 But on top of that, he's had mental health
11 considered in isolation would probably warrant more than
14 or something like that.
15 Taken together collectively, this man, and I'm
16 saying this to you in your face, acted like a jerk.
18 and arrogant he was before these lower court judges as if
20 And that to me is a sign of the problem that
23 of a mood swing disorder, but he got a little beyond
24 himself.
25 Now, those are the caution flags that I think

YVer1f
852

Page 26

3 there's a monitoring program that is offered by the State
8 And let me tell you, I think a biased warning
9 with some scientific basis. More and more now they're
13 the synaptic clef. And it literally after a while kind of
16 beyond that because I'm not a psychiatrist or a chemist or
18 But I applaud Zach Coughlin because for years
21 anymore. I think he's honest. I think he recognized what
22 a jerk he was.
23 I think if he could -- in the 12-step program
24 we're supposed to make amends. And whatever way he can do

YVer1f
853

Page 27

2 step we call it.
3 But the overall prognosis is excellent after
4 he had this kind of epiphany. And I can't describe it in
7 So, to me, you should start out, whether it's
8 now or a month from now or three months from now, or even
15 professional.
16 Then I don't think you need to necessarily
24 That's pretty much all I have to say. I'm
25 speaking with the eye of my heart. And I care for him.

YVer1f
854

Page 28

3 a little bit more tense.
4 And I'm sorry if I haven't been here to just
9 room loves.
10 That's all I have to say.
11 MS. JENKINS: Any other questions for the
12 witness?
13 MR. COUGHLIN: No, your Honor.
14 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini?
15 MS. FLOCCHINI: No, thank you.
16 MS. JENKINS: The panel?
17 MR. FURMAN: None.
18 MR. LOW: Good morning, Judge McGee. I'm
20 THE WITNESS: Of course.
21 MR. LOW: In the packet I was provided I did
23 feel like I need a copy of that at my earliest ability to
24 have one, because I need to see what was in that report.
25 But I will talk to you about -- you have some

YVer1f
855

Page 29
1 familiarity with the Petitioner in the recovery program,

2 you've indicated?
3 THE WITNESS: I do.
4 MR. LOW: Are you his sponsor?
5 THE WITNESS: I am not.
6 MR. LOW: Do you know who his sponsor is? And
8 THE WITNESS: I think so. But I think that's
9 information that I would like to maintain confidentiality
10 for.
11 MR. LOW: I don't need any identity.
12 To your knowledge, does the Petitioner have a
13 sponsor?
14 THE WITNESS: I think so. But I'm not sure.
18 MR. LOW: You're talking about the Petitioner?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
20 MR. LOW: All right.
21 THE WITNESS: There was a gap in there.
22 don't know what his relationship with a sponsor might have

24 MR. LOW: Do you have any information about

YVer1f
856

Page 30
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, with qualifications.

5 MR. LOW: There's obviously a determination of
6 the quality of recovery -7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
8 MR. LOW: -- that's he's experiencing.
9 Do you have information or knowledge about how
11 THE WITNESS: I know he's there every time I'm
14 And if I were in your shoes, I would make
16 times a week.
17 Ironically, you might even ask his dad that
19 MR. LOW: I think that's all I have. Thank
20 you.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
22 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Denney?
23 MR. DENNEY: I have no questions.
24 MS. JENKINS: Judge McGee, when was the last
25 time you were at a meeting where Zach Coughlin was in

YVer1f
857

Page 31
1 attendance?
2 THE WITNESS: Three weeks ago.
3 MS. JENKINS: You mentioned that he's been
4 away.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 MS. JENKINS: How long ago did he leave? And
7 how long ago did he return? That you're aware of.
8 THE WITNESS: I'm not completely sure, because
14 So I know there was a hiatus where he was
17 will.
18 What I saw in the meeting three weeks ago is a
21 cried.
22 MS. JENKINS: How long ago did you meet
23 Mr. Coughlin?
24 THE WITNESS: Probably six years ago, seven

YVer1f
858

Page 32

4 That's part of the reason for my hesitation as
6 MS. JENKINS: Any other questions from the
7 panel?
8 MR. DENNEY: None.
9 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Judge.
10 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can.
11 MS. JENKINS: Please, go ahead.
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14 Q Your Honor, if I can just ask you. You
15 referenced six years ago. I believe at the meeting you're
18 A That's probably right.
19 Q That's my recollection.
20 A I stand corrected. It probably has been that
21 long. I'm not real good on time. And I apologize to you.
22 It probably has been at least ten years.
23 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Judge McGee.
24 THE WITNESS: May I be excused?
25 MS. JENKINS: You are excused. Thank you for

YVer1f
859

Page 33
1 being here.
2 Is it time for Dr. Nielsen? Get the telephone
3 set up, please.
4 (Recess taken.)
5 MS. JENKINS: I understand, we have a
7 himself.
8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't understand
9 that.
10 MS. JENKINS: Would you identify yourself for
12 THE WITNESS: My name is Earl S. Nielsen,
14 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask the court
16 stand, please, and raise your right hand.
17 (The oath was administered
18 telephonically to the witness.)
19 MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, my name is Caren
22 reviewed your report, either the one you did initially or
25 Any references to your reports are just fine,

YVer1f
860

Page 34
1 but we want you to testify from your knowledge rather than

3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin.
5 EARL NIELSEN
10 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11 Q Good morning, Dr. Nielsen. Thank you for
13 A You're welcome.
14 Q Dr. Nielsen, can you describe the contents of
17 A Yes. Although it's not on the records in
19 Q Dr. Nielsen, if I can just interject quickly.
20 Including reference to recovery efforts by the Petitioner
21 that may have been present with respect to substance abuse
22 recovery.
23 Please go ahead, sir.
24 A Okay. I was originally asked to conduct a

YVer1f
861

Page 35

3 So I met with Mr. Coughlin in July of 2014 and
4 conducted a background, social history interview, and also
7 I was also surprised with the relatively
11 I also conducted psychological testing with
13 and the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory -14 THE REPORTER: He's breaking up.
15 MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, if you could speak
16 as loudly as you can without shouting. We're having a
18 THE WITNESS: I'm having that trouble too.
20 MS. JENKINS: If you would.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay. I was talking when you
22 said it, so I didn't hear you. I will try to speak more
24 MS. JENKINS: Great.
25 THE WITNESS: So in meeting with Mr. Coughlin,

YVer1f
862

Page 36

2 I was able to reach were that he was -- he was having some
4 in the past with other chemicals that seemed to have been
5 resolved. That he was mildly depressed, but a lot of that
7 difficulties with the Bar.
8 And I also diagnosed a dependent personality
10 longer standing.
11 What I recommended was that he seek counseling
14 And that he -- the other recommendation I made was that he
15 withdraw himself from the law and find what I call the
16 subsistence job where he could survive, but he needed to
18 supporting himself, get away from some of his dependency
19 issues.
20 And I also recommended that if possible he get
21 out of the area. Because I think there are too many
22 triggers around him in the Reno community, at least in
23 Washoe County.
24 I know that's a pretty brief summary of a
25 longer report. That's essentially what the report

YVer1f
863

Page 37
1 concluded.
2 I then received a phone call from Mr. Coughlin
3 in June of 2015 asking if I would review his progress and
4 be willing to write a letter to the Bar that describes my
5 observations. I agreed to do that, and I met with him, I
7 He supplied me with additional records. He
9 contact who had opportunity to observe him. I chose not
11 I did speak with Bill Martin, who is a marriage and family
12 therapist. I spoke with Dr. Hoar who is also a marriage
14 Coughlin, who is Mr. Coughlin's father. These are
15 people -- the first two he had been in counseling with in
16 San Diego.
17 The importance of speaking to his father is
18 that when I did the original report he was quite estranged
22 I evaluated him first. So his willingness to allow me to
23 speak to his father at this point allowed me a window that
24 I thought I needed.
25 So I was able to do those things, to review

YVer1f
864

Page 38

4 Based on my then contacts of Mr. Coughlin and
9 counseling in Reno, although that counseling was through
10 the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services. And in
14 had no means.
15 When he got to San Diego, I think his first
16 objective there was to apply for MediCal. And once
17 MediCal was approved, he was able then to get private
19 benefit than what he was receiving with NAMS.
20 I didn't have any contact with Mr. Coughlin
21 from at least August of 2014 until June of 2015. I didn't
25 But when I was able to see him in June, and

YVer1f
865

Page 39
1 review his records in July, I was convinced that he had

7 But the reports from the counselors were
10 for a way to blame your problems on somebody else.

12 By January of 2015, he finally appears to have
21 So the summary of my second letter is that I

YVer1f
866

Page 40
1 father and family had visited Mr. Coughlin in San Diego,

6 stepsister.
7 And so I thought that on a personal level was
9 At this point what I had said in my letter,
10 and it's certainly not up to me to make a decision whether
11 he is reinstated. But if he's reinstated at this point, I
13 reentry for Mr. Coughlin, including random alcohol
16 reports to the Bar, and engage in serious counseling with
17 a qualified counselor.
18 It doesn't have to be a psychologist. The
21 enough to keep Mr. Coughlin focused on his needs to
22 improve and his own responsibilities.
23 So when he had chosen to move to San Diego, in

YVer1f
867

Page 41
2 In addition to monitoring those things, I
6 character.
7 So that's how I summarize my experience with
8 Mr. Coughlin. Do you need more?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: I have a couple quick
11 questions.
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
13 Q Dr. Nielsen, were you aware that the first two
14 arrests at issue in the disability petition occurred
15 within a couple weeks of myself, the Petitioner, abruptly
16 ceasing to take both Adderall and Wellbutrin, and instead
17 dealing with the effects of coming off of those by
18 relapsing on dextromethorphan or over-the-counter cough
19 medication?
20 A I was aware of that, yes.
21 Q Do you see any -- did you see that as
24 A I think there's some important connection.

YVer1f
868

Page 42

5 And so it is a combination of alcohol, of
9 The arrests themselves were further stressors.
15 That actually, from my point of view, sets -16 that's what was going on at that point in time. Not at
21 When I look at that a year later, that's

YVer1f
869

Page 43
1 Q Or by ingesting massive quantities of a

3 A Well, again, I think that was your solution at
6 Q Okay. So Dr. Nielsen, getting into mitigation
7 aspects. All the misconduct or misbehavior detailed in
8 the disability petition, in your opinion would you say
9 that there was an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive
10 on the Petitioner's part exhibited in all that behavior,
11 but rather just such being symptomatic of a level of
12 dysfunction in the Petitioner's life?
13 A I don't know how to answer that. In all
14 honestly, I think you were scrambling, and I think you
15 were grasping at whatever you could. Those things tended
16 to be ineffective.
17 I don't know about motive. I think your
18 motive at the time was survival. Your choice of solution
19 was poor.
20 Q To compare that to somebody who is functioning
21 at a fairly high level, who is convicted of theft, would
22 you say that might exhibit more of a dishonest or selfish
23 motive than one of Petitioner's circumstances at the time,
24 whereas you say he was just scrambling to survive?
25 A Yes. Again, I think the theft wasn't -- from

YVer1f
870

Page 44
1 what I understand, I think one of the thefts was I think

6 I don't want to overdo this. I have a limited
8 of the crimes. As I look at the pattern, I saw all of it
11 And so again it's that conflagration of events
13 go back to my original report. I don't think you have an
15 sociopath. You weren't choosing to do those things just
18 Q Could you say the Petitioner throughout the
19 period of time in which the various events detailed in the
20 petition occurred, would you say the Petitioner was going
22 A Yes.
23 Q Would you say throughout that same period the

YVer1f
871

Page 45
1 A Well, I did believe there was an alcohol

3 of the factors.
4 I also think there was mental and emotional
11 Q Would you say the chemical dependency or
13 A I don't think I can make a causal statement.
16 Q Are you aware that the standards for
17 mitigation in Nevada to, if you will, be more forgiving or
18 have more understanding of one's misconduct include a
19 prong which asks whether or not the chemical dependency or
20 mental illness caused the misconduct? And if that be
21 established, then some more mitigation would be found?
22 A Again, I don't have the statute in front of
23 me, so I don't have that standard here. I do believe that

YVer1f
872

Page 46

2 an attorney.
3 Q Okay.
4 A I also said that I did believe with adequate
10 where you were able to function independently and might be
12 The causal language in the standard, I can
14 said I was at the moment being cautious about the causal
16 Q Doctor, the third prong in the SCR 105.2.(i)
19 Would you say on Prong 3, the Respondent's
20 recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability
23 A Yes.
24 Q Do you find that to be the case here?
25 A That's my understanding. One of the things I

YVer1f
873

Page 47

4 I do understand that you have been alcohol
5 free for a period of time, and I think that counts.

7 your own ship, and that counts. So I'm willing to say
10 But that's why I recommended relatively strict
13 alcohol at this point. You're not under the influence of
15 are enough improved that I think you can stand on your own
16 two feet.
17 So yes, I think that you have met that
19 Q So did you find that to be the case with
21 disability?
22 A Yes. I think that you have been away from the

YVer1f
874

Page 48
1 counseling things that I recommended. And I do believe by

5 fight back.
6 So yes, I think in my view you have met the
7 rehabilitative standard, as I said. And I think in
10 But you've been able now to sustain the pattern for many
11 months, and I think that counts.
12 Q Do you find it significant that the Petitioner
13 here has ceased taking Adderall?
14 A I think Adderall has good and bad effects.
15 And it's prescribed medication, prescribed for a reason,
16 and it's effective for what it's used for. However, it's
20 For you to have stopped the Adderall and found
22 from the past -- without the medication is, again, a
23 tribute to you efforts.
24 Adderall might make your life easier, but it

YVer1f
875

Page 49
1 it.
2 Q Do you think the use of Adderall here might
6 A I think that's possible. The effect of
10 hyperactive and hostile and use poor judgment.
11 Adderall doesn't usually stimulate that set of
13 But if you begin to add Adderall to dextromethorphan or
15 predict.
16 So there has been an element in your -- when
17 you seem to be overly stressed and begin making poor
18 judgments, you tend to exacerbate that with a hyperactive
19 display or almost a hypomanic display. And it's again my
20 reason for arguing Adderall probably isn't a drug of
22 own. You don't need the alcohol, and I think you'll find
24 Q Doctor, the fourth prong of that mitigation
25 analysis, do you find that the recovery arrested

YVer1f
876

Page 50

2 unlikely here?
3 A Well, I think based on your recovery efforts
10 As I think you're aware, when we talk about
14 do, and you've been consistent, and you've been persistent
15 with that.
16 I think that if you find yourself getting
18 talk to yourself about that. Okay. What's going on here?
19 What am I doing? But I don't think you need the
20 medication.
21 Since you've stopped the medication and the

YVer1f
877

Page 51

2 Q On that note would you say the Petitioner has
5 A To the extent that you have made the effort to
11 Q Would you say that the Petitioner, when
14 A I think that's true.
15 Q Would you say that evidenced or was evidence
18 proceeding?
19 A As far as my role goes, yes.
20 Q Other than the misconduct at issue, are you
22 reputation?
23 A I'm not sure about that, Mr. Coughlin. With

YVer1f
878

Page 52
1 your actual character other than the observations that are

5 Q Doctor, would you say in your review of the
10 rights to counsel issues and other various altruistic
11 pursuits
13 A I don't think I'm qualified to make that
14 statement. I'm not an attorney, and I'm not an actual
16 improvements that I see place you in a position where I
18 know. I don't have the capacity to evaluate your ability
20 I don't know -- frankly, I don't know enough
23 Q Would you say that you found yourself agreeing

YVer1f
879

Page 53
1 like?
2 A Again, you're asking me a question about a
6 Q Well, did you find yourself at various points
11 settings?
12 A I probably did that. And yes, I think there
16 Q To the extent that I would gather, and I think
17 you should, but you view yourself as having character, a
18 good character, would you say that the congruence of your
19 opinions and the Petitioner's opinions in those various
20 contexts could lend support for you to find the Petitioner
21 has character?
22 A Yes. I don't have a problem saying that you
25 my statement to the generality that I think without the

YVer1f
880

Page 54
1 alcohol and the Adderall and the high stress that you were
6 And so yes, I think that there's evidence that
8 Q Would you say that the Petitioner displayed
11 A I think that's more obvious today than it was
12 a year ago, yes.
13 Q Just to wind this down with respect to my
14 questions. Would you say the Petitioner is no longer
15 disabled?
16 A I think the Petitioner is no longer disabled.
17 Q Would you say the Petitioner is fit to
18 practice law?
19 A To the extent that I'm able, I think that, you
20 know, it's -- I don't see at this point an impediment in
21 your emotional or mental health or your general character
22 to prevent you from functioning as an attorney.
23 Q Would you say that -- okay.
24 Would you say the Petitioner has the requisite
25 competency and skill in the law at this time?

YVer1f
881

Page 55
1 MS. FLOCCHINI: Objection. Beyond the scope.

2 MS. JENKINS: Doctor, I'm going to sustain the
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have, your
7 Honor.
9 Ms. Flocchini, do you have questions for the
10 doctor?
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
13 Q I just have a few. Thank you for taking time
14 out of your vacation for us, Dr. Nielsen. I know
15 Mr. Coughlin greatly appreciates it and so does the State
16 Bar.
17 A Thank you. You're welcome.
18 Q I will try to keep my questions brief.
19 In your professional opinion, how long does it
20 take to establish a relationship with a therapist?
21 A A trusting relationship. It takes a long time
22 for the relationship to develop. To establish the
23 relationship probably takes a matter of weeks. I believe
24 in my own practice I have established pretty solid
25 relationships with people within three to six weeks.

YVer1f
882

Page 56
1 Q You indicated earlier that you have reviewed

2 documents that were provided by the medical providers,
5 A Correct.
6 Q And you also reviewed documents provided by
8 months; correct?
9 A Correct.
10 Q You indicated that you felt Dr. Hoar's methods
11 were very good. What about Dr Hoar's methods were you
13 head?
14 A Yes. Dr. Hoar specifically -- and, by the
15 way, I did speak with Mr. Martin and Dr. Hoar as well as
16 reading the records. Dr. Hoar's approach that she
17 described is a form of dielectric behavior therapy, and
18 also a newer form of therapy that is generally called
19 mindfulness, so it gets mixed up with some other things.
20 And those two types of therapy are really the
21 forefront of effective psychotherapy today. And so the
22 fact that Dr. Hoar practices those things and understands
23 what they are was meaningful to me as the direction
24 Mr. Coughlin needs to go. I am not available to take
25 Mr. Coughlin on as an individual client. But if I were,

YVer1f
883

Page 57

2 I don't mean anything negative about
3 Mr. Martin, but I think he's more traditional in his
6 Q How much concern does it cause you or raise in
9 A I don't really think he made the choice.
10 think, the way I understood it from Mr. Martin and

11 Dr. Hoar, Dr. Hoar is the one who discovered that they
12 were both billing MediCal, so she had contacted
13 Mr. Coughlin to say you established with Mr. Martin first,
14 one of us has to leave.
15 He was seeing Dr. Hoar only once a week and
17 decision to break away from it as a professional courtesy.
18 I didn't get the impression that it was something that
19 Mr. Coughlin chose.
20 On the other hand, as I said, I don't have
21 anything against Mr. Martin. I was more impressed with
24 She was very clear that she would continue

YVer1f
884

Page 58

2 relationship.
3 Q Thank you. You're aware that Mr. Coughlin
5 2015; correct?
6 A Yes, I'm aware of the dates, and initially
7 that concerned me. But what I realized later is that
10 MediCal, and that took three months. It takes three
12 As I said, I wish he had started sooner, but I
17 Q I appreciate that. Were you able to review
18 the medical records from NAMS, the Northern Nevada Adult
20 A Yes.
21 Q And so you saw in those medical records that
22 Mr. Coughlin was not receiving therapy services from NAMS
23 from approximately September of 2014, and then of course
24 he discontinued services when he moved to San Diego in
25 about January of 2015. You saw that; right?

YVer1f
885

Page 59
1 A Yes.
2 Q And does it cause you concern -- well, let me
3 ask you.
4 Have you read Mr. Martin's letter that was
6 recommendation from Mr. Martin?
7 A I did read that, yes.
8 Q Does it cause you concern that Mr. Martin
11 A That does raise concerns. And I would say
12 it's one of my motives for stating that I would be happier
14 I think Mr. Martin -- I think Mr. Martin is
15 involved in AA and sees that as a path, but rather he was
16 involved with someone who understands AA, but does
17 psychotherapy rather than leaning on the AA model, and I
18 think that's the difference between the two of those.
19 Q Are you aware that Mr. Coughlin has
20 represented that he's completed over a hundred hours of
21 continuing legal education between August 14th and August
22 19th?
23 A I am aware of that because you told me.
24 Q Yes. And that information had been provided
25 to the State Bar. How much of a concern does that raise

YVer1f
886

Page 60

2 while practicing?
3 A It doesn't. Again, I think it's evidence that
7 I don't know what he exactly did to get the
11 I don't know that he's spent exactly a hundred hours, but
12 he got credit for that.
13 I think it's a symptom of his style to try to
15 the last minute.
16 Q Does it cause you any concern as to whether or
18 will be able to maintain his emotional and mental
19 stability?
20 A Well, it's the reason I keep saying I think he
22 has a counselor as an anchor that he can speak to weekly
24 going. As long the alcohol and the Adderall don't get
25 back involved, I think he will be able to function fine.

YVer1f
887

Page 61

3 Q Are you aware of a report from a Dr. Hunter
5 A I don't recall that, no.
6 Q There was a report to the admissions
8 some emotional stability concerns with respect to
9 Mr. Coughlin, and that Dr. Hunter believed that to be a
10 symptom or that his behavior was a symptom of an
11 adjustment reaction in 2002.
12 Is that consistent with your understanding or
15 A Well, I don't know Dr. Hunter.
16 Q I appreciate that.
17 A I don't have the context. I don't have what
18 was going on at the time. But adjustment reaction is a
19 diagnosis used by many mental health practitioners
20 to basically say this is a relatively mild problem. It's
21 solvable. And they have to have a diagnosis for insurance
22 purposes.
23 Q Okay.
24 A And so, if you recall, it was an adjustment
25 reaction of what type? Was it -- whether it concerns

YVer1f
888

Page 62

2 be part of the context. Do you even know what Dr. Hunter
4 Q My understanding that Dr. Hunter is a
5 psychiatrist.
6 A Okay.
7 Q You're aware that Mr. Coughlin is currently in
9 A Yes. When I spoke with him he was in San
10 Diego.
11 Q Does it raise concern for you that
15 A Actually, I think the fact that Mr. Coughlin
19 I would want to be sure if he moves back to
22 Mr. Coughlin.
23 He recently got his law degree from Boyd in

YVer1f
889

Page 63
3 I would strongly encourage him to come back to
5 But I think in San Diego, like I said, he sort
12 So I think he has the social skills, and the
15 MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you for your time and
17 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
18 MS. JENKINS: Does the panel have any
20 MR. FURMAN: Dr. Nielsen, at a point you said
23 THE WITNESS: I don't know. He's been gone

YVer1f
890

Page 64

3 think they would welcome him back. So that's one of the
4 things that was here before that I wouldn't worry about as
5 much.
6 I know that he had some rather antagonistic
9 this, it's not really a professional thing. I would
16 MR. FURMAN: Thank you, Doctor.
17 MS. JENKINS: Other questions from panel
18 members?
19 MR. LOW: Dr. Nielsen, this is Keegan Low, one
21 I'm just trying to establish a timeline. You
23 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes. I don't have
25 the request of the Bar to conduct this evaluation in July,

YVer1f
891

Page 65
4 MR. LOW: And then I believe you testified
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct, June 26th.
8 MR. LOW: Did you see him between those two
9 dates?
10 THE WITNESS: No.
11 MR. LOW: From the history that you took at
14 THE WITNESS: Well, actually, I think he
15 had -- I think he had stopped multiple times. But I'm not
20 Again, I don't have any records here, and I
21 would have to go back and crosscheck that to see what's
22 written down.
23 MR. LOW: Do you have an understanding of

YVer1f
892

Page 66
1 THE WITNESS: I thought he was free from

3 time right now.
4 MR. LOW: The change in location appears to
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. I didn't say go to San
10 that.
11 MR. LOW: Thank you, Doctor.
13 MS. JENKINS: Other panel members?
14 Mr. Coughlin, of course you get the last word.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I just have a couple questions.
16 MS. JENKINS: Please.
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
19 Q If you were aware the Petitioner is taking
20 Wellbutrin, would you have any concern with that?
21 A No. Wellbutrin is an antidepressant. It's
22 inside the class of SSRIs. It's a relatively safe
23 medication, and it doesn't contribute to any of the side
24 effects that would be attributed to Adderall and Ritalin
25 or the stimulants.

YVer1f
893

Page 67
1 Q Is it your experience with on-line continuing

2 education courses that sometimes you'll listen to them,
3 and need to listen for a participation code, and that you
4 can do that for weeks, and then log on-line and type in
5 all those codes, but that doesn't necessarily mean you did
6 all those hours the day you typed in those codes and got
7 the certificates?
8 A Actually, in my profession I hadn't thought
12 credit. So yeah, that's a possibility I hadn't -- again,
13 you and I have never spoken about the credits, so I didn't
15 Q Was there any time that you felt Steve Harris
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: Objection. Relevance.
18 MS. JENKINS: Do you have a counter?
19 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, the doctor testified at
20 Steve Harris's hearing, and it might not be that relevant.
21 MS. JENKINS: Objection sustained.
22 No need to answer that question, Dr. Nielsen.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: That's all I have. Thank you,
25 Dr. Nielsen.

YVer1f
894

Page 68
1 MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, we appreciate your

2 time and energy today on your vacation, and the work that
4 Is there anything that you're aware of in your
6 longer true, as far as you know?
7 THE WITNESS: I don't know how to answer that.
9 to the next.
10 MS. JENKINS: I understand. That was a poorly
11 asked question.
12 When you wrote the first report, have you
14 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.
15 MS. JENKINS: When you wrote your follow-up
18 THE WITNESS: No, not that I know of.
19 MS. JENKINS: Great. Those are the answers
20 we're looking for.
21 Anything further, Counsel?
23 MS. FLOCCHINI: No.
24 MS. JENKINS: You are released to your

YVer1f
895

Page 69
1 Other witnesses?
2 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. If I can
4 MS. JENKINS: I think that's a grand idea.
5 Let's take five.
6 (Recess taken.)
7 MS. JENKINS: Let's go back on the record.
10 MR. COUGHLIN: If possible, I would like to
12 MS. JENKINS: You mean telephonically?
14 MS. FLOCCHINI: What's the name of that
15 person?
16 MR. COUGHLIN: Miles Warsh. W-a-r-s-h.
17 MS. JENKINS: Has that name been disclosed to
18 the other side?
20 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, any comments,
22 MS. FLOCCHINI: I don't remember the
24 MS. JENKINS: Thank you. There's the

YVer1f
896

Page 70

2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 (Telephone call placed.)
4 MR. COUGHLIN: You are on the record to

7 MILES WARSH
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION.
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
13 Q Thanks again, Miles, for making yourself
16 A My name is Miles, M-i-l-e-s. Warsh,
17 W-a-r-s-h.
18 Q And you live in San Diego?
19 A I do. San Diego, California.
20 Q And I will be referring to myself as the
22 Are you the Petitioner's sponsor in some
23 context?
24 A I am.
25 Q How long has that been the case?

YVer1f
897

Page 71
1 A Since the first or second week of January

2 2015.
3 Q Have you met approximately weekly for several
5 A I have.
6 Q Can you describe that?
7 A Yes. We get together, and we do step work
8 related to recovery. Read the big book, talk about what
10 Q Do you do that approximately a couple hours
12 A Yes.
13 Q Do you see the Petitioner at recovery meetings
14 regularly?
15 A Absolutely, yes. At least weekly.
16 Q Have you witnessed the Petitioner exhibiting
18 A Yes. Absolutely I have, yes.
19 Q Do you feel the Petitioner has good character?
20 A Yes. Yes, I do.
21 Q What's the Petitioner's reputation amongst
23 A Oh, within the recovery community Zach is a
25 Q Do you feel the Petitioner is disabled at this

YVer1f
898

Page 72

2 A No, I don't. I've seen, you know, an amazing
3 ability. I wouldn't see any reason for that judgment to
4 be made.
5 Q As far as you know, has the Petitioner
7 him?
8 A Yes. Absolutely clean and sober and working a
10 Q Do you feel the Petitioner is fit to practice
11 law?
12 A I do, yes, in my opinion. I think the
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Nothing further, your Honor.
15 Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
16 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. Is there
18 MS. JENKINS: Yes. Ms. Flocchini has a couple
20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Who am I speaking
21 with?
22 MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. My name is Caren
23 Jenkins. I'm the chair of a five-member panel meeting
24 today.
25 THE WITNESS: Hi, Caren.

YVer1f
899

Page 73
1 MS. JENKINS: Hello. Thank you for being

2 here.
4 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini is with the State
5 Bar of Nevada. She will cross-examine you. I will then
6 ask if the panel members have questions for you, then
7 we'll give Mr. Coughlin the last word.
9 CROSS-EXAMINATION
11 Q Good morning, Mr. Warsh. This is Kait
13 A Hi, Kait.
14 Q Mr. Warsh, are you an attorney?
15 A I am not.
16 Q Are you aware of the stressors that are
18 A Pardon me? I didn't hear your question.
19 Q Sure. I can repeat it.
20 Are you aware of the stressors that are
22 A No, I'm not. I don't practice law.
23 Q Is your general -- your impression of
25 your personal observations of his work in his recovery

YVer1f
900

Page 74
1 program?
2 A Yes.
3 Q But not on anything that you know about
5 A Well, again, I don't practice law. I own and
8 and cash flow. And I don't practice law, but, you know, I
10 amount of billable hours every day. I have daily, weekly,
11 monthly goals.
12 So I'm not saying that my business, my
13 businesses are in any way similar to a law practice, but I
14 think that Zach could do anything that I do. It's just my
15 opinion having gotten to know him very intimately and see
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: Those are all the questions
19 Mr. Warsh.
20 THE WITNESS: You're very welcome.
21 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, I'm going to start
23 You referred to one of the things that you do
25 including an activity called "reading the big book." What

YVer1f
901

Page 75
1 does that mean?

2 THE WITNESS: It's a book. The book is kind
7 successfully.
8 MS. JENKINS: Great. That's a nice synopsis.
9 You were asked whether the Petitioner has
10 shown any remorse for his actions, and your answer was
11 yes. Can you tell me what it is that you relied on to
12 come to that conclusion?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, we have personal, you
14 know, conversations and relations at an intimate level.
15 And he has shared with me, you know, a number of issues
16 that he had in the past, and legal problems, and all of -17 the sum of all of those things that's brought Mr. Coughlin
18 to sit in front of this panel today.
19 And, you know, we have looked at all of those
20 instances and situations and dug down into the how, what
21 and why of it. And he's incredibly like remorseful. And,
22 you know, he's looking to make amends for those things and
23 knows it's just not acceptable behavior.
24 MS. JENKINS: Great. And you also were asked
25 whether the Petitioner exhibits character. Well, that's a

YVer1f
902

Page 76

2 THE WITNESS: It is.
3 MS. JENKINS: Can you give me an idea of how
5 THE WITNESS: I can tell you exactly why.
6 MS. JENKINS: Great.
7 THE WITNESS: You know the program that we
10 and their defects and their poor behavior. And frankly,
13 And Mr. Coughlin shows up. He is incredibly
14 honest. He's been very remorseful, in my opinion. I've
15 done this work with a lot of men over a number of years,
17 part in these situations which, as he's identified, has
19 And it takes, you know, it takes someone of
20 character to be willing to look at themselves with gut
24 participates in groups that I belong to. He has made
25 friends in my experience with him. He is welcome and

YVer1f
903

Page 77
1 invited to my home for family functions. We love and

2 adore Zach in our life.
3 MS. JENKINS: Similarly -- this is the last
4 one. When you were asked whether Mr. Coughlin had or
7 But -8 THE WITNESS: I think I was asked -- and
10 MS. JENKINS: Go ahead.
11 THE WITNESS: I think I was asked if I would
12 consider him to be disabled.
13 MS. JENKINS: Good. Are you aware -14 THE WITNESS: I'm not a legal or mental health
15 professional.
16 MS. JENKINS: Fair enough. Are you aware of
17 the basis for Mr. Coughlin's move to inactive status based
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. I've actually seen all of
21 I'm aware of whatever information and evidence is in front
22 of you.
23 MS. JENKINS: As a friend of Mr. Coughlin, and
24 a person who is intimately involved in his life, how are
25 his behaviors, his attitude, his demeanor different now,

YVer1f
904

Page 78

2 to the State Bar when he was moved to inactive status?
3 THE WITNESS: You know, when I first met Zach,

12 And the work that we do enables us to have our
17 didn't seem to consider, you know, what was even going on
20 Zach is very present and engaging, and he
25 Again, I'm not an attorney or a mental health

YVer1f
905

Page 79

2 in Mr. Coughlin over the last six months, especially in
6 MS. JENKINS: One final question from me,
9 are.
11 MS. JENKINS: First. How many times or how
13 experience?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, in my experience I have
17 remember the absolute number. I can tell you that I
21 developer, another fella who when I first met him lived in
22 the bushes outside of a church where we attended a meeting
24 contractor's license and -25 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, would you say there

YVer1f
906

Page 80
2 sponsor of?
3 THE WITNESS: I've clearly attempted to take
5 working with four guys, Mr. Coughlin included right now,
6 and have several -- I don't know. I mean, yes.
7 MS. JENKINS: You're experienced in this
9 THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
10 MS. JENKINS: You're experienced in this
11 process?
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I have a sponsor, and I
13 continually work the steps. So I've had a lineage
15 and make my life happily and usefully whole, and I get to
16 share that with Mr. Coughlin.
17 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, I'm going to assume
19 friend and your colleague Mr. Coughlin in this matter -20 THE WITNESS: Anything that I think -21 MS. JENKINS: Excuse me. I want to ask you:
25 THE WITNESS: Well, gee, that's kind of a

YVer1f
907

Page 81
1 hard -- that's a difficult question, and things that will

6 make some really good repairs on relationships with the
11 Pitfalls, I mean, they're everywhere, you
12 know. I've been sober a while, and I'm never more than an
17 not looking for any reasons for him to fail.
18 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
19 Panel, do you have any questions for this
20 gentleman?
21 MR. DENNEY: I have nothing.
22 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Low?
23 MR. LOW: Miles, my name is Keegan Low. I'm
24 one of the panel members.
25 THE WITNESS: Can you hold on for just a

YVer1f
908

Page 82

2 reason.
3 MR. LOW: Can you hear me now?
4 THE WITNESS: I think I hear you a little
5 better.
6 MR. LOW: Just a couple of questions for you.
8 THE WITNESS: Correct.
9 MR. LOW: And so how long has Mr. Coughlin
10 been sober?
11 THE WITNESS: Well, Zach was sober for a
12 little while when I met him. But I think he's got to be
14 MR. LOW: He attends weekly meetings with you
16 THE WITNESS: Well, yeah. He attends meetings
20 MR. LOW: So if you had to put an approximate
22 would you say?
23 THE WITNESS: Oh, I would say probably six or
25 MR. LOW: How far along are you with the step

YVer1f
909

Page 83

2 THE WITNESS: Zach's on his 12th step. We
7 MR. LOW: Does Mr. Coughlin sponsor any
9 THE WITNESS: Well, no, sir. He's just gotten
12 recently in the last week arrived at, is where he will go
14 MR. LOW: Have you had any discussions with
19 THE WITNESS: We have spoken in a general way.
25 be. He knows what he needs to do. He's made recovery a

YVer1f
910

Page 84

2 routine.
3 So he has a plan of action. I know that's
7 or a drug.
8 MR. LOW: Thank you. Appreciate it.
9 THE WITNESS: You're welcome, sir.
10 MS. JENKINS: Dr. Furman?
11 MR. FURMAN: No questions.
13 MS. FLOCCHINI: No further questions. Thank
14 you.
16 MR. COUGHLIN: Just one, your Honor.
18 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
19 Q Mr. Warsh, you referenced it briefly. Are you
21 A Yes.
22 Q How long? Approximately how often?
23 A Well, I think you go every week. We talk
24 about it. And you started going, or at least I became

YVer1f
911

Page 85
1 Q Has the Petitioner, to your knowledge,

2 attempted to make amends -- I think you referenced this
3 earlier. But has the Petitioner attempted to make amends
5 A Yeah. Absolutely. The letters and
6 face-to-face meetings.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
8 That's all, your Honor.
9 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, you're excused at
10 this time. We appreciate your investment in the
11 Petitioner, and your assistance with his recovery, and
12 your testimony before this panel today. Thank you very
13 much.
14 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. And I assure
15 you it's my honor and my pleasure. Thank you.
16 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, at this point I
17 would like to somewhat briefly call my mom, and then my
18 dad.
19 MS. JENKINS: We have 25 minutes at our
20 disposal. Would that be adequate for you to put on all of
21 your remaining witnesses other than you?
22 MR. COUGHLIN: I think so.
23 MS. JENKINS: Let's try to do that.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: If I can just call my mom, Mary
25 Barker of Reno, Nevada.

YVer1f
912

Page 86
1 (The oath was administered to the witness.)

2 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I would be in favor
5 MS. JENKINS: What's she going to say about
6 you, really?
7 MR. COUGHLIN: They weren't here at the last
9 MS. JENKINS: Do you have an objection,
10 Ms. Flocchini?
11 It does muddy the record when we have just
15 But, Ms. Flocchini?
16 MS. FLOCCHINI: I don't have an objection to
20 And of course it's your case.
21 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
22 MS. JENKINS: I will suggest, if I may, that

YVer1f
913

Page 87

5 happens.
6 MR. COUGHLIN: Just to clarify, your Honor.
8 MS. JENKINS: The removal of disability, and
9 fitness to practice are the two issues before this panel.
10 MR. COUGHLIN: With fitness including
11 character?
12 MS. JENKINS: I would say so. Just as you
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
15 MARY BARKER
20 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21 Q Ms. Barker, can you state your name and
23 A Mary Barker. 9450 West 12th Street. Reno,
24 Nevada 89503.
25 Q Were you present at the prior disciplinary

YVer1f
914

Page 88

2 A I was not present. However, I was called
4 Q Were you asked to attend the hearing?
5 A Yes. And I came, but you were not here yet.
8 Q Were you not very happy with the Petitioner at
10 state?
11 A I was concerned about -- my belief is that
12 your mental state, other than being depressed clinically
14 I don't know. How much should I say?
15 MS. JENKINS: We're looking for your personal
16 opinion.
17 THE WITNESS: My personal opinion. Zach never
25 BY MR. COUGHLIN:

YVer1f
915

Page 89
1 Q I'm sorry. If I can stop you there.

2 A Yes.
3 Q -- and direct the question a little more
4 specifically.
5 Have you witnessed the Petitioner displaying
7 A Yes. Absolutely.
8 Q Have you witnessed the Petitioner seeming to
11 A Yes.
12 Q Do you believe the Petitioner is fit to
13 practice law?
14 A Yes.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have.
16 Thank you, Ms. Barker. Mom.
17 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, if I may just give
21 What is helpful to the panel is asking the
23 allow the witness to testify.
24 So if you want to go back to the three points

YVer1f
916

Page 90
1 this witness to explain how she came to those conclusions,

2 and do you agree that blank, and how do you come to that
3 conclusion, that would be more helpful to us.
4 Do you want to start over?
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. Just to
6 clarify the three points. It is overcome the disability,
7 fit to practice law, and have the requisite skill and
8 learning or is it character, overcome disability?
9 MS. JENKINS: I would like to direct you to
10 Nevada Supreme Court Rule 117, Paragraph 4, resumption of
11 practice by disabled attorneys. I'm moving down in the
12 paragraph. It says, "The petition shall be filed with Bar
13 counsel's office, and should be set for hearing before a
14 five-member hearing panel which shall consider whether the
15 attorney has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence
16 that the attorney's disability has been removed, and that
17 he or she is fit to resume the practice of law."
18 Those are the only considerations before this
19 panel today.
21 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
22 Q Miss Barker, if you could take the suggestion
23 and direction the panel judge just made and comment with

YVer1f
917

Page 91

3 A I think that there has been a tremendous
5 sober. And I think that a lot of your disability was the
7 And I just -- I compare the way that you were
11 another lawyer who will be a mentor, who will be there
12 seeing what you are doing. It has to be frustrating for
13 you.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have, your
15 Honor.
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you.
20 Q Mr. Coughlin was in San Diego -- or, I'm
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q Are you aware that Mr. Coughlin was using
25 A Yes. As his sponsor was talking, I was

YVer1f
918

Page 92
1 reviewing in my mind when I believe he stopped all

4 Q What substance are you aware of that he was
5 using?
6 A Adderall and alcohol. Now, let me say I did
7 not have firsthand -8 MR. COUGHLIN: If I can just interject
9 quickly.
10 MS. JENKINS: Do you have an objection?
11 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, it is similar to an
12 objection.
13 MS. JENKINS: What's your objection to the
14 question?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Relevancy. I understand this
17 behavior -- or it's always been somewhat unclear to me
18 what period of time is under review here. The activity
21 So I think it's probably relevant what
24 a relevance objection.
25 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to allow the question

YVer1f
919

Page 93

2 inactive determination and -3 MR. COUGHLIN: Actually, this is prior.
4 THE WITNESS: Before.
5 MS. JENKINS: I believe that I'm going to
6 allow it. Because it's relevant for the panel to know at
11 Q Were you aware if Mr. Coughlin was using
13 A I believe he was. But that is a mom's belief.
14 I did not see anything. Even when Zach lived here, I
15 never saw him drink. I never saw him use. And I actually
16 thought because of his behaviors that he must be mentally
17 ill, and I went through a 13-week program with the
18 National Nevada Mental Health Institute for families of
19 people with mental illness.
20 And nothing seemed to fit that. He wasn't
21 bipolar. He wasn't schizophrenic according to what I
24 And I personally believe that it was a
25 combination of Adderall and alcohol. And he was under a

YVer1f
920

Page 94

3 began.
4 Q And you indicated before that you believe that
6 A I believe so. I believe so. Now, what I know
12 difficulties.
13 Q Okay.
14 A And that's it.
15 Q Are you aware of any stressful situations that
16 Mr. Coughlin has had in the last eight months?
17 A I suspect every day might be kind of stressful
18 when you're getting sober.
19 Q I appreciate that. But there's nothing
20 significant? I recognize that Mr. Coughlin moved to San
21 Diego, and I'm sure the panel knows that, and that moving
22 can be a stressful endeavor -23 A Yeah.
24 Q -- getting work. But I just want to know if

YVer1f
921

Page 95

3 A Right. And I think that this is stressful.
5 been on his mind. And I think that he's handled it well.
11 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar appreciates you
13 MS. JENKINS: Hang on. Rebuttal.
15 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
16 Q Ms. Barker, are you aware the Petitioner had
17 not smoked marijuana for seven years between 2007 and late
19 A Yes. As I said, I never really knew that you
21 I do know that you went through years of
24 Q So are you aware of the Petitioner entering a

YVer1f
922

Page 96
1 A Yes.
2 Q And that there was periods of time between
4 programs -5 A Yes.
6 Q -- ostensibly sober?
7 A Yes.
8 MR. COUGHLIN: That's all I have, your Honor.
9 MS. JENKINS: Anything from the panel?
10 MR. DENNEY: I have no questions.
11 MS. JENKINS: You're released. Thank you.
12 MR. COUGHLIN: If I can call my father,
13 Dr. Timothy D. Coughlin.
14 TIMOTHY COUGHLIN
19 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
20 Q Hello, Dr. Coughlin. Thank you for being here
21 today. If you can state your name and residence.
22 A Tim Coughlin. 4263 Greenhorn Court. Reno,
23 Nevada.
24 Q Can you speak to the same questions that were

YVer1f
923

Page 97
1 A Yes. I've been sober 36 years. I'm one of

5 the last six or seven years of his life. It was one of
7 I've been the medical director for the McLane
10 for a long time.
11 I can say that Zach, as his mother has alluded
13 school. He was a National Merit finalist. He was All
16 I think he went off to college, and I suspect
17 that some things happened there. He came back with three
18 different colored hair, and he made the law review in law
21 law school.
22 And sometimes the smarter you are, the tougher

YVer1f
924

Page 98
1 the time.
2 I love Zach a great deal. His character is
7 point.
8 I feel very strongly that in the last year we
12 You know, we've had -- it's been difficult.
15 of thing.
16 Adderall is an amphetamine, the same thing as
21 than the ones who do. And everybody goes to work every
23 quite figure out how things got all balled up.
24 My mother's father was one of first guys in AA

YVer1f
925

Page 99

4 My dad's father was the mayor of a little
9 Ego and self-centeredness are at the heart of
12 And I've been a lightening rod for Zach. And
14 a lot of ways. I've seen this in AA before where people
15 have long-term sobriety, but their kids remember when it
16 wasn't that way. And so sometimes they, you know, they
18 I have no doubt in my mind that his recovery
19 is sincere at this point. I've seen him break down and
20 cry and apologize for the things he's done and the way
22 know he's sincere in that.

23 But it is, you know, it is a difficult road.
24 And I would lobby for reinstating Zach, but I would tie
25 him to a very tight contract, which is what we do with

YVer1f
926

Page 100

3 all that. It's been very helpful. And we've had, you
4 know, there is a huge success rate among doctors because
6 them. If they screw up, their livelihood goes away.
7 The doctors' AA meeting meets in my office on
9 at that. Most alcoholics are their own worst enemy, and
11 Frankly, he hasn't been arrested in a long
13 improving. And we have good conversation now. And
17 My view of this 500-page brief is his anxiety
18 took over, and he was just determined to dot every I and
19 cross every T and lost sight of the fact if you don't have
20 recovery it doesn't matter how good your argument is.
21 It's got to come from the heart. And you need a huge
22 spiritual conversion. You have to have a totally, you
23 know, a major upheaval in how you look at the world and
24 how you treat people and how you behave. And I think he's
25 had that.

YVer1f
927

Page 101
1 But I think he's still early in recovery.

3 take up to two years for your PET scan to come back to
4 normal. It can be two years before you begin to
5 experience pleasure the way it should be.
6 But Zach has a good heart, and he is tenacious
7 if he's anything. Period. And, you know, a weak person
8 would have quit a long time ago, but Zach will push things
10 to me we have got the old Zach back, and I can't tell you
11 how thrilled I am with that, because we had pretty much
12 felt like we had lost him.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: That's all I have, your Honor.
15 Ms. Flocchini?
16 MS. FLOCCHINI: I will only briefly ask a
17 question.
20 Q Do you have an example or can you give an
21 example of when Mr. Coughlin has had a particular stressor
25 A I think he gets up every morning and is at

YVer1f
928

Page 102
1 work at 7:00 o'clock to do what's manual labor. And

2 that's tough, you know. And living in a new town, he's
3 made a lot of friends, which is remarkable.
4 But I think recovery has a dignity. And
11 And frankly, I don't pull my punches with
13 know if we didn't really -- when Zach would get arrested,

17 I think the mental illness, and frankly the
19 don't have any doubt that he's sincere in his remorse and
21 that regard. But he's dug himself an incredible hole, and
24 MS. FLOCCHINI: I have no further questions.
25 Thank you.

YVer1f
929

Page 103
1 MS. JENKINS: Panel members?

2 Mr. Coughlin?
3 MR. COUGHLIN: No further questions, your
4 Honor.
5 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
6 your testimony.
7 What do you have left other than yourself and
8 your documents?
9 MR. COUGHLIN: Just the documents, your Honor.
14 MS. JENKINS: I understand. I would like to
21 We're going to, of course break at 1:40 for
24 (Recess taken at 11:37 A.M.
25 to resume at 12:00 P.M.)

YVer1f
930

Page 104
1 -oOo2 RENO, NEVADA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2015; 12:15 P.M.

3 -oOo4
5 MS. JENKINS: Back on the record.
6 Mr. Coughlin, we're still in your case in
7 chief.
8 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Besides
12 MS. JENKINS: "This" for the record is?
13 MR. COUGHLIN: This is the filing I submitted
14 today.
15 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to deny the admission
16 of the filing as a whole. But if you would like to
19 Ms. Flocchini, of course, can object to them, I don't
21 record.
22 MR. COUGHLIN: For Exhibit 1 I seek to
24 2015.
25 MS. JENKINS: That's in the package that's

YVer1f
931

Page 105

3 MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection.
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. It will be
5 admitted.
6 MR. COUGHLIN: Just for clarification, all
9 Exhibit 2 would be selected progress notes by
10 Dr. Terry Pittinger who is a treating therapist at NNAMHS.
11 MS. JENKINS: Any objection?
12 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar objects to the
14 of Miss Pittinger's notes.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize. I don't know if I
18 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, the one I have
20 two-page document. I'm sorry, keep going. It's a
22 MR. COUGHLIN: But on my index to exhibits I
24 approach. This might prove useful. Ms. Flocchini would
25 you object to allowing the panel to have this the index to

YVer1f
932

Page 106
1 the exhibits?
2 MS. JENKINS: What you call it is really
5 MR. COUGHLIN: That is a few of the progress
6 notes by a psychologist at NNAMHS who I was treating with.
11 MS. JENKINS: The term of this treatment was
14 MR. COUGHLIN: The NNAMHS treatment, I started
15 getting counseling at NNAMHS in March of 2013 originally
16 with a different therapist who turned out was a neighbor
20 treatment.
21 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask why is it that
23 MR. COUGHLIN: I believe because, one, to cut
24 down on the bulk of this filing. Two, because in these

YVer1f
933

Page 107
1 I guess, that would be used such as CBT, cognitive

3 candidly, because the NNAMHS notes are somewhat lengthy,
6 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, other than
9 MS. FLOCCHINI: I think it was, as you say,
11 from the treatment and the observations of the NNAMHS
14 MR. COUGHLIN: It's not late 2013. It's March
16 MS. FLOCCHINI: Sure.
17 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to not allow Exhibit 2
20 MR. COUGHLIN: This is, Exhibit 3 is a sworn

YVer1f
934

Page 108

2 MS. FLOCCHINI: I know Mr. Coughlin will be
3 testifying directly today. I don't have an objection.

5 evidence.
6 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to strike Exhibit 3 as
10 strike Exhibit 3.
11 MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 4 is a letter from a
12 treating therapist, Bill Martin, MFC.
13 MS. JENKINS: Was Mr. Martin unavailable to
14 testify today?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I just didn't ask him to
18 might be duplicative.
19 MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. I have a hard time
20 switching between advocate and adjudicator. I'm going to
23 MS. FLOCCHINI: Based on this document was

YVer1f
935

Page 109
1 proceeding, the State Bar does not have an objection to

2 Exhibit 4.
3 MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 4 will be admitted.
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Given I was seeing two
7 MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection. This letter has
10 MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 5 is admitted.
11 MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 6 is certificates of
13 education credits.
14 MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection.
15 MS. JENKINS: What is this being offered to
16 show?
17 MR. COUGHLIN: The CLEs? For the purposes of,
19 show he's no longer disabled and fit to practice law.
20 little bit later in the subparagraph a requisite

23 present today, showing I've actually done a lot of legal
24 work while suspended, it's all on my own behalf, but it's
25 intended to show that I've maintained learning in the law

YVer1f
936

Page 110

2 MS. JENKINS: I'll admit it.
3 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. I think
4 that's 6.
5 Exhibit 7 is a paycheck stub detailing 700
8 MS. JENKINS: I find this a little difficult
12 MR. COUGHLIN: I don't have a better copy on
14 MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, is the $6,015 the
16 MR. COUGHLIN: Basically, yeah, at $10 an hour
17 saying I had earned 6,000 since starting in that year. So
18 plus that was from, I believe, early August. So adding up
21 MS. JENKINS: My concern with this copy is
25 pay date may be.

YVer1f
937

Page 111
1 MS. FLOCCHINI: Perhaps the pdf version is

7 MR. COUGHLIN: It was August 5th, from what I
9 point.
10 MS. JENKINS: Let's say it will be admitted.
13 MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 8 are letters of
17 MS. JENKINS: Relevancy?
18 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar would object
20 before.
21 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I believe Ms. Flocchini
25 These materials would, I would believe, would have been in

YVer1f
938

Page 112

3 MS. FLOCCHINI: I have a number of letters of
6 recognize them.
7 MS. JENKINS: I have question for you,
8 Ms. Flocchini. Will the State Bar be bringing up
10 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
11 MS. JENKINS: I'll admit them. They're in.
12 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor.
13 Exhibit 9 is a certified prescription history
16 questioned Dr. Nielsen about this earlier, whether he saw
17 any causal correlation between me abruptly going off
18 Adderall and Wellbutrin, and thereafter being arrested
19 twice in a couple of weeks.
20 So this prescription printout history does
25 twice within 17 days. The initial two arrests detailed in

YVer1f
939

Page 113
1 the petition.
2 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar, I don't believe
5 MR. COUGHLIN: If I could speak to that.
7 Bar did, in fact, receive this, and it received this two
8 weeks before the filing -- well, along with an email that
10 The State Bar received this -- not
16 no substance abuse problems, and he refuses to acknowledge
17 he has anything in that regard.
18 Which I found to be highly inaccurate
24 the 105-page thing included in the prehearing packet.
25 But then the order references, it says, we're

YVer1f
940

Page 114

3 So for me there was two. The initial thing
6 exhibit, this email to Mr. King of May 14, 2012, which
9 It's a lengthy email. Details what I saw as
11 arrests occurring within a couple weeks after running out
13 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I am going to deny
14 admission of this document. Your explanation for what you
16 went off of amphetamines, 30 milligrams, and Wellbutrin,
18 doesn't say anything of the sort. Whether it says that
20 issued a mere three or four days after the last filling of
21 your Wellbutrin, I'm going to suggest that this does not
24 MR. COUGHLIN: 2011 in August was -- the

YVer1f
941

Page 115

2 MS. JENKINS: Those drugs continued to be
4 2012.
5 MR. COUGHLIN: There is a gap though during
9 start filling the Wellbutrin until April 2012. But I went
11 arrest.
12 MS. JENKINS: That's amphetamine, 30
13 milligrams?
15 MS. JENKINS: It does show that.
16 Counsel?
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: I will speak more accurately
23 MS. JENKINS: I will mention that while the

YVer1f
942

Page 116

2 MR. COUGHLIN: It's included in the record
4 MS. JENKINS: I don't doubt that, sir.

8 So while I don't doubt that the State Bar has
9 seen it before, it was not seen in relation to the SCR 117
10 hearing that we're here to deal with today.
11 MS. FLOCCHINI: To the extent -- I apologize.
12 MS. JENKINS: I want to just say that your
13 state of mind and your behavior, the reasons for your
14 behavior prior to the arrest, is really not what we're
18 However, I think it's really attenuated to
19 what we're here for. We're talking about your current
20 status of your disability, and your current character and
22 attorney.
23 I'm going to deny admission.
24 Exhibit 10.
25 MR. COUGHLIN: May I speak to that, your

YVer1f
943

Page 117
1 Honor, briefly?
2 MS. JENKINS: I think that you've had an
4 MR. COUGHLIN: I've argued both ways that it
5 should and shouldn't. Exhibit -6 MS. JENKINS: 10, I believe.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: -- 10 is a report, a progress
8 note. They're not all the progress notes from that
10 offered to show that I turned in a bottle of Wellbutrin to
11 him and discussed with him going off -- not Wellbutrin,
12 Adderall -- the amphetamine, in April, early April. And
13 discussed going off that with him and then thereafter went
14 off that medication.
15 MS. JENKINS: Counsel?
16 MS. FLOCCHINI: Similar to the records from
21 And to the extent that it can support
22 Mr. Coughlin's statements that he has gone off Adderall, I

YVer1f
944

Page 118
1 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can briefly

4 were largely, the bulk of that was largely what was
8 companion disability case.
9 There's case law that I detail in my 26-page
11 courts are often going to expect more than just you coming
13 contexts. The courts seem to want the stuff corroborated.
14 So while I can come in here and testify I quit
18 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to allow these as
20 Mr. Boehner.
21 I'm also going to suggest that the Petitioner
23 testimony that he gave a bottle of Adderall to someone at

YVer1f
945

Page 119

2 allow it.
3 Exhibit 11, sir.
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Exhibit
9 beyond.
11 MS. FLOCCHINI: The best evidence regarding
16 MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted.
18 Exhibit 12 would be attendance sheets for
24 provided for.
25 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar has the same

YVer1f
946

Page 120
1 response as to Exhibit 11.

2 MS. JENKINS: It's admitted.
3 Exhibit 13.
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 13 is various letters
5 of recommendation.
7 MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection. We have seen
8 them. Thank you.
9 MS. JENKINS: I will admit Exhibit 13. It's a
10 lot of pages.
11 MR. COUGHLIN: Probably 30 pages. I should
12 have Bates stamped all these.
13 MS. JENKINS: Approximately 22 pages of
14 letters of recommendation for reinstatement of
15 Mr. Coughlin.
16 MS. FLOCCHINI: I apologize. As I was
17 reviewing this I stopped at Dr. Nielsen's progress review,
18 which is sort of included in this packet. And there are
19 some letters of recommendation that are dated back to
20 2009 -- I'm sorry, 2004, that were not previously
21 provided.
22 MR. LOW: Which exhibit are we on now?
23 MS. JENKINS: Number 13.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: I believe they were provided in
25 the sense that they were submitted to the State Bar at the

YVer1f
947

Page 121

2 using the materials. They were submitted therewith in
3 this hearing.
4 MS. FLOCCHINI: I appreciate that. I will
7 MS. JENKINS: I think that the panel can
9 hearsay value, if you will, of the documents as a whole.
10 And just being aware of the date it's probably a good
11 idea.
12 But I'll admit Exhibit 13 in its entirety, and
15 Do you have one more exhibit?
16 MR. COUGHLIN: A few more. Exhibit 14 will be
17 a couple orders from Reno Municipal Court Judge Nash
18 Holmes reversing the criminal trespass and contempt
22 admission of Exhibit 14. The documents, these two orders
23 with the proof of service, doesn't exhibit what

YVer1f
948

Page 122
1 MS. JENKINS: Documents.

2 MS. FLOCCHINI: -- documents.
3 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, can you explain to
4 me how these might be helpful in some way in this case?
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. I've argued this both
9 possibly character. And the case law I detail in my
10 filing, my 26-page filing of today is, what is included in
12 of severity of the past misconduct goes to how much I need
14 have character.
15 And if past misconduct or alleged misconduct
18 MS. JENKINS: My problem with these documents,
20 what case number 11 TR 26800 TI or case 11 CR 26405 might
24 their face.
25 Your testimony is, without additional

YVer1f
949

Page 123

5 MR. COUGHLIN: They're from the criminal
7 MS. JENKINS: There's nothing on here that
9 nothing on here that says that it's anything other than -10 the case is dismissed, and it doesn't say why, what the
13 MS. JENKINS: I'm at a loss to know how this
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can.

20 The Nevada Supreme Court -- so if this panel

YVer1f
950

Page 124

3 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I don't doubt that
9 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
10 MS. JENKINS: Now we're on to 15, I believe.
11 MS. FLOCCHINI: It happens to be on the back.
12 MS. JENKINS: Is there any other documents you
14 MR. COUGHLIN: Actually, your Honor, there
15 are. I would like to submit as Exhibit 15 my filing in
17 order as the additional response I filed with the
18 petition. That was a filing I submitted in July of 2014.
20 order placing on disability status. And given that the
25 Also I think it goes to whether or not -- what

YVer1f
951

Page 125

2 Because I was at somewhat of a loss. I think I know just
3 common sense what the Nevada Supreme Court would probably
7 this is your -8 So in order to figure out what disability do I
10 they rely on in making their order. And in their order
16 So what this would be is my additional
21 it.
22 It's a little bit dispiriting that thereafter
23 the Bar, the board two weeks later filed a disability

YVer1f
952

Page 126

2 cause and correlation, identifying what I'm doing to
4 MS. JENKINS: I understand your concern and
8 While your argument in the disability hearing
17 So I don't want you to rely on it as evidence.
21 requires copies of that at this moment, but I'll allow it
23 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, your Honor. I appreciate

YVer1f
953

Page 127

4 here says, well, it's okay for the State Bar to put that
9 copy I have.
10 MS. JENKINS: That would be great. And when
13 MR. COUGHLIN: Just a couple more, your Honor.
16 MS. JENKINS: Where does it say that?
17 MR. COUGHLIN: It's a couple sentences after
25 I did not go off and do nothing related to the

YVer1f
954

Page 128
1 law in that 38 months. In fact, I probably practiced more

4 MS. JENKINS: Are you going to give us an
6 MR. COUGHLIN: That's the purpose of this
11 But nonetheless, they do establish, in my
14 time.
15 MS. JENKINS: So those are -- Exhibit 16 is
16 what you would like to offer, which includes documents
19 MR. COUGHLIN: No. That I've been litigating
21 contexts.
22 MS. JENKINS: So you have been keeping your
24 MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah. Yes.
25 MS. JENKINS: Is that point conceded, Counsel,

YVer1f
955

Page 129

2 MS. FLOCCHINI: I have briefly reviewed
7 these documents.
8 MS. JENKINS: Is there an objection?
9 MS. FLOCCHINI: I believe that it is
12 decision.
13 What I'm seeing, there are documents that I
15 admitted included in Exhibit 16. That's a concern.
16 MS. JENKINS: I don't see any reason that that
22 16.
24 MS. JENKINS: Anything else?
25 MR. COUGHLIN: Can I clarify what the Bar's

YVer1f
956

Page 130

8 the law?
9 Basically I'm seeking to see if that point's
11 MS. JENKINS: I'm not certain what your
17 Representing yourself isn't necessarily the
20 knows? The fact is, those documents won't really help you
22 proceeding.
24 Exhibit 17 is a collection of filings and

YVer1f
957

Page 131

7 From my point of view, I'm on -- I went to a
14 disabled.
15 Basically it's tough. I have redoubled my
16 efforts in recovery in expressing some contrition.

19 seeing this guy's disability, and they are glad he finally
21 So in assessing whether or not I've overcome
23 MS. JENKINS: What are you proposing to offer
24 as an exhibit?
25 MR. COUGHLIN: My filing of late May and early

YVer1f
958

Page 132

2 disciplinary appeal, that were literally -- a week later I
4 MR. LOW: Sir, I don't understand what you are
7 point?
8 MR. COUGHLIN: Not by the Bar, not
10 case, not only was I declared disabled. And the Rule
12 case is paused.
13 Not only that. After I filed these, and the
17 Go prove you're not. Were throwing it out. The Bar can
20 to disbar, and we're going to put you on disability
21 status.
23 MS. FLOCCHINI: With respect to the status of
24 the additional matters that were pending before the
25 supreme court. Upon entering a status of disability

YVer1f
959

Page 133
1 inactive, the Court, for procedural purposes, dismissed

2 without prejudice the other disciplinary matters that had
7 Those disciplinary proceedings continue to be
8 pending. And if he were to be reinstated, then they will
10 file, but didn't dismiss them.
11 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to stop all discussion
13 want the panel to be poisoned by knowing how many, the
14 nature, the status or other things with regard to
15 discipline and allegations or findings of discipline or
16 recommendations or pending matters that haven't even gone
18 I think that's inappropriate in this case -19 and don't even speak yet. I want to be able to have a
21 disability and his fitness to practice law in this state.
22 And that's all.
23 I don't want to hear about allegations.


YVer1f
960

Page 134

4 I think it will unfairly prejudice this case
7 they get to review this matter and determine whether to
9 So as far as exhibits, stay away from anything
13 MR. COUGHLIN: It does, your Honor. And
15 the filing last week. The problem is -16 MS. JENKINS; I thought that was a good tack,
17 but you changed.
18 MR. COUGHLIN: I did. The problem is I
20 reports or the Bar was going to offer it or something.
23 Some of this is, you know, it might have been

YVer1f
961

Page 135
1 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to suggest to you that

4 Are you prepared to offer that into evidence
9 into evidence?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: This is the initial report?
11 MS. JENKINS: His report of your current
12 status.
13 MR. COUGHLIN: That is Exhibit 1.
14 MS. JENKINS: Okay. Good. Sorry. I missed
15 it.
16 MR. COUGHLIN: So my last exhibit will be his
17 initial report.
18 MS. JENKINS: That will be fine. Let's take a
19 look.
20 MR. COUGHLIN: I went back and forth on this a

YVer1f
962

Page 136
1 these arrests that happened after the period he detailed

3 I believe ultimately the Nevada Supreme Court
4 is going to want to know is this guy fit now, not is this
9 MS. JENKINS: Do you have an exhibit to offer?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I'm sorry, your Honor.
13 appeal?
14 MS. JENKINS: Your filing, protest filings
15 regarding the appeal of your disciplinary proceedings I
16 disallowed.
17 MR. COUGHLIN: The next exhibit would be the
19 MS. JENKINS: The pleadings?
20 MR. COUGHLIN: Everything filed. Well, very
24 prehearing packet pursuant to DRP 57. What to include in

YVer1f
963

Page 137
1 today.
2 And I'm saying, well then, it's my right or
3 choice whether or not to say, what about all this other
8 MS. JENKINS: You had an opportunity to
10 discussions earlier that week. Why is it you were unable
11 to get your strategy together to do that before this past
12 Friday?
13 MR. COUGHLIN: One, they already have those
15 disability case.
16 Two, I didn't get the prehearing packet until
17 the 21st or 2nd, which was past. In order to know what is
18 missing from the prehearing packet, and what I needed to
19 respond with, I have to get the prehearing packet first.
20 So only if I'm getting the prehearing packet and looking
21 at it, where are the eight exhibits to the petition?
22 Where is my response? I have to get it first in order to
23 know, yeah, I'm going to put those in as evidence.
25 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar inadvertently

YVer1f
964

Page 138
1 failed to include the eight exhibits to the petition.

3 included.
4 The second response should have been included.
7 MS. JENKINS: That's the second response?
9 MS. JENKINS: And the eight exhibits to the
10 initial filing -11 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
12 MS. JENKINS: Are available -13 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
14 MS. JENKINS: -- for the panel? What number
15 exhibit would we be proposing that it be?
16 MS. FLOCCHINI: Mr. Coughlin has been marking
19 MS. JENKINS: I would like the State Bar to
22 MS. FLOCCHINI: Not at all.
23 MS. JENKINS: Unless the State Bar has other
24 exhibits.
25 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar has two

YVer1f
965

Page 139
1 exhibits.
2 MS. JENKINS: Well, I still think that
6 number.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can -- though
8 it wasn't admitted, can I have Exhibit 16 marked and
10 MS. JENKINS: As a disallowed Exhibit?
11 MR. COUGHLIN: I think so, yeah.
12 MS. JENKINS: It can get marked for
13 identification, but it's not going to become a part of the
14 record because it's not allowed.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: But in the event that
17 an appellant right in this regard. But if it's ruled that
18 I'm not rehabilitated here, I might argue, well -- or that
21 them to see.
22 MS. JENKINS: How do we deal with this?
23 MS. FLOCCHINI: I admit that I am newer to the
25 I believe that the appropriate course is if the panel does

YVer1f
966

Page 140

3 MS. JENKINS: So the final say is this panel,
5 MS. FLOCCHINI: If there's no recommendation
9 MS. JENKINS: Then I would like the court
10 reporter to accept any documents that have not been
11 admitted and mark them as not admitted documents, put a
12 rubber band around them or whatever you do, and keep them
14 later.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Now -16 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I apologize for
17 the irritation in my voice. But I will express once again
18 how disappointed I am that these documents are being
23 And it's really just you, me and Bar counsel
24 that could have been doing this rather than the other four

YVer1f
967

Page 141
1 move on.
2 MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize for that, your
4 what to challenge it with.
5 MS. JENKINS: This is the procedure we employ
10 MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize. And I agree, your
11 Honor. My apologies.
12 So exhibit -13 MS. JENKINS: I think we thought it was number
14 18 to be considered next.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Just for the purposes of 16 and
16 17 that you said to just include -17 MS. JENKINS: Put them on the table.
18 MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 18. I'm drawing to a
20 and 21.
21 Exhibit 18 is a complete copy of the, not the
22 disability petition, but the whole file from that case.
23 So Bar counsel just gave me copies for the panel which is
25 actual attachments to it.

YVer1f
968

Page 142
1 But also included in that file would be the

3 would also be Dr. Nielsen's report, would also be not too
4 much else really.
5 And I think the prehearing packet is in the
6 record? Because if it is, there's a 105-page filing in
9 My only thing that I think should be included
12 would say, wait a second, we want to see Dr. Nielsen's
14 well.
15 MS. JENKINS: So Exhibit 18 that you would
17 MR. COUGHLIN: For judicial economy it might
18 just be easier to say -- and you've already ruled on this.
20 2014 additional response by me to the disability petition,
21 I want to get that into evidence somehow, it was included
24 entire file.
25 Instead of the entire file, maybe just the

YVer1f
969

Page 143
1 complete disability petition with all the exhibits where

5 MS. JENKINS: Counsel I can't see or imagine
7 offer to me. What you do have in your hands, as I
12 MS. JENKINS: The Exhibits 1 through 8 that
13 you offered with your response to the State Bar's petition
16 MR. COUGHLIN: That, plus -17 MS. JENKINS: No. Is that what you have in
19 MR. COUGHLIN: These are five copies for the
21 MS. JENKINS: It includes the petition or just
22 the attachments?
23 MR. COUGHLIN: It includes the nine pages of
24 petition.
25 MS. JENKINS: Would you like to mark that as

YVer1f
970

Page 144
1 Exhibit 18?
2 MR. COUGHLIN: Sure.
3 MS. JENKINS: Let's do that.
4 MR. COUGHLIN: I don't have a cover page.
5 MS. JENKINS: It's okay. You can write 18 on
7 Would you like to offer an Exhibit 19?
8 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. This is
10 exhibits.
11 MS. JENKINS: You said Exhibit 19 is nothing?
12 MR. COUGHLIN: That's correct. I had to mark
13 that as blank.
14 MS. JENKINS: No problem.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Then exhibit -16 MS. FLOCCHINI: May we go off the record?
17 (Discussion off the record.)
18 MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 20.
19 MR. COUGHLIN: Here it is, yes. Exhibit 20 is
20 the order and the disability petition. There's a sanction
22 showing that that was dismissed.
23 MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 20 is a document setting
25 MR. COUGHLIN: The judge said I was sarcastic

YVer1f
971

Page 145
1 and some other things. An attorney's fee award was

10 MS. JENKINS: I'm guessing, not having the
13 without an explanation of why and what have you, it's not
15 And again, I've been trying to avoid putting
16 into this record any discipline-based arguments.
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. To the extent that there
21 not the primary concern. The relevancy in the 117
25 position to be practicing and should be rendered disabled.

YVer1f
972

Page 146

3 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, is this document
7 MR. COUGHLIN: Only to the extent that to know
8 whether or not it's changed, we need to know what it was.
9 And whether or not there was in fact an order saying that
14 I agree it's still a red flag that the judge
17 that order? Because if she did, I didn't -18 MS. JENKINS: Does the document say why the
22 MR. COUGHLIN: To the extent it awards the

YVer1f
973

Page 147

4 grievance.
5 MS. JENKINS: I'm not going to allow the
6 document.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: If I can -- one last thing. If
10 show that. That's all I would have said there, your
12 And then lastly -- and I really apologize this
15 report.
16 MS. JENKINS: The 2014 report?
17 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. Based on July 2014
20 MS. FLOCCHINI: And the State Bar has no
22 I will reference to the panel that it was

YVer1f
974

Page 148
1 MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted as Exhibit

2 21, I believe.
3 MR. COUGHLIN: Lastly, your Honor. No more
11 MS. JENKINS: Good. I'm not going to preclude
13 you greatly.
14 MR. COUGHLIN: No more exhibits. I promise.
15 MS. JENKINS: So we have 15 minutes. Would
16 you like to begin or would you like to do something else?
17 MR. COUGHLIN: I would like to begin, if I
19 other than to say I'm very, very sorry. And I recognize I
22 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, do you have a
24 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes, I would like to ask a few
25 questions, if I may.

YVer1f
975

Page 149
1
2
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION
4 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
5 Q Mr. Coughlin, in 2002 you applied for
7 A Yes.
8 Q And there was some concerns that the
10 A That's correct. That's correct.
11 And I guess, your Honor, I'd just make a
13 MS. JENKINS: The concerns of the State Bar at
14 your admission in 2002 are not relevant to this proceeding
15 is your objection?
16 MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah.
17 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, why are they
18 relevant?
19 MS. FLOCCHINI: The concerns of the admissions
24 So it shows an ongoing concern with his

YVer1f
976

Page 150
1 practice of law.
2 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to allow it.
3 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
4 Q Mr. Coughlin, the admissions board held an
5 initial hearing in 2002; correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And at that hearing you admittedly had a bit
9 A I don't know that I would characterize it that
12 Q Would you disagree that at the subsequent 2004
14 A I don't think I ever did. I was highly,
16 terms.
17 Q Okay. You were critical of your participation
19 A Not my participation, no.
20 Q Were you critical of the hearing at the time
22 to?
23 A It took place the day after the Bar exam in

YVer1f
977

Page 151

3 Q So you attributed, it sounds like you
5 associated with taking the Bar?
6 A Yeah. Taking the Bar exam, driving back from
11 individual owning the strip club in Las Vegas who was the
13 Q Did the State Bar admit you to practice law
15 A Conditionally.
16 Q What did they require you to do before
17 admitting you?
18 A There was -- well, I mean, that was a stated
20 year of law school in the summer. I came back, I finished
22 have been sworn in at that time, January of 2002.

25 a while. It was interesting how it was conducted. And I

YVer1f
978

Page 152
3 Subsequently there was some stuff I prefer not
6 calls telling me who to go to. I went to him. It
10 grand.
11 And so we had another hearing in June 2002.
12 And then I just waited like most people in that character
15 2002 that we're going to wait until 2003, October 2003.
17 bono attorney sort of stayed on the case. It was hard to
18 tell if he was still on the case or not.
19 Ultimately I submitted something, basically a
22 who'd been working for the State Bar, failed to forward

YVer1f
979

Page 153

2 Apparently the decision was made to give me my
4 for reasons I still don't understand until May of '05.
5 Q Okay. Between the time of the February 2002
8 A Yes. I forgot to mention I did meet with
12 Got fired by Perry and Spann. Three months went by.
13 Where is your license? You don't have it yet? We have to
14 let you go.
15 Then I went out and passed the Patent Bar.

20 and the week I got there I got the abeyance order, which
23 brought me in. So I was let go from that.
24 Then -- I bring that up because ultimately I

YVer1f
980

Page 154

8 Q Dr. Hunter believed that your behavior in
12 A Sure.
13 Q And the readjustment reaction, Dr. Hunter
16 A Yes.
17 Q With Dr. Hunter you identified -- and I think
19 going up to February 2002 was extremely stressful for you?
20 A Going up to the start of '02?
21 Q Up to February of '02 when you met with the
23 A Sure.
24 Q As it might be for anyone, it was a stressful
25 period?

YVer1f
981

Page 155
1 A Yep.
2 Q And the concern was that you didn't react to
3 the stress well; is that accurate?
4 A Well, I passed the hardest Bar exams in the
9 So I would say I would put that up against how
13 Q You have submitted as an exhibit to this
15 education in law. And my review of that shows that you -16 it appears that you have completed 13 hours on August 14,
20 A No. Those were all downloaded. Those were
25 day.

YVer1f
982

Page 156
1 Then I'd write down the codes on different

2 pieces of paper. Sometimes -- a few of the instances, I
6 was WiFi. So then when I'd get a piece of paper full of a
9 So no, it's not as though I completed 40 hours
11 logged on, said here's all the codes. The tedious process
12 of listening to these codes interspersed one time in an
13 hour-long CLE.
14 Q Over what period of time did you take all of
15 these CLEs?
16 A It would have been in the last approximately
17 six weeks. There were a couple -- there was approximately
18 three or four CLEs that I also took in April when I went
19 to the Other Bar retreat, which is an organization in
20 California. I went to that retreat aboard the Queen Mary
21 in Long Beach in April. And I don't know -- those, I paid
22 for those and got credit for those, as far as I know.
23 They're reported to the CLE board of Nevada. The ones in
24 California, I don't think they were processed. They might
25 have been approved for Nevada credit, but there are only

YVer1f
983

Page 157
1 three of them.
2 Q So then 104.5 hours of CLE in approximately
3 six weeks?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And you would have taken those courses perhaps
8 A Uh-huh. Or yes.
11 Q Did you take any steps to address the
13 A This would have been -- you're saying prior to
16 Q I would imagine that it would be sometime in
17 '02. I don't know if it would have been prior to the June
18 hearing or not.
19 But the identified adjustment reaction, what
20 did you do to try to address?
21 A Well, I know I didn't identify myself to the
24 So I went to the sessions. I continued on

YVer1f
984

Page 158

3 But I think at that time it wasn't like, okay,
4 we have this hearing in June. Clearly your problem is you
9 I just underwent an adjustment disorder
16 word trouble.
17 Q Are you still working for Gary Teen Painting?
18 A Yes.
19 Q After the hearing today will you go back to
21 A Probably.
22 Q Dr. Nielsen's initial report identified a

YVer1f
985

Page 159
1 What steps have you taken to address that

2 particular issue?
3 A Well I studied it. I pulled up the Wikipedia
8 The steps I've taken is the therapy I've done
15 I'm sorry. Your question was what I have I
16 done to?
17 Q To address the dependent personality issues?
18 A See, I didn't even get that until September of
19 2014. So -20 Q In September, approximately September 2014,
22 NNAMHS; correct?
23 A Yes. I had been on -- I did -- I was wanting

YVer1f
986

Page 160

3 drug and alcohol tested and had a travel restriction.
4 Once I got off that, I decided to follow Dr. Nielsen's
5 recommendation and got a change of scenery.
6 Q And you went to Santa Barbara?
7 A Yes. There was a couple stops before that,
8 but yeah.
9 Q Are you currently taking Wellbutrin?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Are you taking any other medication?
12 A No.
13 Q What steps have you taken to address your
15 A Well, the 12-step work I think is pretty good
17 workbooks on cognitive behavioral therapy and the
20 chief emphasis of Dr. Hoar's treatment approach. As well
23 I've gone to church. Restarted attending

YVer1f
987

Page 161

4 in recovery.
5 Q What do you do at this time to handle stress?
6 A All of those things I just mentioned, plus
8 aware of the extent to which ego and fear and self-seeking
9 dishonesty and self-pity contribute so much to stress.
11 of other people, that helps me to have some perspective
16 very discomforting and resulting in stress.
17 Just basically realizing that whether or not I
22 so stressed out to the point where you need to go -- or I
24 number of activities. Self-defeating, self-seeking type
25 of activities. Whether it be workaholism, engaging in

YVer1f
988

Page 162

2 Q Can you identify a time in the last eight
4 identifying that going into recovery is stressful.

7 A Well, this proceeding would be a very good
17 That was very stressful because I thought it's
25 In fact, I called Mitch on Sunday, which I

YVer1f
989

Page 163
1 felt pretty bad about, but he got right back to me. And
5 limited, the panel can't consider all this other stuff.

7 In fact, that filing last week didn't mention
15 information.
16 As a consequence I've seen, in my view, this
19 it, but that same fear was attendant to that. And
22 And that's probably consistent, that's

YVer1f
990

Page 164
4 through a full-blown disciplinary hearing in November, I
5 wish that entire process could have been more, more
8 MS. FLOCCHINI: Those are all my questions.
9 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to call a time out for
11 whatever time that is, approximately an hour from now.
12 MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can just
13 interject. If the Bar is in agreement with this, I don't
18 assess how it feels without any further -19 MS. JENKINS: I appreciate that. I want to
21 make sure that there's nothing further that she wants to

YVer1f
991

Page 165
1 (Recess taken.)
2 MS. JENKINS: Back on the record. It's just
4 Bar counsel, do you have additional evidence
6 MS. FLOCCHINI: Before we get back into the
7 substance, I would like to present a little bit of
9 rereviewed Supreme Court Rule 117, consulted more
12 required to be submitted to the supreme court, whatever it
13 is.
14 Under 116 it's only if the recommendation is
18 recommend reinstatement.
19 MS. JENKINS: So in either event, this record
21 it's just a recommendation anyway.
22 MS. FLOCCHINI: True that.
23 MS. JENKINS: Good to know.
24 MS. FLOCCHINI: Then also with that in mind,

YVer1f
992

Page 166

6 In that case that year, I believe, would not
9 because of the way that the wheels turn.
10 MS. JENKINS: That doesn't seem fair.
12 MS. FLOCCHINI: In addition, the State Bar
14 A.
15 MS. JENKINS: The State Bar would like to have
16 the hearing exhibit?
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. The hearing
18 packet.
19 MS. JENKINS: The prehearing packet that was
20 distributed to the panel?
21 MS. FLOCCHINI: True. Yes.
22 MS. JENKINS: Marked as Bar Exhibit A?
24 MS. JENKINS: Any objection, Mr. Coughlin?

YVer1f
993

Page 167
1 MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted.

2 MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. And the Bar is not
8 So there are some decisions that are related
11 And the only other order that would be
15 affidavit, and I wanted you to know why.
17 MS. FLOCCHINI: I have had a brief opportunity
20 Mr. Coughlin.
22 Q Mr. Coughlin, in 2002 it was identified that
25 that correct?

YVer1f
994

Page 168
1 A I can't recall, but that sounds right.

2 Q Then again in 2011 when some of the issues
6 A That's correct.
7 MS. FLOCCHINI: I just wanted to make sure
10 MS. JENKINS: Are there any questions from the
11 panel of Mr. Coughlin?
12 MR. DENNEY: No.
13 MR. LOW: No.
14 MR. FURMAN: No.
15 MS. BRETERNITZ: No.
16 MS. JENKINS: Great. Let's do some closing
17 statements.
18 Ms. Flocchini.
19 MS. FLOCCHINI: As the State Bar indicated at
23 hold, at which time then a status hearing could be held.
24 And the basis for the recommendation and the

YVer1f
995

Page 169

8 And the State Bar recognizes that, and doesn't
9 question the credibility of the witnesses at this point
11 Nonetheless, probably to paraphrase
12 Dr. Nielsen, because I don't want to say I'm quoting him
17 yourself to the stress that's involved in every day
18 practice.
19 The evidence is that the situation is better,
20 but he has not yet exhibited a fitness to practice law.
24 hearing here. And it's safe to say that this process has

YVer1f
996

Page 170

3 But the State Bar still has some concerns,
14 The State Bar's recommendation for the status
18 Evidence of continuing to work during the
22 And also a submission by Mr. Coughlin of a

YVer1f
997

Page 171

5 In addition, a plan, a proposed plan, may
8 not, how to practice outside of Nevada, and that there is
11 I think it's also important, knowing the fact
13 law, that have affected Mr. Coughlin's ability to practice
19 to figure out how to maintain that and show that you can
20 continue it.
21 So that is the State Bar's summary of

YVer1f
998

Page 172

4 MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, would it be your
9 MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar's recommendation
10 would be to only obtain status information. Our
15 on reinstatement, then just those limited areas, not a
16 full rehash of the hearing.
17 And at the time of deciding, if the panel felt
22 that.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. I appreciate the

YVer1f
999

Page 173

2 My overarching sentiment here is contrition
8 sense that I just don't want to go back to being in these
9 contentious situations, especially with entities that are
11 That being said, I've been out, unable to
19 I wasn't given a disciplinary suspension for
22 crime, if you steal a grape, it involves theft, you're
24 panel, and they issue a, you know, you're referred to the

YVer1f
1000

Page 174

2 I got referred to a panel, and instead of
9 We had a full-blown disciplinary trial that
14 I go into that because that's a lengthy time
20 to set you back another couple of years because now we
22 I don't think that's fair. I've had years of

YVer1f
1001

Page 175

2 Frankly -- so the Bar's concerned -- I would
11 In reality an abeyance would, particularly
12 given what Ms. Flocchini said earlier about how the time
17 So if that's the case, then we do an abeyance
19 panel makes a decision and says okay, reinstate. Granted,
20 the court would probably follow suit and reinstate me at
23 have to take the Bar exam again rule. And at that point I

YVer1f
1002

Page 176
1 suspended for over five years.

2 I think you have to compare -- to have
4 compare other cases. We had a case here that involved the
6 Harris case. Mr. Harris admitted to misappropriating
7 $800,000 from clients. Mr. Harris never had a disability
9 Dr. Nielsen testified at his proceeding that
10 he was diagnosed, Harris was diagnosed with, I believe
13 disability petition filed against him.
14 The Nevada Supreme Court suspended Mr. Harris
15 for three months. Granted, Mr. Harris paid back all the
18 for that. And I know Mr. Harris and respect him. And I
20 recovery.
21 Nonetheless, the misconduct we have here is
22 $14. Cough syrup from a Walmart. It's not 800 grand from
25 when considering that Mr. Harris had three months

YVer1f
1003

Page 177
1 suspension. Granted, it was three years. Two years and

5 So I've already been suspended for 38 months.
11 rehabilitation here. And I've gone into some of the
12 relevancy issues with respect to how much can I go into
16 But I can submit to you truthfully that I have
19 fact, I think if I'm not reinstated soon, one, it's going
20 to send a poor message out. Considering the publicness of
23 disservice to me.
24 The poor message it will send out is look at

YVer1f
1004

Page 178

4 that way than if I had given it to you two weeks ago.

7 and all this stuff two weeks ago, you'll have much the
9 Because I only gave them this report after
10 they had met with me a couple of times, and they both said
14 something. Or just they would have developed preconceived
16 But I get back to how transparent I've been
17 here, and how -- or the level of transparency I've offered
18 here in terms of providing this panel with that which the
21 The cooperation is underscored by the fact
22 that Dr. Nielsen's report, his initial evaluation, the one
23 which the court referenced in its disability order as one
24 of the bases for finding me disabled. His initial report

YVer1f
1005

Page 179

3 depression.
4 So that report's filed. My level of
6 and the Bar as evidenced by my subsequently going back and
8 I'm going back to AA again, I'm addressing the stuff,
12 I've gone above and beyond, pointed out the
19 here.
20 But I would just close by saying that I do

YVer1f
1006

Page 180
1 of misconduct. We don't have misconduct findings here.

3 saying there wasn't misconduct, because the whole
5 Nonetheless, I'm not looking at that saying,
10 And I fear that being out of the practice of
14 like. Freud says to work is one of the most important
17 three years, I submit there should be a really, really
18 profound argument and rationale for protecting the public
19 to justify that. And that's not present here.
20 Particularly where I didn't misappropriate $800,000 from
21 clients.
22 So to take away any further my ability to
24 my momentum, and I think it's going to send the wrong
25 message to other attorneys. I have great respect for the

YVer1f
1007

Page 181

2 Thank you.
3 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Counsel.
4 Is there anything the panel wishes to ask or
6 deliberations?
7 MR. LOW: No.
8 MS. JENKINS: Great. Then we'll stand
12 And if the parties wish to hang around. If we
14 make that finding. So you're welcome to hang out in the
15 lobby for as long as we're here. If we do not come to a
18 record of our findings.
19 (Recess taken.)
20 MS. JENKINS: Let's go back onto the record at
21 4:12 P.M.
22 The panel has considered the testimony today
24 order came to unanimity about how to address the

YVer1f
1008

Page 182
1 First, we considered at great length Rule 117

2 and our charge. And we found that there was a great deal
4 today.
5 What the panel has determined is that we need
11 This body will reconvene at its earliest
16 If the proposed plan that you send to us meets
22 And if it does meet the outline, we'll convene

YVer1f
1009

Page 183

2 We would like to hear from you your ideas
5 following areas.
6 Number one. Your plan to obtain and determine
12 period.
13 We would also like for you to identify an
20 To you, it is up to you to find those

YVer1f
1010

Page 184

2 people we're asking to report quarterly to the Bar about
3 your progress.
4 We want to hear from you your plan to attend
5 three meetings a week, as well as an additional three
9 We would like your plan to include your
11 therapeutic counseling of not less than twice per month
12 for that two-year period. Someone you're comfortable with
13 who is licensed in some way. So that means that while we
17 other counselor. We're talking about mental health
18 counseling.
19 We would like for you to submit to and include
20 in your plan your ability to pay for drug and alcohol
24 well as the State Bar doing it based upon any reports or

YVer1f
1011

Page 185
1 MR. LOW: You said drug counseling. You mean

2 drug testing.
3 MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry, drug testing, alcohol
4 and drug testing.
5 We would like to have your reinstatement plan,
6 how you might achieve that, pay for it, what have you.
7 And then we would like for you to identify
11 support yourself? Identify what triggers there are in
12 your life that cause you to be either stressed or to want
14 And frankly, we want your plan to include any
15 other information that you think is going to be critical.
18 Do you have any questions about what this plan
20 MR. COUGHLIN: You mentioned November 15th is
21 a deadline by which -22 MS. JENKINS: Yes.
23 MR. COUGHLIN: -- referring the plan could be
25 MS. JENKINS: I'm going to suggest to you that

YVer1f
1012

Page 186

2 get them up to speed about what their obligations might
5 outline.
6 I'm not guessing that that can be done by the
11 If that can be submitted to us in a shorter
13 comprehensive, because the panel also believes that a plan
18 So if you can develop a very thorough, and I
19 know you can be thorough, a thorough and well-considered
22 pages. I want it to be a brief overview. And certainly a
25 reinstatement.

YVer1f
1013

Page 187
1 And that means that we're going to hold this

7 If what you submit to the panel is incomplete
14 Questions?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I do, your Honor.
16 MS. JENKINS: You can do whatever you need to
17 do.
18 MR. COUGHLIN: SCR 117.4, I believe, requires
20 MS. JENKINS: It says the panel shall render a
24 MR. COUGHLIN: If I submit that -- how could

YVer1f
1014

Page 188

3 we should have gotten this earlier. Yet what I filed this
6 rules.
7 So this panel having 30 days from I believe
14 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, if you would like
18 MR. COUGHLIN: My wish would be for this panel
20 filed, and then make a ruling. I did not anticipate that
22 from today, so I might need -23 MS. JENKINS: While I appreciate your

YVer1f
1015

Page 189

2 requested information. And if it's not received, then at
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And if I submit it
6 tomorrow, will it then -- will a decision be made within
8 MS. JENKINS: If your submission is received
10 it will not be -- will not contain the amount of
12 necessary. But if it does, the panel will meet at its
14 matter.
15 MR. COUGHLIN: So then a decision -- it would
16 conclude?
17 MS. JENKINS: It would.
18 MR. COUGHLIN: I guess I just ask because the
20 for years.
21 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin -22 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm not suggesting -23 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I've expressed now
24 several times that you have until November 15th. If

YVer1f
1016

Page 190

3 If something is received before that time, and
9 In no event do I envision that the reconvening
15 And that's all.
16 MR. COUGHLIN: I just anticipate indicating,
24 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, there is no

YVer1f
1017

Page 191

3 MR. COUGHLIN: If I may ask that the panel
7 together -8 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, rest assured the
11 MR. LOW: May I say something?
12 MS JENKINS: You may.
13 MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, I hope you understand
17 What's been asked of you is not what's in
22 years.
23 We are giving you your best and last shot here
25 have this happen quickly. And I find that your difficulty

YVer1f
1018

Page 192
1 with our decision is not enuring to your benefit here. So

3 MR. DENNEY: I'd echo those comments.
4 DR. TIM COUGHLIN: Can we get a specific list
6 MS. JENKINS: I'm certain that the transcript
8 MR. LOW: You can get a copy of the
9 transcript, that portion that talks -10 DR. TIM COUGHLIN: All right. We'll go ahead
12 MS. JENKINS: That will be available how
13 quickly?
14 THE REPORTER: Tomorrow morning.
15 MS. JENKINS: Tomorrow morning emailed to the
16 parties?
17 THE REPORTER: Yes. I just need email
18 addresses.
19 MS. JENKINS: We're standing in recess until
20 the reconvening upon receipt of the materials.
21 (Proceedings concluded at 4:30 P.M.)
22 -oOo23
24
25

1019

Page 193
1 STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss.
2 COUNTY OF WASHOE)
3
4 I, CAROL HUMMEL, a notary public in and for
6 That at 8:30 A.M. on Tuesday, the 25th day of
11 That said transcript which appears
15 herein appears;
16 That the foregoing transcript, consisting of
17 Pages 1 through 192, inclusive, is a full, true and
19 proceedings;
20 I further certify that I am not an attorney or
23 financially interested in the action.
24 ______________________
25

1020
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1021
8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB:9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE NAME: In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin} Esq.} Respondent
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
attorney today due to his dis regulated emotional state and continuing
1022
-2-
In June 2015, Mr. Coughlin contacted me and asked me to review his

by Charlie Hoar, Ed.D., MFT. In June, MediCal rejected Mr. Coughlin's use of two
apd Tim Coughlin, Mr. Coughlin's father.
techniques. She incorporated AA's Twelve Step Program, but emphaSized character
1023
-3-

Mr. Coughlin has asked if I continue to believe he is disabied, unabie to
reinstatement.
out of town from August 17 -August 27. I believe his hearing is scheduled for the
morning of the 25 th If needed, I can be contacted by cell phone that morning
1024
Progress Notes for COUGHLIN ,ZACHARY B

)
"~
ill
./
I"

Axis III: Per medicai history
Housing problems
Economic problems
Problems related to Interaction with the iegai system

Note Ty
oiogist
Duration: 60
~. Co "', I~: Date of Group Svc; 06/05/2014
Note: D. Individual session at NNAMHS. Confidentiality risks and benefits of se~fces werel?re,w.!K~d. Explored previous therapy
and what aspects client would like to continue in current be Client talk~ut propensitY'rQ
dominate/manipulate/adversarial position and developed historical hx 6f sal1il~and explore ' consequences to behavior.
Concepts of Transactional Analysis, CBT and ACT were reviewed. A. Depres~ie dlo, ADHD by hx, Stage of life issues.
P, Individual session in 1 week, Monitor mood; increase future 9~.e~.j~o. gr;f$.9,9A~j'~~ioral activation to move toward goals.
Tpittenger psyd
,Bkl;~f;;~il!J:r~!ij~'i'i{>r"il.&,,,L_'
'"
' 4.
"'\'~,1 ...
Written by: NN . BILL JACKSON, PHD at 04:27 PM

# . . Note Tm~.Psychologist
JSluratlon:illh...
, SvqCode: 939 Date of Group Svc: 05/30/2014
Note: I telephoned client and left a voice mail message tha~:.tt~~d.betfrltr'i:ms~ed to the care of Dr. Pittenger.
4"~{~'b
.,
,"<t,,"i'iI%
.~#~!..
-".~.
Written by: NN - TERRI PITTENGER, PHD at 09:37,ffiM

ote Type: Psychologist
f!
Du on: 1~
Note: 0, Additional call to client at alternate nUl"
left addition
essage to call regarding initiating services @ 775338
5334, tpittenger psyd
J
.:"".
,; r'"l(:~~~'f,iy'
Written by: NN - TERRI PITIENGER, PHP at 0 . ; } t : I

Episode: 7 - NNAMHS Med ClinicAdul~+~-rA,
. /. "Duration: 30
Note: D. Reviewed file; attempted 9iU to ci" nt and Ie .s,falled message advising of client transfer and requesting call to set up
initial apt A. psychotherap . ansf
li~nt tpitt~ger, psyd
Written by: NN - BILL JAC
0 at 10:~~~l/
.
Episode: 9 - NNAMHS OP
Duration: 60
Note: I consulted 5,7.14 Wilttth~l;l~t~'
uHhls client in a general way in light of the fact that I know his mother and stepfather.
1consulted 5.15,
~
Doctors Diss and Corpue\.
'iii'
TrT<::u'<>nu
on Thursday, May 15, 2014:

reflective; and, given enough rein, prone to meandering into legal territory and
<>T1\1Q-~.c"/Q"_rn<>nr"'''r<'rl;
a client; a third-party relationship that raised the prospect of a dual relationship likely to
nn""i.rll, .. rll
S mother and stepfather.); and, the prospect of transfer to another therapist We agreed that
at the next departmental staffing.

himself now as more resilient, less drawn to interpersonal conflict. He aims to seek
rdii'ie",.I'Qrri",,,,+:i iTI.\?;f,D!l;;rolol'o-year suspension. He asked me for a letter of support in that regard, "Or just something saying
"'Yn""rti:.nr~'ct
a Suicide Risk Assessment

, client appears more hopeful than when I saw him last in August, 2013,
to a colleague for continued assessment and treatment. Next individual therapy session: not set
Psychologist. Telephone: 688-2074
1025


Note:
Duration: 60

Svc Code: 9083: Date
states repeatedly and demonstrated good ability to accept redirection as well as self-r.
traveling to San Diego and pros/cons of same were explored and situation utilized to 19
If client intentionally and consciously analyzed the situation prior to making chof
.
for being "speciaUdifferent" since childhood. P individual session Monday unle
control and coping skills. Increase congruence between intentions and action
1026
Progress Notes for COUGHLlN,ZACHARY 8

if

Written by: NN - TERRI PITIENGER, PHD at 08:48 AM
Duration: 60
Svc Code: 9083: Date
Note:
D. Individual session at NNAMHS. Client talked about continued use of time on proje . Session ,; sed on exploring
thoughts and feeling surrounding concept of intentionality with client demonstrating g
i1ity to exp e (;Iros/cons of past
rasoci 1l?J!itive serving
goalslintention (succeedlwin vs get along with others) and reframlng Intentions in inctea
manner. A. Mood stable. P. Individual session in one week. Increase behavioral~~Fiat;lge '. . ngefpsyd
____________________
~
~r~
T'til
Wrltten by: NN - TERRI PITIENGER, PHD at 08:55 AM

Note
;"g.!ogist
Duration: 60
Sqc Code: 90. . Date of Group Svc: 07116/2014
Note: D. Case management NNAMHS. Client talked about continued diffic4!$Y with house-"
"'ttending sister's wedding and
upcoming evaluation. Session focused on exploring thoughts and feeUngS~rrOUnding sal'T).Ei and CST/REST techniques
were utilized to explore thought process/conclusions. Concept of intention
e-reviewecf with client indicating positive
feelings about attending wedding due to intentional behaviors on clien~s part. at d about generalizing intention to other
A. Med compliant; unclear if eli en .
ginning medication at age 27 after
areas including evaluation.
successfully completing Law Degree. RIO Asperger contlnuu ,
Increase Insight, increase congruence
between Intention and behavior. TPittengsi Psyd

Written by: NN - TERRI PITIENGER, PHD at 11;49 AM

Written by: NN - TERRI PITIENGER, PHD at 02:
iI
Note: REc voice mail from client advising he," unab
apt tpittenger psyd
~,
.~ .~ ,

n: 15
session. A. Psychotherapy P. client to call and reschedule
'I
",,
l!
Written by: NN - TERRI PITIENGER,J!~D at 12:03 P

. ,
if
Duration: 65
Episode: 9 - NNAMHS OP Counseli9ffAdult 'I~
Note: Individual Session at NNA, "
lie ~d~lked at tength about Interpersonal relationships. Session focused on examining
hx of same and eXPlorin~.61au . . ' s dynamics. Patterns and alternative to same were reviewed and utilized to facilitate
behavioral change at w. :.i end faml'
ding. A. Improved insight
P. Individual session within one week. Increase
internal locus of contror, in . ~:e cong ~ between goals and behavior. Tpittenger psyd
.~~
S~,
Written by: NN - TERR.It.

Episode: 9 - NNAMH&'i
nsellng Adult
Duration: 60
Note: Individual Session at '~HS. Client talked about recent argument with room mates; session focused on exploring
interpersoQlitr . :cs anaii~osJcons of behaviors; identified alternate behaviors. Early developmental hx was explored to
identify early con n ,Ws to lmi"'med behavior. Discussed concept of projective identification. Talked about client's
propen~ to be late WlttJrclierli believing it is connected to his "self-righteous and/or grandiose" tendencles-explored
usefuln s of same. A~Jmproved self-care. p, Individual session within two weeks. Increase congruence between
goals a
ehavior. Tprftenger psyd
----~~~~
Dati~" rfften: fI;'Ql~~!G:rf4

~'t
~1~1
1027

Entered During the Period: 03/01/2013 - 07107/2015

Duration: 5
Svc Code: 902 Date.
Note: Client called advising he forgot shceduled apt. A. psychotherapy P. client to reschedUI~jmiSSed a'~iftenge
.~"
1\'0..
Date Written: 09/09/2014~~~tl'

Written by: NN - TERRI PITTENGER, PHD at 01:02 PM
,/
Duration: 15
Svc"
939 Date'
roup Svc: 09/09/2014
Note: Call to client to reschedule missed apt; rescheduled same. Client reports no ,9 '-,.1. 'g issues. A. ;/ chotherapy P.
continue individual psychotherapy TPittenger psyd
Jrr

Notg'Ty~e: Psycho ~!.~
Duration: 15 lliiit\~vc Code: 939'"[)1:lte of Group Svc: 09/09/2014
Note: D. REclreturned call to client regardng rescheduling missed apt left detaile'Ct',m,essage off~ring apt monday and req'd call
to confirm. tpittenger psyd
.",
i.~}~~~~l~tw..l~
W~itten by: NN - TERRI PITIENGE.R, PHD at 02:20 PM
,c#: ~~:rype: Psycholo~ist

DlirBff6i1: 60'S,VR Code: 9083. Date of Group Svc: 08/18/2014

Note: D. Individual session at NNAMHS. Client talked about r.ecent ev~nts with h"15~'emates and continued interpersonal
ior in~~lf,andt;pth~rs. Client encouraged to increase
struggles. Session focused on identifying patterns of b.
detachment from expectations of other(s) (father) ano"
. e,~sulting tIlpught patterns. Client encouraged to explore
concept of idealized self and effect on judgments and behavi
'f clientJpereased acceptance of self and others. A. Good
ability to integrate concepts. P. continue to incre
"'"
behaviors.
psyd
_ goals
_ _and
__
_ _ _Tpittenger
____
_ _ __
eem
;g:l"~~'
!Iffi!IJ-'
.,11<
Written by: NN - TERRI PIITENGER, PHD at 1O:qr~AM

/a'i\i~q~~11>~
Our
n: 55
Svc Code: 9083: Date of Group Svc: 08/0112014
Note: D. Met with client at NNAMHS. Client talked~6,p.;rVamily h. nd identified behavioral patterns. Client reported increased
awareness of "ego" and healthy vs un,~~althY ego'pat!e!l/')s ,w~re reviewed. Encouraged client to be increasingly intentional
in his interpersonal relationships witb t6
entifying~ama1nic with father as his focus. P. Individual session in two weeks;
.,:;x~grue'1Ce between goals and behaviors. Tpittenger psyd
increase Interpersonal effectivene;~~~~.ncr
"'\i~~~~t'
'j~}~
,;r
1028
SWORN DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

I, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. swear under
penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and
correct and based upon my own first-hand, personal knowledge and that all
documents attached to this filing are true and correct copies of what I purport them
to be. I declare under penalty of perjury that:
1. I was temporarily suspended indefinitely in NVSCT case 60838 on June
7th , 2012 incident to being convicted of shoplifting over the counter cough
an arrest of September 9th , 2011. I was found to have consumed two bottles worth
of DXM while shopping for groceries, and then failing to pay for such. DXM in
such quantities acts as a potent hallucinogenic or dissociative.
I had been a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous and Lawyers
Concerned for Lawyers for many years (see Exhibit 8, letters of recommendation
by former Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Coordinator C. Coe Swobe, Esq. my
former sponsor, Kelly Testolin, Esq. from 2004) just prior to such arrest.
However, I was prescribed Adderall for ADHD during those years of
sobriety, and in retrospect, such does not appear to have been without significant
drawbacks.
1029
In mid-August 2011 I was experiencing financial difficulties (incident to,

amongst other things, the dissolution of a four year domestic partnership that
included such partner failing to forward on to our landlord multiple months of the
rental contributions I had given her, despite such having been our established
practice )and became unable to afford two different medications I had taken for
years, Wellbuttrin (an antidepressant) and Adderall (prescribed to treat ADHD),
going off of each nearly overnight. See Exhibit 9, Certified Prescription History
Printout showing I abruptly ceased filing such medications at the time in question.
Such abrupt cessation of these medications resulted in a sudden and
dramatic depression which may have contributed to my relapsing on DXM cough
medication in the weeks that followed, but hardly excuses my being convicted of
shoplifting such substance. Regardless, I now recognize that the financial straits I
then found himself in were the result of my having alienated himself from friends,
family, his former legal aid employer, and others incident to his failing to continue
to work a program of recovery, but, rather, reverting to the thought processes,
behavior, and attitude so often characterized as a "dry drunk".
Additionally, I now believe that my taking Adderall, even exactly as it was
prescribed to me, was significantly exacerbating the character defects that have
caused and or resulted from my history of substance abuse. As such, I gradually
ceased administration of Adderall upon consulting with his present psychiatrist,
- 2
1030
Dr. Scott Bunner, MD. See Exhibit 10, Psychiatrist Bunner's Progress Notes for
Coughlin of 4/2/15 and 5/1/15. I have remained off of Adderall since such time
and intend to remain so.
I have redoubled my recovery efforts over the last year. I believe being off of
Adderall has helped me get touch with the character defects that have been causing
me the interpersonal difficulties and dysfunctional behavior underlying my being
placed on disabled inactive status.
Particularly central to these recovery efforts, I believe, is admitting my
powerlessness over this condition, coming to believe that a higher power (I have
regularly attended church for the last year, volunteering and even playing the piano
for a church band) could restore me to sanity, making a decision to turn my will
and life over to such higher power, conducting a thorough personal inventory
identifying my character defects, sharing such inventory with my sponsors,
becoming willing to have such character defects removed, humbly asking my
higher power to so remove them, making a list of the persons I have harmed, then
making sincere efforts to make amends to such individuals, followed by continuing
to take a personal inventory on a daily basis, and engaging in meditation to
maintain a conscious contact with my higher power, while attempting to work with
others who have problems similar to mine in carrying the message of recovery to
them.
- 3
1031
I have found that I can be quite petty, selfish, fearful, resentful, and otherwise
exhibiting character defects (such as refusing to responsibility for my actions or
shifting the blame to others) such that I need to make daily efforts to stay in a
positive frame of mind and remain a productive, useful member of society.
I continue to attempt to break out of the self-seeking approach to life that has
caused me so much discord by volunteering at church and in animal rescue efforts,
as well as by being a consistent and active participant in the fellowship activities
associated with twelve step recovery groups (including attending a three day The
Other Bar Spring Retreat aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach, CA, in April
2015) and Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers. See Exhibit 13, Various Letters of
Recommendation.
While I have not technically been required to complete any continuing legal
eduction (CLE) credits during the last 38 months that mylaw license has been
either temporarily suspended indefinitely or on disabled inactive status, I have
earned 122 credits ofCLE in that time, compared to the 36 credits that would have
been required had my license then been active. See Exhibit 6, CLE Certificates of
Completion.
Lastly, I would like to express my deepest apologies for the negative light
my poor behavior and choices have cast on the legal profession, the resources such
has cost various courts, and the dismay such has brought to judges, opposing
- 4
1032
counsel, my own counsel, court personnel, public employees, and private

individuals. This has been an enormously humbling and painful journey that has
brought me here, to a place of profound gratitude.
Dated this August 19t h, 2015
lsi Zach~ll'S Coughlin

Petitioner
- 5
1033
Bill Martin, MFT

1337 Camino Del Mar, Ste.
205
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-755-2407

MFC33939
2525 Camino Del Rio S., Stet
San Diego, CA 92108
619686-9302
bill@sbrink tv
www.cQunsellng-connec!lQn.com
July 20, 2015

Reno, NV 89521
re: Zachary B. Coughlin. Esq.
309.0 Adjustment 010 with Depressed Mood
303.90 Alcohol use 010 Moderate, full remission
He is a frequent meeting attender, has a sponsor. and is working the
for life.
psychotherapy. With ongoing involvement in 12 Step recovery.
psychotherapy could discontinue or be on an lias needed" basis.
1034
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
week, he was asked by the MediCal case manager to choose between seeing me or the other therapist (
sponsor.
beliefs. He was becoming more aware of how they may have hindered him in Jiving an effective life.
~~EJ.U.
Charlie Hoar
386 13th Street

Del Mar, CA 92014
By Appointment
Office: (858) 794-0546

Fax: (858) 764-0531 cell: 858
2327788
1035
CIrIhoCor*UlvI..llQlll EcLcIIIonfor AIonWfI ClE t IIClE
l.nll'i'll!ftl IlgtICqrt.php1'trl-l032810IacullO"doy.nIogd) Mf'mIM!!!11Wm

Avoiding Ethicel lIIoIatIona and Legal Metpractic. CI~me: M Experl'a P... pectlv.
NEVADA(NV)
3.00
legot EthIco:3.00
201S-O&-1S
Qr'MnmU!mnll'/oItC.rt pbp?clrt.1Q32!IO'actton-dgwfoadl 81U1i'@;!ll;IRIII1I1
COURSE NAME
CERTIFIED STATE
CREDIT HOURS
CERTIFICATE DATE
ACTIONS
6 Sleps 10 I"""""ed Client Retotlonshlpo BI1d COIllI1U1lcollono
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Benkruplcy Beolca "" the NO!>&nl!ruplcy Lawyer

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201s-o&-14
'in'lC@i1i'?I'lgptC!rtphp1pprt-
201~16
"nm'fj!'t1IiUrjrJUqtICDrtpllp?cttt-l03i603IfteHon"tknM1lpadl
201~16
'ifiOa
mI RS"IIIlIlfgtIClrt.pIlp7C!rt-1Q32113&a C tk!rr<do\!tnIo.tdl
BohInd the Cloud BI1d How" Can Be Used In th.legot Indueby
'&nl1*'M'iIlWrtt" (/QetCtrlpbD1sCft-l0328G"'!ls:~dl Wlm"dUibltW.w
201~16
A Glid.lo IP Protection in the EU for U.S. AUomeya

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
'm~m'jmlmtj~~D1S;.n-1032'14&nCtiorJtodoy!OIofdl .m\m;mm~tMlIl
Suo_.
Veluetlon: Theofy, ApplIcation, Controv ... I.. , Recent DlIYetopmenta & Erroro
NEVADA(NV)
201~16
-mlm1l!!Z-..w
5.SO
'.",.fuml!!!!.
201S-O&-16
A Legal PriIllOf on Nonprofit Low

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-1S
''Jllnmfllj!!lt8'UgtICtftphp?c.rl-l032jD&lCtlon_dQ'MlIoadl."pmtidll1!l
193211ft.~) M!!j!JRHmJkW.w
':.:'m!UmjilfjM'I/gtlC'rtphp1Cilt-1Q323U&aOtktfr'~ Mtt;lrgm"lr1I..w
8enk~cy
-il! 'IH!IIf!!"Wm
Chepter13 Bankruptcy for the Non

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-06-15
_",I'lCi!1!'t-m
Chopter 7 Bankruptcy for Non-Benkruptcy Attorneya

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201S-O&-16
201~14
llottCgrt MplurJwl Q1UU &gcKooadownlpadl
(fgttC'rt.QhD1S!!t..
C.... Muetlng: SpecIal Ruleo end Regulollono FO( COfjIoratIono end FO( CharIt!ee
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-06-14
AcCClt.ll'lta Recetvabfe Menagement for Lawyers

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Anatomy of B F1nancIal Elder Atu.. Casl!!

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2OHHI&-16
'.(~:mte,I!'j!lmUgttCtrtphP1c!o.1032101'!1GtI!?Jl:wdoymIOadl
AOIIet Protecllon Planning
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
AHomey
r:mm;fn;'jilmllflgt'CQttphp1c,rt-l032818&Pctk!n~.MMil!ili>m.m
1Ir:Clm'gnln!rll/p!tC!!rtphp?ce"""1Q32818&@C~dlm\'mi!lw'~-Jf1
Choice ofEnttty
NEVADA(NV)
2,00
2015-0&-16
1M1
',"Ii]!lh'iI(/gttC.rt~lD1AArt<>10J2B20&actioo-do'tmlol!d) -al!mS;l!ltwtMm
'#ffiii"i;rn!il$jfltlg!tCottpbglClrt-1033!ifUl&aG~ ft11@!!iMi. M .oo.

ERminatlon of Blae In the Legal Profeaalon
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
legot EthIco:l.00
2015-06-18
':nm,zommHQ!IC.ft.OOP1Q1Ut'lQ32132&!CtlQrP"detmfoIdlMm,;m!!!'tJllm
'l?l,m'''llil'(Jaetc.rt fi1D?c'rt-l0J3J5a&!lctlon~dl
ColleclIono Low
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-16
Wlm:m;!!!lfV'Im
Ffflnm'm1!!!I"
1.00
-1 tt'jlml!l!}t:!II1!l
mtrrtl;m:;FrI!'

NEVADA(NV)
l~nmmi!!mUgetCtt1 OOnlAArtto19324216t1Gtlo!edP'tIDIgII!l!
-mm ,wm
I1l
'nmR"i'jttll/gtlcortpbD1c~l"~.W
1.@}"i@lhOOtlltootC.rf OOQ?M&,1033371&ttptlou"igy.nkl.l!ll .~mil!lU!Ir,_..w
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
Ethlca 01 Cloud Computing

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
legot EthIoe:l.00
2015-06-15
"q:rj11j1DU,,,,.w
'~n,nt!!';'H1m'fg!tc.rtDhp1c8rt"lQ32547&!cUorJ1IdolM\foad) IIljf.IIJ;.mU$M.ill
DI~
CltIZenlhip in Schools: F""" Policy 10 Prac1lc.

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-14
Federal Rul. 28: Expert Reporte

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
"MmIN:;'gumm 1lOetC*rlohplcert-1Q32J5Q&;Horl*dovrok9d\ -mlifUljJ'.m
':mmlm!!lrI'IgttCRftOOplctrr-1033374&RGtIW!"sioIflIP<ldlll'lfilJmmra, .w
eOlsco\l&ry
NEVADA(NV)
ForellJllnvesbnent In U.S, Real Estate

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
1.00
2015-0&-18
m!%i3;;:ni!!D~.t!J!IiJ!lwl!i~llll&!~_ .~~tmrr:aIJ~
~4M(IgctC!rt !lhQ?cert.19Jlli&aC~d\ IQl.TJiUZttt:Wm
ElIminating BIases You Never Knew- You Had

NEVADA(NV)
M;;:lmnWJt'lim
EthIce in Web 2,0 Wood

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal EthIco:l.00
2015-0&-18
' . mmwf,iI1 1nm(/gJtClu,OOp1G,rP-10UU1&.GtI9F\!dSJWr\tgld\ Mml'imllf!'t1lm
ttlpj~.*""'iC(.tb.~~1
-",lml!!fMJI)
201~16
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-16
fr:rrrm'Il1!I!lIlJgtICRrtphg?s: 2l!w 103:l3604ijGt!ooslCr'itDlgadl
UgtJClulPbQ1c'rt",lQ123lZ&lIcUOn..dO"'dllondl
Ethico fO( lJowyera In the Cloud

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Leget EthIco:l.00
2.SO
ConWctIng an EffectIv. Deposition
l/mttC.rtohpJcert-10313191.actton-dgwnloadl
Ethico BI1d Technology fO( the Trial Lawyer

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
legot Ethlca:l.00
2015-0&-14
201~16
2015-08-14
Wm',m;!!!,rw.w
EHmInation 0I81ae in the legot Sy.lem

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
legot Ethlco:l.00
2015-06-18
Common Issues V\lhen Ucenslng Intellectual Property

NEVADA(NV)
C"t:ml!t'flfilh.{lgetCtflpbp?cett'10J213e&aCtlolad9't'!!lk!edl
legot Ethlce:l.00
201~15
CHent Intake, Oemagee & Expert Wtneslea - Do You Want to Take ThI' PI Case?
NEVADA(NV)
3.00
2015-0&-16
(1gtICgtlphp?c,r\lOl 032BJ5&pcttnn"dQ'Mlloadl
."
~.J:IIDmiotc:r~ . . ~
"""""
1.00
201~16
"!,:mvr:'mm,,r:'
FWji'1 U1 !!!!I_J!l
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201~16
' . ammm,,,,
WmLI@!I!!MJIl
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
-m"iM'j!II!WWm
7 Sleps fO( I.egoI Holde: Avoiding Malpractlc. and Joill

NEVADA(NV)
1.50
IMMM1!@!f1!1'uootClrtghnlpartuIQ32iO&ffjtfon:dllWn!9jUU
1Q 3Z:UU 'qttgn-drnernkwf
of Enterteinment Low
,,,
ForensIc Document Examination and The Law
."
~J~~dI~ltb-P1l7
1036
~5
..,.".
'~aalamDi!m If9flCqrf Mglcfrr-1 QljllSUqcUon.,skw.nJptdl -YI1l'm rnW! rl'lIt
I1tznmrla,;umJtI'/g!tC.rtpllp1c,rt-1933606&acUon><d!rMtload1 MM,Miifllfi!!!I!'.J!l
Fundamentals of AntItrust Utigetlon

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
Independent ContrectoriEmploy.. DlltiinctiOOll: Help CHents (And y"", FIm1) Mlnlrrize UebIII1y
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0818
.,f.1M&h'ifmlllJ"',/QItc.rlohQ?cert.1033388IoIJc1lofedO'WDfollCU -m!G,anMlfl
'mnmFmm!',
GettIng Peld ond Stoying out of Trouble

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
LegoI Ethlce:1.oo
l/gotC.rtobp1c"rt-1Q3H1&l'c~ Mm!l!l!U!"'.oo
'{'4tt
Honesty ls Beat Poley: How Far Can You Go In NegottatitWll

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
LegoI Ethloa:l.oo
.mnrn:tll~D({g'ICQftPhP?C'[1"1033:118&PGtI!!O"skw.nlood) .j~m:n!IH"!'.J.tl
p;l;Q1'Wmp~M!'lIl
IP anles for Transactlonai Attorneys

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
201~14
l{mm';mi!lm~tl.~~~m!lmremWlll
mmm'nntm
IlmtC.rtphp7c!rt-19l2312ABCt!On-OOwntoadl
_j%lII:mllW_m
Legai Aspects of Foreoslc Document Examtnatlon
' .. mm1ml!mUQlItctr/l!bp?curt"OJ3{!056W1l9f1"'d0Y!lfoatJI
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
.!!"ID~J!l
":nl!m'mnlmll'1.~~~~<_.I.mIB"!I!mw.lfl
How to Handa Cates with High Meda Attention

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal COIl8lderatiOOl for M8lijuana Businesll8S

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0e-l~
m nrn'i' IJrn'j/ge,C.flphplc.rt-103?546&aCUooI!(JOYt!!I9!dl-m'mmt'll!l
2015-08-1~
e,mmlfmi!IIJ!I (tootc~rJ php7S;Urt' IQ32551&!1ctlotrdownkPdl Mgrm,
How To Prepare Your CHent for Deposition

NEVAtlA(NV)
1.00
.w
Legal Ethlco: CIv~ty and Zealous RepIOIIentetion

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Logo! EthIc!::l.oo
201~-O8-1~
(1g,ICurl phg?s;!rt-1032553&i1ctk!Q"rloymloadl
.m~fi}"met-J!l
201!Hl8-18
';'\lm'mmm~~~mi'fftI!Itt:C
I ThInk I JUllt Received eOlaoovery: 'Mlst Now?

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
RJtiH,:r,m!m~t' Ilgtte,rt ghglc.ut ..1932546&aqtloo-dM!\loodl F-tn1mi m, .J!l
1ql1ftfww.lill:lfrwtCt"II~.P'1fl
.1!l
LegoI Writing TIpe for A<ivenced Pnictltion ...

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201!Hl8-18
201~8-1~
."
0'1'
O!iinI~UQII~tor~CLEI"'ClE
&'2D'a'J1!1
'-Deli.SOOOIl_ IlqetC.rt
Utlget!on In the 21.t Century
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
_~tlml!B'"
r'!MIlI"r'llgltC.rt.OODlctrt*1QJ2J21&actJon-dpwnlswu
IlInt!lrn!!I!eI.ll!mtC,rlohp1PirpI033&IQ~ "lI'IIGm!"tMJ!l
Hoi Topics In Employment Law

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
.1.,:"10,,
-m!mmM!'MlIl
Inebrietlon,lnterventlon and Insight: A Triallmlyer Flnde HI> Soul

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Substance Abuse:1 ,00
2015-0&-18
201~8-18
How to Avoid Legal Malpractice ClailT1ll

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
lfst.tCgrt phg1S;,rtm1Q138QUps;tlgntdgwnlqQdl
Indan Gen*lg: Shared Soverelglty & Tribe! Self-Government

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
201~8-18
l.nm'I'lh"
~cl:dItUlliIL.egMEQ.aIionkirAlotrwflClEIMCtE
Identifying ond Undenltandng Cornt1UlIcotion Styleoln Mediation

NEVADA(NV)
t.OII
2015-0&-18
NEVADA(NV)
3.50
2015-0&-18
IlwItCtU
Qbp?c,rt*1033626I.jJCtloo"'!latflOOadl
w;rtn11 51D!'!ll'1fl
201S-08-1~
IJE''''l!rrrml!f!~1 (fQtICprtphglcerl'"10J25t'luc:tQpocloy.nlogdl .:m'il;miJm"l-~

Practical Ethics: Avoidng Trouble with C"enta, Ccut8 and the Steta 88r
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
LegoI EthI ..:l,oo
201!Hl8-18
OOQlcg[~1Q3J5!l2&lctionadownkQd1 "~m'C!l!"'JJl
,'a"W,~!m (IgftCo1rtphp?cere1013!!f9&!1C~wnk?!d1 RjTPlnti!!!muw1fl
Medatlan Techniques for UtigatOfll

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Pre-Jmml!;18'tion Income Tax Plennlng

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0818
2015-08-1~
,;f:t J'IBn's,lJU!lt' (/gtICerlpDP1C.rP-1Q32551&'Ctjpn-dgy,nl9adl"-rtemtrr'lJ!l
I~Dmam!lictjtj (11lI!te!r! phnlpprtoo !Q3J!l)O&i'ljlk?1FOOwnkwU .mim~!!!!1.l11
Medea! and Sclentifio Eltideoce Used In OUI and Drug Cases

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Prlnclphl: ConaldcmUonl When HMtflng a Divorce Caee

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
201!Hl8-1~
.:m;,mWl'\rI~llJlIto1J;!ll!ill~ Ift!tlln'l"MJ!l
'Um'i!1IPW"{'(/q!'CtrtQhP7ceft-1033832&aCUoo"doJM!lpad!
Moving the Judge from Drudgety to P.... _1on

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
1.00
201!Hl8-18
g1f!O:,Uf1!!lm (/gttCerI9)p19.U"10l35@81.~ctJgn-d9Yfl\1oadl .mammMJtl
f:::r:rm!1MnM
Ontkle Security and Risk Basics for Attcmeyll

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
.,"mmirrm1J~ue.J9.~ Pljl'!mm~M
".w.
Protecting Your Client Against CIvM and Crtmml!il UablHty f Trust Taxe.
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
.~'.ill
'.:J!I1M,:'jrnlllm/lqtlcgflphP1Cfr!*193jS9Z&UCtkaJ .. d9'M!load\
P"",onaIlnjuy: A Detelled examination of UebIII1y, Demageo and CoIIect!blllty
NEVADA(NV)
,.=!mlmn!lim!1l.JlgRlm~~.,,!nll~.J!l
Real Estate Due Omgence
NEVADA(NV)
2.00
201!Hl8-18
1.00
201~8-18
~=lmtlltoe!C![lohP'lcert10J3ij12&ad!tJfl"down\o!dlmll;,mt'=;:Will
'lmmISj) 111 t!l'l/gt!Ctlltphplftl''''033BJ9Ili!Ctinn ,JpmJIoMd) .m::ll~~::.l.IJ!1l
P... onallnjury: UabIIIty, Damages & Collectibility

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
11gtJK:f{! php7r,grflo trotA!
-mm!!kMt
'%nmW1p:m (fgttC!{tphplc'rt"1Ql2SS8&?!C~1 F'r'mmonCWm
.JtI
Oregon Mendotory Child Abuse Reporting

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
IlMtCgrt Mg1s;,rt>el0]l81:)&llctlno>oskmnlqpdl
Protecting Employer Infonnatlon

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-15
201~1~
f:1,:mn:m mm
IIj;Omtfllftllm
Probate & Estete Plenning

NEVADA(NV)
SharePoint: Legal Disoovert & Oata StOfSQIIlaaues

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-0&-18
5&;Jdl9!l"''lig. . n'o.:ltJllI'1J'!1!m!jl!tII..w
Persull5lon: The Dangers of Over--AlMeulve Lawyering
~m:jli"'l'I.lil1iI.C.!lI!.OOll1<~Ml~lI!!!l_ wm'l!!'nm'.lJl
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Sobering Slda of the Lege! Prof... lon

NEVADA(NV)
!ilpJ~ . . . ""fCfpa~Cwtl-Pli1
""
~-.,.,.aldb,~~
1037
0"
.,."".
1.00
Stbstence AbuBe:1,OO
2015-ll8-1B
't,*'!1!!m1D!IN
NEVADA(NV)
IfrttICgrtMp1c.rl .. ' 03lIS181ucUOO.dSMOloQdl
1.00
2015-ll8-1B
aJ1f\1'm W
!eMm
'n!,iji3,j]IW. UoitC"lpbp1c!rpo103334&jqtk!n-downtoadl Mmm1!'t!1Mm
Sbucturing International Joint Ventures

NEVADA(NV)
The E I I _ of BIeo & Promotion 0/ DIv ... 1ty In the Legal Pro/... lon
1.00
2015-ll8-1B
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal EtIVoa:1.00
2015-ll8-1B
'DMJ'Pl"'tlZflf.lgttC8flphp15ierelQ33642&!9Horedownlotldlntjit;m!!Im"'Wm
i.!n','I"'"UT!lA.
SubetlUlCe Abuse and Competence

NEVADA(NV)
1,00
SubslanoeAbuaa:l.00
M+iiI1il
gn!l!"tM,ru
NEVADA(NV)
2015-ll8-15
1.00
2015-ll8-15
'HI'ml@i!!f@!I(fgtltctI1 rtmlpp!t-l()j\lOU'~d) Wr;rfl""IV!'Wm
1.@ii$mlii!f1i~~.il!!mi!!n,n
Tak. FIv.: Edifying and E<iIcetionoI Ethical Exampl ..
.w
The SIx MInut. CIoaIng: Saling BIg C.... In UtII. TIme

NEVADA(NV)
NEVADA(NV}
1.00
Legal EIh/co:1.00
2015-ll8-1B
mm",UllImnl/IgtICOftpbp1Ctr1!1033u4AactlQn.d<Mnloidl
Tax I.. uee for Attorney. and

NEVADA(NV)
Law Firme
1.00
-z:;n"ln'.1!l
2015-ll8-1~
l.l'Zim1mfmret'llqqtC;rl OOploprflt1DJ2UI&aptlpo:o<dfrwnkwll -firt':iS1ltliltW.w

Top 10 Wey. to stay out 0/ Ethical Trouble
1.00
2015-ll8-19
lnrl'm!III"
IIQ"CQrt.OOQ1" ..... ,D]3I12.actlQn.doM!Ioqdl
The Umitations of Pensuaaion: KnrNi Them and Uaa Them
NEVADA(NV)
/!tttfCsrt pbp1ctrM033691&jlGHgn-sIg.w!IpMdl
1.00
Legal EthIce:1.00
2015-ll8-19
-maW
!3,\M.w
IJ!lMMtJeRlm'tlllgttc'rtphp1C!ct-10jl371U.'CUQred9MWadl
UndeI>t.n<Ing the I_et 0/ CuI1l.no and Gender to Help Ellmlnet. _
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal Ethlce:1.oo
2015-ll8-15
To: Rl!!flrldis from Ponzj Schema Lo.aes

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-ll8-19
'.{/f9@ugn'!!t'u, {lMtCtrtpbp1C!".1933793&"C~m Ml'#;;'tM1i!Qi:t-m
,.nmIRnWI",lgt,cgrt phn1S;,,,..'Q)271&P5jtloo~ri\
Ten Social Medii Myth_ for Attorneys

NEVADA(NV)
-p:ymllll_.m
_pi,mi!!jM.oo
United SllItes Taxatkin of Forelgn InvMtOlll

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-ll8-19
1.50
2015-ll8-19
"Dmxmlt!"Jlqatc!rtphP1C'W1033T3Q&ac~tO -p11Dm!.J!j
The Anatomy of II CUI Case
,,,pm'!n'!!'PlUgetCtrtJjJP?9.rt"1QJ3120&aC'~}
NEVADA(NV)
Ual!! of Trusts In haet Protection
1.00
2015-ll8-15
NEVADA(NV)
-m1m/!!;-..w
1.00
2015-ll8-15
r;aamt;tnm41frt USJtICprtphP?UrJ"'lQ32&91IaCtlon.d0Jl9idll ,Lgnmu'''m
The Dos and Don'ts of the T.. tifylng Expert
')r:@$J,,jh!fttl~p1eaW10325t4'aCtJoredoyIDfoadl Wmim;lim.jf)
NEVADA(NV)
Vaking a Businesl
NEVADA(NV}
1.50
2015-ll8-19
--
1.00
2015-ll8-1g
-m'n!WI"UgttC.rtpbP1cerl"10337.QJ~~ -4"!I"I[I'-1I1
IQI.fti'R"ilan!!MlAl (fotICertphp7Cj,rl'-10g721&ac;t!orJ!d9>M!4oa d l .;meU!I!MMJ!l
The: EMrn/natlon of Btae
""
~'--~~
"til
.,.,""
Woalth Advlaor MaIpnoctioe
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-ll8-19
,MiNt" t,'fMl!!I'llnttcprt php?ctte11133721&ns;tk.n-sfoy.nlpad\ -m,amOO!!U M.oo.
When 81 .. Turno to Bullying: StrBtogiea fa< D.aIIng with HlfIl Conillet Peopl.
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal EthIce:1.00
2015-ll8-19
Fmrm!,Q'R5!!!!!lrllJltC!tC.rl
php1c@U.. l QJ3723&qcUoo-dgwfoad)
."rg~'m:}:l
"111
'MIvVng on Appeal
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-ll8-14
l.g!!'n")n.llgOtCmphp19Grt-1Q32318&'CVoo~qwntoadl '11',Ij1lI!h!Mjf)
Woridng with Exports
NEVADA(NV)
2.00
Legal EthIce:1.00
2015-ll8-19
~~'Ig!IClJtpOp?c.r""013724iacUQn!dov.nl9!dlOO91];IRrnm#rMJ!l
Wrongful Dea1h: A Practical Approach
NEVADA (NV)
2015-ll8-14
IR=D'M:,jml!$ewJlWWt(lbQJ.~~~
-m1my.,Wm
lUll
1038
~-~.::.....
._---~-..::...
.,.
-~
~~.;.
'_''''"l
--=":~':.!'-
;~;-=.
==--=-=
,,,,,,,,,!~
..- ..-:....-
~-
; . -====~"!.=::::
--.=-::
~...:i'_--:;"''':::-=
,-
-"_._-----
==.-=-::
1039
1040
"
.
C. COE SWOBE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO,NEVADA 89509
December 9,2004

I first met <\nd became involved with Zach Coughlin's recovery from alcohol and
Committee of the State Bar of Nevada. 1 observed him to be very intelligent and eager to
enter the practice oflaw. He passed the Nevada Bar exam in July of2001, the California
Bar in July of2002, and the Federal Patent and Trademark Office Bar examination in
October of2002. I also observed he had a serious problem with alcohol.
Nevada recommended to the Nevada Supreme Court that Zach CoughHn's admission inio
abuse. He increased his attendance at A.A meetings and his contacts and interaction
with other recovering alcoholics. Since April of2oo4, he has collected signatures
verifying attendance at over 135 AA. meetings and continues to meet weekly with bis
AA sponsor. I have personally attended with him a weekly AA meeting practically
February 1,2003. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's
and drug abuse. I believe, from my observation of Zach 's performance and attitude over
drugs, regularly attends AA meetings and closely associates with other recovering
1041
December 9, 2004
Page 2
Because. of the above observations and conclusions, I hereby urge that Zach be
admitted to practice law in the State of Nevada..
Very Sincerely,
/"
It..
{r,,-<- A
1
{JJ
. . . . . .,clf...a-...,
C. CoeSwobe
CCS/kmf
1042
"
ALE LANE
-----ATTO.U4'tG AT L A W - - - - -
5+11 Ki#b:h l.:U\C ISceondl'loorlltcnll. New&. !9S11

Telephone (715) :l17-'J009 11'::<:'linlilc (J7S) 7i&.6179
W.~itI:! http://www.8aklano.CDm
December 9, 2004
Eilw.m Ewrcn HIIJ~

(19:;1.11-1993)
SWv<!l.m:
J. Sreplicli P",k
KanmP.
P.. Cnlig How-..ml
Srcpbell V. NWJ.eak
ruchaxd L- erno",
Pcnm-
To:

Re!
Zach Coughlill
Dear Sirs:
RicbartlB~"""1f.
Alex 1. F1.nJU
Kri1;dn B, fyleMill.,.
JlUlXB L Kelly
Kel1y TC$tolin
l'l. Pa:aick Flam!un
Ma>:illi:w E!. WoodhMd
Michon!> D. MuDi".
l<ogarW.lcp(1OO'Il
I am proud to recommend a close personal friend. Zach Coughlin, as a member of the

mentor ot sponsor to Zach, but I would first like to say a few words about him as a
student of recovery.
L<>ru!t C. Em
j."'lIlY 1. Nod;
D!t'\ljd A~ Gan;ia
FredD. Gibinn,
iliAsia r. Cildilh
Timotlty A. L\IbS
Frcdalck 1. Schmidt
JamciN"""",,",
Dav:idG.leGtruld
lu1iu B. OQtd
TonyR.Snnll!J'S
l'atrickl. Reill)'
!leQI'I]), fleminS
TenyM. Snyder
Bt<:IlI C-llclu!:!1<:y
Froderlck II. B3aclwr
1'1Ittlcill C. ll~1tt.ead
M~'" J.
Kreutzer
Mattb"", B. H;ppltt
Drad M. lahn,;lQn
Sryc. K. Ku.nimolO
D""~lu C- Fl"\lIer!I
JUlitinC.I<m'"
A1CJd. O. Mlcb.:tud
'l'1w'!lll$ R.Ryall
Doo1 V. Djil;~IoVll
Zach is a highly intelligent. perceptive young man. 1 came to know him in March of
Z003; and through a shared fiien~ was introduced to Zach. Zach requested that I
Zach grew in learning. in character, in depth of understanding. I personally witnessed
Zach attend 90 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in 90 days betweell March 2003
that IDeets each day oft11e week. At that time I don't think Zach appreciated fully the
seriousness ofhls situation. as he failed to gather signatures attesting to his attendance
aware that Zach has checked out and listened to audio cassettes ot over 200 speaker
and its courage strength and hope) from Reno's main office of Alcoholics
Anonymous.
Roy Fam:lw
P;1.uli,\~ Ng Lee
AnQrewl'wl
Zach is constantly trying to better hirnself. He has taken great efforts to read the best
self help literature directed at the difficulties he is faced willi, including many books
and handbooks on depression, a.ttention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adult clilldren
of alcoholics, chronic paiIl,; relapse prevention. spirituality. and a large number of
He seeks truth in each and every area of hls life. whether in learning, discussing
philosophY1 or relating to his colleagues and fellow mnn. Because of his positive
disposition. his reflective way of operating, and all of the character traits that make
lIA.LE LANE PEEKDEN1'HSON A.."'fD HOWARD
LAS YBG."'" (}FF/Clik 2S00 WeSI $alum Avenue ili'lshd,l1lOllr! &11. BI Us V"&As, Nov.. "!:> B9\OZ IPhone (102) 27,ZJSOQ I Fa.c<!miL: (102)365.6910
CARSON CTIY OF!-1CE: 777 Easl WiUiaal Street I Swu; 209 I Cll"'01l City, N4Y1\& 897011 Pbtlu< (TIS) 6846000 IFn~si""l. (7.61rMlllilllllllllllilllllllliIIlIIIIIIIIlIIIIilIiillllllllllllllllllllltl.
1043
December 9.. 2004

Page 2
HALE LANE
him to exciting new discoveries. As a student of recOvery, Zach is outstanding. As a sponsor, I

have watched him grow, seen his understanding and abiHties not only in the conte;x;t of our
myriad type~ of people in our fellowship, as well.
Zach has done every single thing I have asked him to do in order to further IDS recovery. This
has included meeting on Saturday lllornings for an hour each week to read recovery literature
and work on each of the 12 steps of Alcoholics AnonymoUS. Doing so has involved an
experience, comes without an enormous amotmt ofin.dividual effort. honesty, open-mindedness,
and wll,lingness. Zach has regularly attencie4 the weekly meetings oithe State Bar of Nevada's
'~awyers Concerned for Lawyers." Additionally, Zach has taken great effort and care to
perform amends for the wrong he has done. 1'lris has included calling each and every party at the
Boyd School of Law whom he offended and apologizing with olarity and specificity for each of
his transgressions. He bas attempted to make restitution for the I!lovie theater incident and has
served 10 hours of community service (handling calls and preparing pamphlets at Reno's main
office of Alcoholics Anonymous) in atonement for IDS dry reckless driving conviction. Further,
Zach has perfonned a good deal of cammllhlty service in the form of making coffee for
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. helping to set up and put away chairs at meetings, and lending
support to fellow AA'a.
passed tbreeofthe most dif:f1cult bar exams in the country in a matter of 15 months (the Nevada,
California. and Patept bar eXarIlli). He made th~ Dean's List several times while at the Boyd
School of Law and was a member of Boyd's law review, The Nevada Law Jownal. Zach
maintained a high g,p.a while earning a B.S. in. BiolOgy during his time at the University of
Washington and the University of Nevada, Reno.
His work ethic is further demonstrated by his accomplishtnents as an athlete. Zach was selected
as a 2 nd team AU-State basketball player in Nevada's large school division ill both 1994 and
1995. He was. All-League three times. In 1995 the Nevada-Appeal chose Zach as the large
school division Player of the Year for Northem Nevada High School Basketball. Zach was also
a National Merit Finalist and member of the. National Honor Society in high school. In addition
Zach ilii an extremely accomplished musician who plays several instruments and has done much
composing.
pleasure to work with.. He has incredible creative energies and a refreshing idealism. tempered
only enough to accomplish what needs to be done. I hlghly recommend him for any position of
share his talents with others. This most certainly includes being a member of the Nevada Bat.
Zach has already been a member ofthe Patent Bar for over a year.
a very dispiriting example if a young man like Zach, whose :infractions wero relatively In:inor
;;OPMA\!'CDOCS\,HLRNQDOCS14141ll;N
1044
December 9, 2004
HALE LANE
Page 3
legion, and whose dedication and tenacity throughout his academic career has been profound
were not given a chance. It has been three and a half years since Zach passed the 200t Nevada
bar exam. and as such there has been more than enough time for Zach to leam from his mistakes.
alL
Thank you once again for the' opportunity to recommend such a special and impressive young
man.
VerytrulY~
{!~P:/--
::ODMAIl'CDOC$\HLRNODOC$\.!16792\\
1045
Page: 1
MEDICAL
EXPENSES
COUGZAl
RespPt.y:
DCll 1422 E 9TH ST #2
RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976

195 W. PLUMB I..ANE
RENO
,NV 89512
Date: 01/01/2008 TO 05/01/2012
prescriptions:
LastFill Rx #
01/30/08
02/01/08
03/01/08
03/03/08
03/30/08
04/02/08
OS/01/08
05/05/08
06/02/Q8
06/02/08
06/27/08
07/03/08
08/01/08
08/04/08
08/30/08
09/06/08
09/30/08
09/30/08
10/30/08
10/30/08
11/30/08
11/30/08
12/19/08
12/28/08
12/28/08
01/24/09
01/24/09
02/17/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
03/18/09
03/18/09
03/20/09
04/17/09
05/04/09
OS/18/09
06/05/09
06/13/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
09/10/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
11/15/09
11/23/09
12/31/09
01/17/10
01/22/10
02/02/10
NV 89509
Drug Name
Qty Physician Name
6405827
2401067
6405827
2401357
2401611
6413703
2401932
6416295
2402229
6416295
2402484
6416295
2402852
6422989
2403149
6422989
2403415
6422989
2403418
6430436
2403419
6430436
6434447
2404354
6434452
2404356
6434452
6430436
2404355
2405234
6441680
6441682
6441898
2405236
6441682
2405237
6441682
2406368
2406369
6452048
2407073
6452048
6456472
2407500
6456472
2407501
6463678
BUDEPRION XL 300 MG
METHYLIN 20MG
BUDEPRION XL 300 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
\~l~~SE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MGXL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 ~~ XL
GUANFACINE 1MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
BUPROPION 300 ~~ XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
GUANFACINE 1MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VIAGRA 50MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 ~n XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30~n
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
6463678 BUPROPION 150MG SR
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
6468474 OMEPRAZOLE 20MG

2409D75 AMPHETAMINE 20~~
6463678 BUPROPION lSDr-1G SR
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
5
30
30
30
30
60
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
60
90
60
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RA$UL
Dr,RASUL
Dr,RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.MSUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RA8UL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.COUGHLIN
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
TIp
Price
CPB
2S.00
22.23
2S.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPs
CPs
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPS
JWH
TZ2
JTS
JH2
JH5
JT3
JH3
JTl
JT3
JT3
JT6
I..TT4
25.00
25.00
25_00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
2S.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
2S.00
73.41
25.00
25.00
160.48
92.72
52.68
CPB
RPh
52.68
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
34.67
5.00
1046
K06
TZ7
TZS
JT6
KC2
KC2
JRT
JTl
JT6
JT6
JT3
JT4
JT8
TZ5
TZ5
JT5
TZ5
TZ2
JT3
JT3
TZS
JT8
MVB
JRT
TNZ
TNZ
JT9
JG6
JG3
JT1
JT5
JGS
JG5
JG6
JT1
JGS
JTS
JG3
JG3
Pag!:);
t
'!,c
.2
EXPENSES
Pharmacy:
SAVE MART PHARMACY #556

106 W" PLUMB LANE
R~NO
NV 89509
RPII: rAYlOf~, JACKIEITOMMY
NV 89512
Dat~;
J~l
Nama
:I..
)210.:<
J2I19I1lt.
J:!I:?4J'O 6i1 ,
AMINE2QMG
.PION 15()MG SR
,~AI.L XR 30MG
,.jCLOPf~AM SMO
J~ilt8l10 6412tt" i rlMPRAL 333MO
:>311911 {} 6.11.1257BUPROPION '50MC fiR
03/2011 0 2409169ADOERALt XR MMG
O~1/t()/10 6414257 aUpr~OPION 150MO SR
04121110 '.109770 AOcmRAtL XR 30MG
05122/1 0;M09111 AOOERAt.L XR 30MG
06/0:4/10 64742hl aUPROPION 150MGS{~
061171102.110853 AODERAlL XR 3
0111:UlO 648476aBUPROPION 150
08102/102411503 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
09/0::mO .:M118Hl AMPHETAMINE 30MG
10/02110 2411974 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
10/061106492514 BUf.)ROPION 15MG
111011102.t1W1::SAMPHETAMJNE30MG
1;lj(J~J 10 2412940 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
12/021105489816 BUPHOPION 150MO SR
12118/10 2413M1 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
1212:!l10 6489816 BUf;'f~O~')ION 150MG Sf(
01131111 2.U:H42 AMPHE1'AMINE 30MG
01/:)\1116489816 BUPROPI(JN 150MG Sf,
0:il03l1t 2413143 AMi:Jf1ETAMINE 30MG
03103111 $505146 BUPROPlCJN tSOMG SR
Q.t/04/lt 2413144 AMPHETAMINE 30MG
04/<.M!11 6505746 SUPROjllON 150MOSR
0<1/~~2J1 t 24146;11 AMPHETAMINE JOMG
05121111 6511008 BUf~ROPION 150MG Sf{
oru03/11 241464 t l AMPHETAMINE ~)OMG
06125111 65 t 1008 BUPf;(OPIONH.IDMG SH
0i'!/2911 1 2.1 1464!i AMPHETAMINE 30MG
09/12/11 2416340 AMPHETAMINE ::SOMG
to/13f11 2416349 AMPHETAMINE OOMCl
11117111 2416350 AMPHETAMINE: :iOMG
12/20/11 2tl1G3{,1 AMf.)IIETAMINE 30MG
01126112 24170t6 AMPHETAMINE '3OMG
0';112111224 t 191~ AMPHETAMlNE OOMG
04/02}12 24110:?OAMPHt~TAMtNE 3t>MG
011128112 6521924 OUPI~OPN HCt. 1501.10 X
RU~ft O<ito:
0 tlOt/2QOO
Qty Phy:uGfall Namu
00 Or,RASUL
60 Qr,RASUL
6(> Dt.HAsut
,,10 Dr~PAnR01T APN
1800rRASUl
60 Or.RASUL
00 Dr,RASUL
00 Dr.RASUL
60 OtRASUL
60 rJr.RASUL
600r.RASUL
00 D(~RASLJL
00 Dr,RASUL
00 OrRASllL
so Dr.YASAR
00 D(~YASAR
120 Ot. YASAR
600rYASAR
60 flr.YASAR
00 {)r.YASAR
60 LJr.YASAR
60DrYASAR
600r.YASAR
60 [,r. YASAR
OOOr.YASAR
OOOrYASAR
6Q ()r,YASAR
00 Dr.YASAR
OOOr,YASAR
OOOtYASAR
a(> Dr,YASAR
OOD"YASAR
OO!JfYASAR
~OOr.YASAR
aonl~YASAR
(50 D"YASAR
aOOtvASAR
00 r)r'yASAR
OOI)t~YASAR
00 l1r.YASAR
GO Dr.YASAll
TO Ot)/Ol12012
TIP
cpa
CPS
Cf>B
cpa
t;P6
CPB
CPB
cpa
cpa
CPO
Cf~B
cpe
Pnce
RPh
34,61
JG3
JG3
JOG
JG3
!i,no
l!toO
f1,61
25.00
5.00
t5.00
5,00
15J)0
t6.00
.5,00
15,00
!l,OO
3:.tD5
3295
3~,95
32.'113
1047
./"E'"
Attl3sto(1 10 BV'~~'~~OgTiiliii;
JT5
lBG
J15
AAF
JMG
2M4
JT4
JTll
LB4
32,S.l5
JG1
JT6
G13
32.116
JG1
32.95
32.95
32.46
32,95
32,116
32,95
32A6
26,79
31,39
3~;!)5
31,39
~~r},19
36,89
2(t23
45,46
60
au
fro. on
6{),00
09, Hi
6(U9
6{),.1t/
61.<)1
$2J2V.;;s4
0510 H20 12
..lG3
G13
JG4
Jra
Jra
1MB
J13
JTB
JTa
JG3
JT5
JT6
ZM2
2M.J
MM8
Z11
MM"
JT5
MMA
Jl1
MM1
BUl)
PaSju;
MEDiCAL
COUGZA1
>Itlonl
:t)f,lpPly~
Phmftme}l .
Cl;lU(1HLlN, lACH
HiS w, PLUMlllANE
RPh:
NV 89009
TAYLOR, JACKIEffOMMY
NV 89512
09/211l9h,
D.llo:
"Wl>cnplu:mu:
.1lstFUi Rx #I
SAVE MAHT F'HARMACY 11556
RENe)
DC!! 1422 E 9TH ST 112

HEND
fbnh;
EXPENStS
DW9 Natm~
i 1rlJI07 2400458 METHYLIN 2QMG

12127/07 24007f4 VYVANSE 70 MG
)'/30/08 (;M05827 BUDE?R10N XL ::SOO MG
):?IO 1/082401067 METHYLIN 20MG
13/01/080.105827 BUDEPRION XL 300 MG

:>3/03108 :'M01357 VYVANSE 70 MG
;)3130/082401611 VYVANSE 70 MG
0-1102/08641 :rl03 aUPHOPION !iOO MG Xl
051011082401932 VYVANSE 70 MG
05/05/08 6416295 BUPl,QPION 300. MG XL
06/02108 2402;~29 VYVANSE 70 MG

OOJ02/0a ().t16295 BUPROPlON300 tAG Xl
0(,12'1106240248-1 VYVANSE: 70 MG
07/03/086416295 BLiPROPION 300 MG XL
oa/OIiOB 240.2852 VYVANSE 10 MG

00104108 64229B{H3UPROPION JOO MG Xl,
OB/30/0B :M03149 VY\lANSE 10 MG
00/00/08 042:~I89 BUPf~OPION 300 MG XL
09/30/082403415 VYVANSr 10 MG
09rJ()108 6422989 BUPROPION JOO MCl Xl
10/30/08 2403418 V'{VANSE 70 MG
10/30108 6430.136 BIJPROPION 300 MG XL
111:30/08 ~~40~l.119 VYVANSE 70 MO
1 1130/086430436 BUPROPION 300 tAG Xl
1:2110/06 0434Ml GUANFACINI:: 1MG
1?m'llOO 240435.1 VYVANSE 10 Mn
12/28108 6434452 BUPROPION 300 MG Xl.
01r.~4J09 ;2404356 VYVANSE 10 MG
01/241096434452 BUPROPION 300 MG Xl
0211/109 64Z.ro4;;o aUPRO!110N 300 MG Xl
02118/012.104355 VYVANSE 70 MG
031181092405234 VYVANSE 70 MG
03116109 ('1441680 GtJANFAr.1NE lMG
03118/00644 HID2 BUPROPION300 MG XL
D~V20109 6411898 VIAGRA WhiG
04/17/092405236 VYVANSI! 70 Mt']
05/04/096441682 BU""ROPION 300 MG XL
mj/18/09 240b237 VYVANSE 'Iff tAn
06105/096441682 BUPROPION 300 MG XL
00I1:W9 2406300 AMPIiFrAMINE ~WMG

07117/092406309 AMPHETAMINE SOMG
1048
0U171OfJ 6452048 BUPHC1PlON 300 MG Xl

OV11/00 240'1013 VYVANSr; 70 MG
061111'096.'52048 BUPROPION 300 MG Xl.
OU/l0r09 6i156.H2 BUPHOI'ION 30() Mel XL
t0/16109 2407000 VYVANSE 10 MG
10116/Q9 6.156t17;! BUf'ROPIQN 300 Mt.l Xl
111151092407501 VYVANSf; 10 MG
l1f23109 6463678 BUPROPION 100MG SI<
12'3"09 6"6~~676 BUf1I~OrION tt)OMGSR
IH117i10 Q<l66414 OMEPHAlOLE ~o,.,m
01l{W2000
City PhYllIcl.m N.mm

00 (lr.HASUL
30 Or. Rl,SUl
30 Dr.HASUL
GO Dr.RASUL
30 Dr.HAStll
30 [)f,RASUk
30 Dr.RASUL
WDr.RASUL
30Dr.RASUL
3:> Or.RASUl
311 Dr ftAsut
30 Orf{ASUL
~~ f)rJ~ASUL
30 DrHASUl
'30 Or .RASUl
~10 DrRASUL
'30 Dr.RASUI
:300tRASUL
~!O DrRASUL
'30Dr.RASUL
30 DtRASUL
'30 DrRASUL
aoOrJMSUL
300fl~ASUL
00 Or.HASUL
300rJ~ASUL
30 Dr.f<ASUL
300t.RASUL
30Dr.RASUL
300r.RASUL
30 Dr,RASUl
j() Or.RASUL
BOOc.RASUL
Wnf.J~A~)UL
SOr.RASUL
30 OrJxASUL
30ndMstJt
:-10 Dr.FilASUL
:30 Or,RA[jl)L
(ID Dr.RASUL
GO OIHASUI.
30 DtJ<ASUL
~) DII~A~iUl
:m OrJMSl)t
300rJ<ASUL
:'10 IkRASUL
30 Dr.RASUI.
30 Dr,RASUl
00 O(,RASU!.
HO DtRASUL
()o OfCC)tlQHUN
TO 051U1I20,7
riP
OPU
CPS
Pnce
22.23
2!iOO
22.23
CPS
25,00
CPB
CPIJ
CPB
CPR
25,00
2500
CPB
25,{}0
CPS
cpa
21,,,00
25.00
2S00
2(>'00
CPH
;!5.00
cpa
CPS
2!iOO
25.00
CPI3
CPO
CPO
CPU
CPO
cpa
cpa
CPU
CPA
CPA
CPB
cpa
CPB
CPS
CPB
CPB
CPA
CPU
GPI3
CPU
CPS
CJ:)B
25,00
25.00
25.00
25.00
2!iOO
26.00
25.00
l!.iOO
!iOQ
2fi,QO
25.QO
25,00
:!!i,QO
25.00
2!J.OO
2fiOQ
5,00
'500
73.41
'-tiOO
2fiOO
Hl0118
92.72
f>2.6S
c:r~o
CPU
cpa
cpa
(;f}B
cpa
CPO
CPS
CPS
CPS
52.M
25.00
"b,QO
25.00
2t),0l)
2tiOO
25,00
?fj.OO
5.00
fiOO
500
RPt!
JHt
JT3
JWH
T22
JT5
JH2
.JH5
JT3
Jrl3
JTl
JT3
JT3
JTG
JT4
K06
lZ7
TZu
JT6
KC;!
KC2
JRT
Jrt
.lT6
JT6
JT3
JT4
JT8
T~
1'l5
JT5
T25
T22
JT~
JT3
11ft
JI8
MVU
JRT
lNl
TNZ
~fnl
Jt':it)
JG3
,n,
.JTO
J(J5
JG!i
JGG
JTl
JGh
JT5
Page:. 2
MEDICAL
COUGZA1
Patient: COUGHLIN,
RespPty:
ZACH
DC!! 1422 E 9TH ST #2

RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976
EXPENSES

195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
,NY 89512
Date: 01/01/2008 TO 05/01/2012
prescriptions:
LastFill Rx #
02/19/10
02/24/10
03/18/10
03/19/10
03/20/10
04/19/10
04/21/10
OS/22/10
06/03/10
06/17/10
07/12/10
08/02/10
09/02/10
10/02/10
10/06/10
11/01/10
12/02/10
12/02/10
12/18/10
12/23/10
01/31/11
01/31/11
03/03/11
03/03/11
04/04/11
04/04/11
04/22/11
OS/21/11
06/03/11
06/25/11
06/29/11
09/12/11
10/13/11
11/17/11
12/26/11
01/26/12
02/27/12
04/02/12
04/28/12
Report
2409405
6471901
6472900
6474257
2409769
6474257
2409770
2409771
6474257
2410853
6484763
2411503
2411881
2411974
6492514
2411973
2412940
6489816
2413141
6489816
2413142
6489816
2413143
6505746
2413144
6505746
2414647
6511008
2414644
6511008
2414645
2416340
2416349
2416350
2416351
2417915
2417919
2417920
6521924
Drug Name
Qty Physician Name
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
METOCLOPRAM SMG
40 Dr.PARROTT APN
180 Dr.RASUL
CAMPRAL 333MG
BUPROPION 15DMG SR
60 Dr.RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
BUPROPION 1S0MG SR
60 Dr~RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.RASUL
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 75MG
120 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr,YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr. YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
6 ODr YASA.'R.
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG sa
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr. YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG sa
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30M(;
60 Dr. YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr. YASA.'R.
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPN HCL lS0MG X
60 Dr.YASAR
Date; 05/01/2012
Attested To By:
NY 89509
RPh,: TAYLOR I JACKIE/TOMMY
Tip
Price
RPh
CPB
15.00
4.87
25.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
32.95
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.45
32.95
32.46
26.79
37.39
32.95
37.39
26.79
36.89
20.23
45.46
60.00
J'G6
JG3
JG3
JT5
60.00
MM7
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
60.00
69.19
69.19
69.19
61. 01
LB6
.115
AAF
JMG
ZM4
JT4
LB1
JG5
JT4
LB4
JG1
JT6
G13
.1G1
G13
JG4
JT8
JT8
ZM6
.113
JT6
JT6
.1G3
JT5
JT6
ZM2
ZM4
MM8
Z11
J'l'5
MM4
JT7
MM7
BBS
$2,707.11
Registered~harmacist
1049
Name: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY

Type: Client Plan
Case#: 200136502
Page: 1of2
Date: 03/09/2015 - 03/08/2016
I!:=== Printed on 07/17/2015 a109:14 A t I o l : : = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = (Final Approved)

Form#:
Unit:
SubUnit:
Server:
Supervisor:
Service:
Lab:
3663691
Date: 04/02/2015
CO NORTH CENTRAL CLINIC (A)

BUNNER,
(00037)
scon
MED CHECK MD BRIEF 23
Start
Service:
Travel:
Documentation:
Duration
0:14

Participants:
Days: 0
Quantity: 0
Provided To:
Client
Outside Facility:
NOT APPLICABLE
Intensity Type:
0:05
Provided At: Office

i
]
l
:I
8
iil
~
~
"0
~
~
..,~
Progress Note
MEDICA TlON PROGRESS NOTE:

1120/1121
CURRENT CONDITION (complaints, symptoms, appearance, cognitive capacity, changes from
revious visits, potential for harm, precipitators, strengths):
e has been off adderal/ for a week and wants to stay off it. He thinks it makes him too aggressive
and he wants to just try wel/butrin. He is living in his RV and works part time in an auto body shop so
he can pay for gas. He works out 5 days per week and has food stamps. He goes to daily sobriety
eetings and has a sponsor. He also sees friends outside of meetings. He is trying to get an
'ntemship with a lawyer in town. He might want counseling in the future partly because he thinks it
ight help him get his law license back and partly because he thinks it would help him but he
oesn't know what to work on in counseling. He lost his MediCal and is trying to get it back since he
was transferring it from Santa Barbara.
HYSICAL HEAL TH (changes to non-psychotropic medication, changes in health status,
edication interactions, medical referrals):
one new
a d,a ,s
THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION (response to treatment):
ood
ENTAL STATUS EXAM (include current or changes to the MSE):
ood is mildly depressed, anxious; affect is restricted. No SI, AH or paranoia. thoughts are goal
direct. He is casually dressed.
RESPONSE TO MEDICA TlON (include effectiveness/compliance):
ood
CURRENT MEDICA TlON CHANGES (indicate reason for change such as critical decision points
'ndicates change, diagnosis change, symptoms worsellack of progress, client preference, side
effects intolerable):
LAN OF CARE (include diagnostic exam, lab tests, target symptoms, psychotherapeutic needs,
rogress on recoverylresiliency goals):
c 4 weeks MD
OTHER INFORMA TlON: mors 5
1050
1051
Confidentiallnfonnation
County of San Diego, Behavioral Health Services, Health and Human ScrvicesAgency
This information has been disclosed to you from records whose confidentiality is protected under CA Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5328 and may also be protected by Federal Regulation (45 CFR section 164), Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 19%. You are prohibited fTom making any further disclosure of it without the specific written consent of the petson to whom it pertains or as otherwise pennitted by such regulations. Information
protected by Section 5328 also requires specific written consent by the paticnt for disclosure in most cases. A general authorization for the release of medical or otller informatiou is NOT sufficient for this purpose .
. ~_I
tO~
...,.
_oE!
Co
NCo
CO<C
em
(") .S
'c
0
....
~11
Q)
ill
Ncr;
-e
OC')
NO
t~ II
I
Li)
lID
If=:
't""
IE
N
0
0
0::1'
0
'"to
C')
..-
LO
.....
0
N
:!
G)
~
0
..
:jj;
'"'"ro
II)
II)
G)
I~
J!2ro
C)
I~
0
D-
C;
:::s
"C
:~
"C
s::
>-
0::
:r:
0
N
'0
CI.J
c
c
ro
CL
til
;!:
cri
0
1il
'"0
ro
CI.J
10
CI.J
:!
~
t=
:r:O::0
CJ-ri
t:
:J Ql;::::
:::J
C"
o!!!~
OU-E
a..
i~
(~
!g
I~
CI.J
0"
Do>
Q)
CJ)a.
C.
E
UJo;
zg
'":
COUi
'":
-U3
IY2-
ZOE
=>Ii
ID
I~
II
I ..
l~
,ttl
,z
.,
rr===========================================================================~ ~~
6t'!: Vi'
Name: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY
Case#: 200136502
Page: 1 of 2
_.
Type: Client Plan
Date: 0310912015 - 0310812016
~~
l!====
Printed on 07/1712015 at 09:14 A t f o l = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = (Final Approved)
~~~!:t.
' " Q.
>8
9 g III
g
Cn ::r
~i[
el.=:;
Form#:
Unit:
SubUnit:
Server:
Supervisor:
Service:
Lab:
3742835
Date: 05/01/2015

BUNNER, SCOTT (00037)
MEDS EM EXPANDED LOW 26
Start
Service:
Travel:
Documentation:
Duration
0:15
0:05
Total Server Time: o Hours, 20 Minutes

Participants:
Days: 0
Quantity: 0
.Q
c:
a'
5i
~
n
[
1)
"' ~ g
1L
n
~.
::I
:t,l
:::;
---
Client
Provided To:
Outside Facility:
NOT APPLICABLE
Intensity Type:
----
Provided At: Office

----~
~~
~J
!~.
.,
Progress Note
DIAGNOSIS (include rule out(s). Include status: improved, well controlled, resolving or resolved; or,
'nadequately controlled, worsening, or failing to change as expected):
1120/1121
dx- 296.35 stable
CHIEF COMPLAINT:
e is stable on the wellbutrin and thinks he is doing fine off adderall. He brought in left over adderall
he states he had for us to dispose of. He has been working 3 weeks in cabinet making and hopes
to keep the job. He is still tryin to work with the Nevada bar about his law license. He asked for
ultiple pieces of documentation for them and I told him he would need to give us something in
writing from them stating the specific request.
ISTORY (brief history of present illness, problem pertinent system review, associated
igns/symptoms):
e hopes to eventually get off wellbutrin but doesn't want to do it now.
PSYCHIATRIC EXAM: (description of speech, thought process, associations, abnormal or

sychotic thoughts, judgment and insight, MSE, SI/HI, etc.):
ood is mildly depressed, anxious;affect is restricted. No SI, AH or paranoia. Thoughts are goal
direct. Speech is regular.
HYSICAL HEAL TH (changes to non-psychotropic medication, changes in health status,

edication interactions, medicat referrals):
RESPONSE TO MEDICA TlON (include effectivness/compliance):

ood
1052
Jrr==N=a=m=e=:=c=O==U=G=H=L=IN=,=ZA=C==HA=R=y===================c=a=s=e#=:==2=0=01=3=6=50=2========p=a=g=e=:=2=O=f=2==============~
Type: Client Plan
Date: 03/09/2015 - 03/08/2016
1.:=== Prinled an 0711712015 al 0914 A M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = (Final Approved)
CURRENT MEDICATION CHANGES (indicate reason for change such as critical decision points,
diagnosis change, symptoms worse/lack of progress, client preference, side-effects intolerable):
PLAN OF CARE: (include diagnostic exam, lab tests, target symptoms, psychoterapeutic needs,
rogress on recoverylresiJiency goals):
rtc 12 weeks MD will refer out to pcp or health plan psychiatrist at next appt.
INFORMA TlON:

Name:
i3UNNEFCSCOTT (00037),
MD-f55---- Date: 05/0112015- Time:-'-"-
Electronic
Eleclronically Signed
N/A
1053
8I1912015
Outlook. com Print Message
Ninth Step Amends

Sent: Sun 7/12/154:03 PM
'ra: bhahn@da.washoecounty.us (bhahn@da.washoecounty.us); mkandaras@da.washaecounty.us
(mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us); astege@da.washoecounty.us
(astege@da. washoecounty .us); zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty .us);
telcano@da.washoecounty.us (telcano@da.washoecounty.us); jgoodnight@washaecounty.us
Ugoodnight@washoecounty.us); mcovington@da.washoecounty.us
(mcovingtan@da.washoecounty.us); enovak@washoecounty.us (enovak@washoecounty .us);
jbosler@washoecounty.us Ubosler@washoecounty.us); j leslie@washoecounty.us
Uleslie@washoecounty .us); wongd@reno.gov (wongd@reno.gov); drakej@reno.gov
(drakej@reno.gov); sooudib@reno.gov (sooudib@reno.gov); HAZLETTSTEVENSC@RENO.GOV (hazletl-stevensc@reno.gov); robertsp@reno.gov
(robertsp@reno.gov); ormaasa@reno.gov (ormaasa@reno.gov); kadlicj@reno.gov
(kadlicj@reno.gov); bdogan@washoecounty,us (bdogan@washoecounty.us);
lstuchell@washoecounty.us (lstuchell@washoecounty .us); julie. wise@washoecourts.us
Uulie. wise@washoecourts.us); Joey .hastings@washoecourts.us
Uoey.hastings@washaecourts.us); michelle.purdy@washoecourts.us
(michelle. purdy@washoecourts.us); jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us
Uhelzer@da.washoecounty.us); patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com
(patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com); glennm@nvbar.org (glennm@nvbar.org);
rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com (rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com); jgarin@1ipsonneilson.com
Ugarin@lipsonneilson.com); cstemlicht@washoelegalservices.org
(cstemlicht@washoelegalservices.org); jsasser@washoelegalservices.org
Usasser@washoelegalservices.org); pelcano@washoelegalservices.org
(pelcano@washoelegalservices.org); ksabo@washoelegalservices.org
(ksabo@washoelegalservices.org); mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org
(mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org); mashley@washoelegalservices.org
(mashley@washoelegalservices.org); dpringle@washoelegalservices.org
(dpringle@washoelegalservices.org); mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net
(mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net); hsotelo@tmcc.edu (hsotelo@tmcc.edu);
rharrison@washoelegalservices.org (rharrison@washoelegalservices.org);
cbaker@geherenlaw.com (cbaker@geherenlaw.com); msexton@washoecounty.us
(msexton@washoecounty.us);jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
Uhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us); christensend@reno.gov (christensend@rena.gov);
fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd. com)
Dear Counsel,
I am writing to make amends for my poor behavior towards you to the extent that is
possible. I am very sorry for how I behaved. I was not well and feel a considerable amount
of shame and regret for my actions. Please let me know what I can do to make things right,
https:/lbay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?rnkt=en-us
1054
1/2
811912015
if possible. I have much respect for each of you.

Sincerely,
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NY, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949667 7402 ZachCoughlin(qi.hotmaiLcom
Nevada law license currently inactive
1055
212
812012015
Ninth Step Amends

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmai1.com)
Sent: Sun 7/12/153:13 PM
To: rhi1l@richardhillaw.com (rhill@richardhillaw.com); cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
(cdbaker@richardhillaw .com); magunda@ao1.com (magunda@ao1.com)
Dear Dr. Merliss, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Baker,

Sincerely
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402 ZachCoughlin((ilhotmail.com
1056
1/1
8I20/2015
Ninth Step Amends

Sent: Sun 7/12/157:32 PM
To: schomsby@nvdetr.org (schomsby@nvdetr.org); skent@skentlaw.com
(skent@skentlaw.com); mike@tahoelawyer.com (mike@tahoelawyer.com);
cvellis@bhfs.com (cvellis@bhfs.com); je@eloreno.com Oe@eloreno.com);
tsusich@nvdetr.org (tsusich@nvdetr.org); nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net
Dear Counsel,
Sincerely,
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402 ZachCollghlinif.~)hotmaiLcom
Nevada law license currently on disabled inactive status
https:llb0!j176.mail.live.com/oi/mail.mvC/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1057
1/1
8I2012015
Outlook. com Print Message
Ninth Step Amends

Sent: Sun 7112/157:27 PM
'1'0: springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net (springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net);
smeador@woodbumandwedge.com (smeador@woodbumandwedge.com);
kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com (kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com); toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net
(toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net); JProctor@mbareno.com Gproctor@mbareno.com);
info@springgatelaw.com (info@springgatelaw.com); linda.gardner@washoecourts.us
(linda. gardner@washoecourts.us)
Dear Counsel,
Sincerely,
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402 ZachCouQ.hlin(r/)hotmail.com
https:llbay176.mail.llve.com/ol/mail.mvC/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1058
1/1
------------------------------------2J..c \-\-(j7L) {~Li~ (')

"
<;U~'
/.,}, f;'
,1 /{
~;A(.1\
f~
~~~~J; __,
"il,,~ I"
-------------
h'" ,,~\ \',(,c~/'-
L&Jir.lrJ t"k, .,,!. Wl66 'j -/tJO ?

~:u~vfj2 r' f~ IEttY"; 6 )J-5T
,i~~\2. -... ---- -~''\ ;~ /; T"!6cfi,,",
fA_ l~J~~-;:IC;-
(,:
G/::;'ry,<
(/~h,\'
2-::~'"~~
It.! I L)iY .~f~)t.
-tl'rYi rI ipJ it ~j; ~ .1 ill'-
(,III
1:$
01 20 / 15
I
L
... _....... _-------_..
~~ Uus-tfJ./~
~r:E:
'fo\
_..._._--------;----(ZcoUEf2V
fY1ff-Tl"j1- i-/ST
11.AlZ.J3:TI;;6
._>M.>~ .. ---............,-,~
q +jfJ-'le!/;,p t:/.!:7
__ I::~~IT!J:::z__
~-:.:..
ifl
~__~1~~ .._
61::'
i>('l: r ~,/Z4;!
1059
1060
1061

(619) 895- 2 589
mbrennan34@cox.net
August 11,2015
State Bat of Nevada

3100 W. Chnrlcston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Veguf', NV
89102
Re:
To Whom it Mlly Concern:

I am an attorney licenced in California in good standing since 2006. 1 atn also the point of
abuse. fn this capacity, I also attend weekly meetings of the Other Bar in the San Diego area as I
have done for the past 12 yeats when I commenced law schooL
Zach Coughlin, I have never doubted his slnct!rity in fully applying himself to makil1g the necessary
changes in his life. He has been fottl1l'ight and honest with al1tnembers of OUt group, and 1 have
never c.ntt~rtail1ed the thought that he \v~18 not stable in his present commitment to recovcty. Rather,
recurrence of some past poor decisions. I'Ie has consistently maintained his commitment to overall
mental and physical health, despite tlle challenges in his life.
1 h~lVC no tescrvations about endorsing tvlr. Coughlin's character and his reinstatement.
Sincerely yours,
"tvio1ra S. Brennan
1062
Damian Sinnott
576 Ridge Street

Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 376-8378
dsinnott.esq@gmaiLcom
August 21, 2015

State Bar of Nevada
and just started a family here. I am a practicing attorney licensed both here and in California. Currently,
I work for the Lyon County District Attorney's OfTtce as a Deputy District Attorney; 1 have been so
facets of his life.

He has many attributes that lend themselves to being a great attorney. I have reviewed some ofZach's
legal work. including that done on his own behalf during the time his law license was temporarily
that he is now fit to resume the practice of law without any further demonstration of his competency or
learning in the law. As a recovering alcoholic myself. I am confident that Zach is committed to his
outlook.
Sincerely,
1:A!t,ltr
1063
775-201-0278
Carly Coughlin
p.1

4790 Caughlin Parkway Suite 379
Reno, NV 89S19
August 17.2015
R.e: Zachary Barker Coughlin

To Whom 11 May Concern:
I am related to Mr. Coughlin. r have known Mr. Coughlin for 39 years. I would reoonunend Mr.
asset to the workforce. He bas recently exhibited a great deal of insight into his past mistakes
L1u~~
Carly 'eoughlfu,~St eRe
.,""
1064
August 19, 2015

State Bar of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV 89102
To Whom it May Conce,rn:
provide counsel to senior principals regarding the Navy's
messaging for military operations and humanitarian relief
efforts. As a paid communicator, I must make critical decisions
regarding one's intent and motivation when interacting with
others.
I have known 2ach Coughlin since December 2014 when I met
him in a recovery program. From the start, I sensed a kindred
soul and like myself dedicated to overcoming setbacks. He's
demonstrated himself as a supportive friend, a trusted adviser,
and his potential and growth has been amazing to witness. I'm
fully confident he's committed to making SUbstantial changes in
his life and will one day make a profound contribution to the
legal community. As a testament to his character, he helped me
with my special needs dog accompanying me on numerous medical
appointments and assisting with a physical therapy program for
him. He is the person I turn to when I need a supportive ear,
I have complete faith and confidence in Mr. Coughlin's
character and judgment. If you have additional questions, I can
be reached at (808)-388-3423.
Sincerely,
~A.~ c__ ~&~.

Theresa Donnelly
~
United states Navy
1065
7758515710
T-272 POOO2/0002 F-833

August 17,2015
RE: COUOHLm,ZACHARY
Dear Sir:
I am Zac4l1s father and a fonner medical director of St Mary's Chemical Dependency Program, I have
Zack was a completo straight arrow throughout his high school years, He was Ii National Merit Finalists
an Allstate in basketball as weIl as player of the year in the Northern AM. He also made the law
, review while he was in law school.
Unfortunately, he developed an addiction to alcohol and drugs. He has paid a tremendous price tor his
addiction. He has lost over 10 years of his life and has alienated bimselffrom his family tlnd his peers.
I feel strongly that he is now sincere in his desire to change his life lUid to live soberly. He has been "
very active in AA and I feel as though we finally have the old Zack back.
multiple AA meetings with him and I have had contact with hUn on an almost daily basis. 1 know he is
saving.
Since~ly
yours t
~~-.D
Timothy D. Coughli~ M.D.

TDC/ag
.,
~,
"
7111 South Virginia Street Reno~ Nevada 89511

775-851-5700 Frot 775-851-5710
l!
1066
"
IT
r.ij
BERNARD M. HANSEN
Attorney at Law
(619) 283-3371
August 13, 2015
State Bar of Nevada
Las Vt!gas. NY 89102

Dear Sir or Madam:
Perhaps I have become too jaded, but I do not blindly believe that a new attendee
at our meeting is without secondary motives. This includes trying to finagle a letter of
support. When I met Zach at the beginning of this year at the Tuesday night meeting, I
As I listened to Zack over the months, it became apparent that the message of the
need to live a psychologically healthy Hfe was permeating into his brain. When he shared.
he gave specific examples of issues be was \vrcsding with and what he was doing to
cope.
However, one never knows what another is truly thinking. Then, I saw Zack at
other 12~step meetings around town. Meetings where there could be no temptation to
effective advocate for others and this l-lonorable Bar should look kindly on his
Tmlv yours,
R~
J tlA.~
~;:~~~~~sen
\
,".HU
BMBI
1067
HEITING & IRWIN

JAMES OTIO BElTINO
meHARD H IRWlW'
JOSHUA CATES; qffl1~""tl

JEANSIMON SERRANd
SARA B. MORGAN
DENNIS It STOUT
5885 BROCKTON AVENUE

(95 l) 682-6400
fAX (951) 682-4072
Kh1m PILAT,
AliORNEYS' INVESnOATOR
o IF CHECKED, RESPOND to
POBOX I
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

"CERTifIED WORKERS' COMP. SPECIALIST
WRIGI rrwooo. eA 92397
(160)249-9000
July 15, 2015
ZachS(Qughlin@hotmail.com
Zach Coughlin
DearZach:
I am In receipt of your email of June 9. Sorry it has taken me this long to respond to it.
I am sorry to read of your troubles; but
recovery.
r am
very happy to read of your current sobriety and
I would be happy to stand by to assist, if I can; and I think you should join the LAP program,
the State Bar.
Best regards,
JOH:gsa
1068
8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB: 9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE NAME: In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Respondent
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
It ...

1069
-2-

by Charlie Hoar, Ed.D., MFT. In June, MediCal rejected Mr. Coughlin's use of two
he had injured in the past (his father; his step-mother; and his 16 year old stepSister).
1070
-3-

reinstatement.
morning of the 25 th If needed, I can be contacted by cell phone that morning
1071
WILLIAM M. HENRICH
.A rrORNEY AT LA W

SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92111
(858) 576-4484
August 10, 2015

I have known Zach Coughlin for appro.ximately a year. Over that year, I have
personaliy witnessed Zach come to terms with his personal and professional condition,
At all times, 2ach has been honest about himself and with others, and his integrity
problem associating 2ach as co~counsel or trusting him with client confidences should the
William M. Henrich
1072
JOHN J. KADLIC
AnOKNt:v AI' LAW
P()~TOFr.ICEl3ox24n
.. ReNO. NHVADA 89505
Tl1l.llI'H()N~
(775) 322-7099
FAX
(775) 322-7511
December 9. 2004
I am writingthi$letter on behaJf oflack Coughlin who is seeking admission to the State Bar of .
Nevada.
In my case, 1 have known Zack Coughlin for over fifteen years. His father, Tim Coughlin. .as well
being our fumily pbysician, is the godfather and his wife is the godmother of my daughter. Blair who
I have had a chance to watch.lack through \Us high school years and his entering conege; He was
both a excellent student as well as a fine athletic:. Twas very pleased when he choose to enter law
school.
Since his graduation from law school, I have had a number of opportunities to speak to Zack. 1n
. the Past. I have used him to do some legal research for me. He did a. fine job in that regard and 1 used
l1is research in my pleadings.
. I think Zack: baS matured ~ a individual and possesses the qualities that would make him a fine
lawyer. It is. my sincere hope that he will be given the opportunity to practice law.
1073
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
fe!!CI,A!sh!p of Alcoholics Anonymous in the past several months, often attending 2 meetings a day while
sponsor.
beliefs. He was becoming more aware of how they may have hindered him in Jiving an effective life.
~~EJ.J.
Charlie Hoar
386 13th Street

Del Mar, CA 92014
By Appointment
Office: (858) 794-0546

Fax: (858) 764-0531 cell: 858
2327788
1074

phone805-968-2620
Isla VistaUMC@grnail.com
August 20,2015
Respectfully,
1075
Knute Knudson
Reno, NV 89523
(775) 448-1528
August 17, 2015
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89102
While there are many interesting and exceptional things about Zach' the most impressive is his
society...
/
S~\'f
;,t@.dJ;,,#V\4i ,
1076
.,'
C. COE SWOBE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO, NEVADA 89509
December 9, 2004
enter the practice oflaw, He passed the Nevada Bar exam in July of2001, the California
In September of2002, the Character and Fitness Committee of the State Bar of
Since September of2002, I have been in frequent contact with Zach, either
personally or by telephone. In Las Vegas, he met with Robert Hunter, Ph,D. and Oliver
Ocskay, Ph,D, to deal with recovery issues, developing stress reduction techniques and
anger. lIe also attended weekly meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous while in Las Vegas.
In February of 2003, Zach moved back to Reno where his parents reside,
abuse, He increased his attendance at AA. meetings and his contacts and interaction
with other recovering alcoholics. Since April of2004, he has coUected signatures
verifying attendance at over 135 A.A. meetings and continues to meet weekly with his
every week this year, 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
right things to foster and build a solid program for recovery frorn the disease of alcohol
and drug abuse, I believe, frorn my observation ofZach's performance and attitude over
the past two years, that ifhe continues on his present path ofabstalning from alcohol and
drugs, regularly attends AA. meetings and closely associates with other recovering
j
1077
December 9, 2004
Page 2
admitted to practice lC:j.w in the State of Nevada.
Very Sincerely,
(t
{/r--t...L~(.~L
C. CoeSwobe
CCS/kmf
1078
Bill Martin, MFT

licensed Marriage & Family Therapist
MFC33939
2525 Camino Del Rio S., S~.

205
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-755-2407
San Diego, CA 92108

6196869302
biU@shrjnk.tv
WWot/.CQunsefing-connection.com
July 20, 2015

9456 Double R. Blvd . Ste. B
Reno, NV 89521
In summary, we have met 8 times to date (Including the 4/29 intake
309.0 Adjustment D/O with Depressed Mood
303.90 Alcohol use 0/0 Moderate, full remission
firmly dedicated to and involved with 12 Step Programs, principally M.
for life.
psychotherapy could discontinue or be on an uas needed" basis.
1079

Re: Zach Coughlin
the San Diego area.

conversations.
Roger W. Rasmusen
Rancho Santa Fe, CA
858 245-0929
RRSCA@AOL.COM
1080
HALE LANE
----ATTClRH'i'G AT L A W - - - - -
S44! Ki.Iz1<~ lAM I Siil!QII\f FloQr I ~1lI!. Nt1IlIQ; !9S11 .

Tc\l:pllrm (11.5)3Z1-3000 11'~ituiIc: (77.5) "6-6\79
Websitl::: lrtryJ/www.halc13l1t.<:<l1Il
December 9,2004
To:

TIle Nevada Supreme Court.
Re!
Zac.h Coughlin
!l4..wotd EwtcU&llI
[1929-1993)
SlIm!.a.t..:
J. Srephen Peck
Ka.tau D. Dcnni"""
~ Crl\l8 Ho""nl
StO~V,N9".1Calr.
IUcluu1! 1- IlIm"",
IUcllIl!d 1l~"""I;.
'I.ltxl,:f1p.nJill'l
ltrisl'll1 'S. MeMill3.ll
Jam:a 1- Kelly
ItcIlyTe.r;tolill
~.l'amc" I'laffilJl:t1)
lI!OBhew E. WooolbMd
Michcll,; b. MunK>'
RoS.' W.l'!lP'lm
l.ancf C. BIIIl
Jt!rl!rIly 1. Noti;
p".vld A. Garoia
Fred I), Gibitll1. lU
SlbsaF. ClIllisll
Timothy A.L~
Frcdcriakl. Sdntidi:
Jallle$ NfWmUI
Davit! G. UGl:UId
JUlin S. 0,,14
Toll)' R. SOmers
J'auickS. Relll),
SImI\' D. l'h,millll
I<my M;. SnldJ!t
'Elrem c. fck"...ky
Fr<dcTH:k fL Ilattcller
Falritill C.
II~hl.ead
MartlJcw I. 1<11!uJ:zer
Matlh"", B. H(ppl""
tlnd M. Iolmsl<:>n
I'Il)'Uc K. K""lmoll)
O"u~ln C. Flower.l
llL1tiD C. 1"",,*
Al~lI:is O.Mleb.:!\Id
'I'ha1llll5 R. Ryall
Dt:m V. pjUi:id<l.".
Dear Sirs:

mentor or sponsor to Zac~ but I would first like to say a few words about him as a
Zach is a highly intelligent, perceptive young man. I came to know hh:n in March of
2003. and through 11 shared friend, was introduced to ?..ach. Zach requested that I
wod< with him in his recovery from alcohol abuse and in getting his life baok on track.
Zaeh grew in learning. in character, in depth of understanding. I personally witnessed
and July 2003. He was 11 regular at the 6:45 3m. '~eginners Are Winners" meeting
th.at meets each day of the week. At that time I don't think Zach appreciated :fully the
seriousness of his situation, as he failed to gather signatIltes attesting to his attendance
attends and his cUtrent collections numbers over one hundred signatures, each
signature representing It one hour meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. Furtber) I am
aware that Zach has checked out and listened to audio cassettes of. over 200 speaker
Anonymous.
~sI
nayF.now
P4uii.le NS Lee
Andr<:wl'wl
Zach is constantly tI:ying to better himself. He has taken great efforts to read. the best
and handbooks on depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. adult chlldren
of alcoholics, chromc pain, relapse prevention. spirituality. and a large number of
He seeks truth in each and every area of his life. whether in learning. discussing
dispositionf his reflective way of operating, and all of the character traits that make
HALE LANEPEEKDEJ\1IILSON ANIl HOWARD
1&1\ I
(7.6r_
L,\$ VllG1\S Ol'I'lCS: ;no!) We,l $~lwa AVl;Ilu" f JiJshd\ Floor

R Las VellllS. NI;1r.da !9~()11 Pb<>ne (10l} 22Z250Q Il'lICs!miu: (702) l65.69lfl)
CARSON C1'IY OFfICE; 777:COS1 Wim_tIl Stn:=t ISuite:2QO I 00=11 City. Nc"lIdl>. ag70111'hQuo (715) 6i4-6100 IFIWSlmtlB
liIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII,
1081
HALE LANE
December 9, 2004
Page 2
him to exciting new discoveries. As a student of recovery, Zach is outstanding. As a SPOI,lSOf, I

weekly one hour meetings (which have totaled to nearly 40 hours). but when interacting with tho
Zach has done every single thing I have asked him to do in order to further his recovery, This
and worle on ea.oh of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Doing so has involved an
enormOus amount o.f self searching and persoruU betterment, neither of which, from my
experience, comes without an enormous amount of individual effort, honestyy open-mindedness.
and willingness. Zach has regularly attended the weekly meetings of the State Bar of Nevada's
"Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers.~' Additionally, Zach has taken great effort and care to
Soyd School of Law whom he offended and apologizing with clarity and specificity for each of
his ttansgressions. He has attempted to make restitution for the mQvie theater incident and has
served 10 hours of community service (handling calls and preparing pamphlets at Reno'$ main
Zatin has per-formed a good deal of CQm.munitwj seryi,ce in the form of ma..1d:ng coffee for
Alcoholics AnonYlllous meetings, heiping to set up and put away chairs at meetings. and lending
support to fellow AA's.
Certainly there is no question whatsoever that Zacb bas what it takes to make a :fine attorney. He
passoo three of the most difficult bar exams in the country in a matter of 15 months (the Nevada.
Ljst several times While a.t the Boyd
Zach
California, and Patent bar exams). He made the
Dean~s
School of Law and was a member of Boyd's law review, The Nevada .Law Journal.
His work ethic. is further demonstrated by his accomplishments as an athlete. Zach was selected
as a 2nd team All-State basketball player in Nevada's large school division in both 1994 and
1995. He was All~I..eague three times. In 1995 the Nevada-Appeal chose Zach as the large
a National Merit Finalist and member of the National Eonor Society in high school. In addition
Zach is an extremely accomplished musician who plaY'S several instruments and bas done mnch
composing.
Always, in his work, Zach is consistent, dedicated and passionate, eniliu..;;iastic, cheerful, and a
only enough to accomplish what needs to be done. I highly recommend him far any position of
work, leadership> education, or any other capacity in which he can spread his excitement JIDd
share ills talents with others. This most certainly includes being a member of the Nevada Bar.
Zacb has already been a member of the Patent Bar for over a year.
a very dispiriting example if a young man. like Zach, whose infraotions wero relatively minor
;;OP/JI\\I'CDOCS\HL!l.NODOCSliIlii791\1
1082
December 9, 2004
Page 3
HALE LANE
(involving personality much more than principle)t whose efforts at amelioration have been
legion, and whose dedication and tenacity throughout his academic career bas. been profOl.mU
were not given a chance. It bas been three and a half years since Zach passed the 2001 Nevada
bar exam, and as such there has been more than enough time for Zach to learn. from his mistakes.
all.
Tharik you once again for the' opportunity to recommend such a special and impressive yoUng
man.
veJ:YtrulY~
;i/
~;-?/-Kell~~o1in
~,CDMA\l'CDOCS\t.rL'WODOCS\.l16791\1
1083
r" ~ t!t,E:~m~~~01~~mlml'.!:;EIZ~1)I!"~r~~ Gl":ItiJRm~S~l:i,im;;t'ISU'!itWI!'i~f" ~lfi;lD wmR~m

924 ll"cline Way, Suite B
Incline Village, NV 89451
I (775) 298-2690
I have known Zach Coughlin since high school, and have kept in regular touch through the years. Of late I
have been impressed with Zach's commitment to recovery and to rebuilding his life. He has taken many
positive steps including staying clean and sober, maintaining regular employment, and staying clear of
any legal trouble. I think that he has effectively changed the trajectory of his life, and could be again
trusted to practice law, and to function as a contributing member of society.
Thank you,
Jared Swanson
Owner, JD Publishing Inc.
4065393715 cell
1084
AA
Morishita Law Firm, L.L.C.
V
I
lNTgLLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
27258. Jones Blvd" Suite 102
ROBEll.'l' RYAN MORISHITA

Retlstered Patent Attorney
Utah lind Nevada DRfS
Llill Vel,as. Nevada 89146

tel {702} 222-2114
fjue. (702) 227-0615

e-mail rrm@andersotimorI5hlta.com
OF COUNSEL, HOWARD &. HOWARD P.e.
October 13, 2004
State Bar ofNeva<ia

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Re:
. To Whom It May Concern:
It is with sincere pleasure that I reoommend the admission of Zach Coughlin to the State
Bar of Nevada. Zach worked with my firm as a law cleek wm September to December 2002-
Zaoo
During that time) I directly supervised Zach.

performed competently and ethically in all the
work he performed. In my opinio~ Zach has a moral character that would be an asset to our bar

Sincerely.
RRM:kdc
G:\Andenoo &: MoJishita\ooughlin letter.wpd
1085
1
;2
. 'ILID
RENO MUNICIPAL,COURT
DEPT. NO.3
. Case No. 11 TR 26800 21
APR
Dept. 3 ,
~~~
:3
COROT~NASH HOLM!S,JUDGE
4
5
,~,
... ., .
COUNTY OF WASHOE. StATE OF NEVADA
'
10
11
12
13
14
16
;f
y'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"l,i,
Ii'
"
.,
' .
6
8'
9..
1201~
";'
~,.
CITY OF ~NO,'
.,1
"""
Plaintiff,
ORDER OFDISMISSAL
VI.
."f '.
'
'.::~~: 1'. '"

Defendant. .
______________________
~I
11' IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, for good cause appearing and in the
interest of justice. that this case be, and hereby is, DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDEReD.
,;-' ~
.&~~~
'; DorothyNasl'rOfmet .,'" . , .
Municipal Judge
25
26
,
....
27
RINO
28
MUl,'lClPjI, COURT
p.o... nGl
~WMlOl
(7Q2)mmo
1086
'.-
'
~eBTIEI~Ii OF
SERVIQE
Reno, Nevada, that I am ovar the agl of 18 years and not a party to the above action, and that
on thll date, served a true and correct copy of the attached document to the following as set '
forth below:
..L Placing said document In I
" I lid envelope and placid for collecting and mailing by
Unites States mall In Rlno, Nlvlda, postage prepaid, following ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile (FAX)
~ Electronic Mail (E-mail) to City Attorney
Inner-office mail following ordinary bUliness practices

I

Booking # 1317561
Washoe County Datentlon FacUity
911 Parr Blvd
:Reno NV 96512
Dan Wong
Chief Criminal Deputy City Attomey
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
DATED: April
7. 2014.
P.O. Bo 1100
Rano. NV 8ee05
(775) 3U3122
1087
1
2
FILED

OEPT. NO.3
Case No. : 11 CR 26405

Dept. 3
APR 7 201~
TIMe~<
BY ~
DOROTHY NASH HOLMES; JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
- CITY OF RENO,
Plaintiff,
OmER OF DISMISSAL
VI.
ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHL~,
13
14
15)
Defendant.
______________________
16
interest of justice, that this case be, and h"reby is, DISMISSED.
17
18
19
~I
11' IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, for good cause appearing and in the
11' IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
RENO
28
MUNICIPAL coultr
",O."IHO
"''''',INNW
~33f.mII
1088
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
~
i
ll.
EXHIBIT
i1089
alll Martin, MFT

MFC33939
1337 Camino Del Mar, 5te. E
205
Del Mar, CA 92014
8587552407
San Diego, CA 92108
619-6869302
bill@shrink.tv
www.counsellng-connectlon.com
July 20, 2015

Reno, NV 89521
309.0 Adjustment 0/0 with Depressed Mood
for life.
B~
Bill C. Martin, MFT
1090
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
sponsor.
~f/~EJ.;)
Charlie Hoar
386 13th Street

Del Mar, CA 92014
By Appointment
Office: (858) 794-0546

Fax: (858) 764-0531 cell: 858
2327788
1091
ClnII .. CDl"ill'UrvlAgllEd.r:lllonfor.....,..,..ct..EIMClE
'::'fll"'iI!!!rtltl'lgtHcqrtpflplC!f!.'03181QlilCtign"do\mqdl
Mmt;M?tWm
Avolclng ethical VIolations and Legal Malpactlce Claims: An Expert'. Pempectlve

NEVADA(NV)
3.00
legal Ethlco:3.00
2015-06-15
'mmrnmU" ,
CQURSENAME
CERTIFIED STATE
CREDIT HOURS
CERTIFICATE DATE
ACTIONS
B Steps to Improved Client Relstklnahips and CorTll'l'l\lllcatlons
IlgttC'fl php?C'rf!lqJ2558&actloo-da)\!llgtdl
8 t iO 'Wiill@'Jf1
B... klUptay Saolco for tho Non-Sankruptcy Lawyer

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-1.
'at",l! O!!illl//ootCilrt
MplQ11rtoo10J2UI&qclktn::dgymlmdl
-m 'W'll!!lC.jJ}
NEVADA(NV)
,+:mV1f'Rjillim(lgttc,rtphp1Cert-l03itJ13&.!Ctlon"dqY,nload)
.wpnn;VWm
1.50
2015-05-18
Behind tho Cloud and How " Con Be Used In tho legaIln<iJoby
NEVADA(NV)
Saolco 01 ErtortolM1ont Low
1.00
2015-08-18
',:nmrmmm
OMICqrt f!f'p?Cti!<o'032Pql&uctkHlott!OM\lp8d\
w:e'tlmmu:t
7 Steps 10( Legal Holda: Avoiding Malpractlco and JIIIII
lt:jltiTin'lUi tmtJ U9!tC~rtnhp?sgrel
9n!!O.tJ.actl9Omd9)Wl4oadl
A GuIde to IP Protectfon In the EU for u.s. Attorneys
-.00
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
NEVADA(NV)
-m,,'g,;!n:mM1fl
1.00
2015-06-18
r:=Cm:llimm!J~~~.JI)
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
lm'lfJ11!.//Ql!tcfr1 nhn?,!!rt-IQ32!i9M'pUO!lsdtzwufOjltU
BUllno.. V_on: Theory, ApplIcation, Controv ... I.. , Recent Developments & em..
".1I)
NEVADA(NV)
-:r:1mlll
A LogoI Pnmor on Nonprofit Law
5.50
2015-08-18
l ..a~nB!J!Uttij1(IqfttC'rlphp1C!rt.'032B16&aC~dl pl.rl!lfRMltl
NEVADA(NV)
t.OO
Cause Matketl:ng: Special Rulea and Regulat:lona For Corporations and For Charities
2015-05-15
NEVADA(NV)
'+:;!1Nf:'Si Ililtrr'
EAtrliniam.lIIm
1.00
2015-08-1.
NEVADA(NV)
I"car.nm"m,
1.00
2015-05-1.
-mIENr;,! '
NEVADA(NV)
/1ot!CAftonp?c.rl-l032liep&actJQn-doY!!1lo.adJ
AccountB Reoeivabfe Man&gemeot for Lawyet1l
'",mroit1:mml/gtt'CQrlphp?S;"!W'Q32341&nCtloostsrt.glpgdl
Anatomy of a Ananclal Elder Abuae Case
'r.1! f'm
l!IfCOimnnl"Mm
1.00
2015-08-18
.00.
f:.::rmCI;nr;!!!m (kltICo.tot.ple'rI_1Q3281S&actk!tJ!doymloid) M:W:C6'1!!rrr_.ID
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
j
l/gttctrt RfJp7ctrt-l032346&acttgn5NymSoad)
Chopter 13 ~cy for tho Non Bonkruptcy Attorney
Chapter 7 BBI1l<ruptcy
fO(
Non-Sankruptcy Attorneys
NEVADA(NV)
nr1!!IUgttcerlphQ1c!rt"10J2IiOl&gCtJon'5fO'M\foadljZ,imJUzrtlm
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
ml{'WU!!!" ItpetC.rtphplce!'f"lQn't8&aotton2Wfoadl .mIJn!!!Q~.J!1

Chok:e of Entity
NEVADA(NV)
t.OO
2015-05-18
2.00
V11
1.00
legal EthI.,.:1.00
2015-08-18
2015-08-18
wm"Rnl!l"tJ(lAAtC.rtrop1p'rt"1032S2Q"C~911111'lmri!i!mrJf1
lam"tul!!!PI~(tRhP1t"'relQ33$ilJ&nctlo!J<>sf2'M!lopd)
Client Intake, Damages & Expert WItnesses Do You Want to Take This PI Case?
NEVADA(NV)
EJiminaHon of Bias In the Legal Profesllloo
-m1mna.,-.w
NEVADA(NV)
3.00
2015-05-18
1.00
legal Ethlco:l.00
2015-08-18
.JI)
1i=~~"~~_~m
Collections Law
NEVADA(NV)
w1l1
A:t:n::rr:mmafl/)fttC~r!.phQ1ctft!19l3J58&aC~(1l EJM!l,;O!:m l
EflminaUon of Blae In the Legal System
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
'rt:mem,nmtlllgtlC!!!tphg?Cftl",1036811'i&UCtlnnJtdQ'M'lioacfl
1.00
legal Ethlco:l.00
2015-08-18
.jj'nm~J!l
""I1U:m!1a.liGl.!!r~~",'m!ir:.OO
Common ISlIues When Ucenslng Inteilectullll Property

NEVADA(NV)
ethico end Technology for the Tnai LawyOf
1.00
2015-08-18
NEVADA(NV)
'::rmmr:/cymr~n Ilst!tCert.ohp?cere1932836lacfiorFdOYoagl
Common Sense Rules of Trfal Advocacy
_I
1.00
Legal Ethlcs:l.00
2015-08-1.
:t~mE.m
'~~flQ!!CgrlPhplC!tre1032Jl7&8Ct!onJtdoy.nlopdl M1jM,ltml!/!.ii,t_m
NEVADA(NV)
EIhk:s for Lawyers In the Cloud
2.50
2015-08-1.
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal Ethlcs:l.00
-.00
-.00
2015-0818
l,mrr:,@IOmuglltC tr!rim?PUrtu 1q3U2:1&.:J!i1IofJ!dl!\lo.lIl1_lfl

Conwcting 00 Effecttva Deposition
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
gSaDSZI{fQ!tC"lphplC.rP"lQ33341bct!oo-dgwnlQt!d\
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
':Z'tm,!rmtl
OI~aI
."
~.dI:Ir!W(a~~
//c1cIlcgrt!?IJP?cf!UW 1Q3335O&PCtlonotdOWDLondl
Citizenship In Schools: From Policy to Practice
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-H
,~:z,~rw~<i:rr;m"' flge!Ctrbohp?cert"'0J2J50&3ctlqn-d9W!Jloadl
eDlscovery
NEVADA(NV)
mmfl111M1l""1~IIJlllla..,el!l.ill~ Itm~.W
EthIcs in a Web 2.0 World
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal EthIos:1.00
2015-08-18
tliarrt'gO!!!'t Xl
(IQetctU PhIl1r.grt: IQ3;!J71&iutt!oi!"'dIDIDkla!u

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Legal Ethlcs:l.00
2015-08-15
-J!l
ItzM'''imlrmllgfl1C!'rtphp7Cerpol03Z547&acUor!-d9wnJoad)
Federal RulO 28: Export RopOOo

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
mmnlmfIMrcprtphg?crre10J3JH&nctlgllltdqymlp.ld)
FOfellJ'llnvestment In U.S, Rei!tl Estate
_l!1
1fIt'11T~.oo
,I1W1!nm!tJI.w
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
1.00
2015-08-18
m!'I:r!l!m~WJliJ.i1.=~9~lllil!R~_.OO
EHmlnating Biases You Never Knew You Had
1m1'!t~rm{/\l1!tcer1o!lplcert.lgJ3Ji'&OCtl9o~ad! ,-~WAeu.1!l
NEVADA (NV)
Forensic Document examination and The Law
I1I1Jj~-*'tnIycrmb
canflMrCn ~
>1,
~j~~tdb.comfl..-IIfC.wU+ill7
1092
."
!Y.!r201!S
.""""
OriIMCcritU~legIIEQ.aton!orAitanwtl-CLIMCU!.
NEVADA(NV)
Identifying IOld UndeI>tondlng Communication Styl .. 1n Medatioo
3.50
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-{)ft-18
2OH!-OIl-18
':m::'!Jllt:!t\t!I flgftCglt
F..... _
OOp1ctrt.1Q33386&qcttgn-slgYGUofldl
IIM'gnl!n,f :1
.00
1_ _ ~!'Dj/a!lC.rlphD1C!rt-1Q3UOj&.aCtJon..download) Ma.wtiEmnm:'J!l
of AntItrust Utlgatlon
Independent ConlnIct/Employ.. Dlstlnctlonl: Help CHenls (And y"" FInn) MInimize UabiMty
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-{)ft-18
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-{)ft-18
'~e mu;"~I:rn!m!1C' (/gttC!rt.php7cert"1 olllflUactloo-dQWt]IOa!llllat:llE,m:pl.MJIl
GettIng Peld and
mn-i!!!!,
Slaying Du1 of Trouble
_C'n!li!iMJ~~~.~ R'I:tm!I!tW.oo
Girnim:a,tm!i:~;(' /lQttC@rt ohp?ccrt-1Ql2J216actJonoo9owr+?adl "M"!!~mI-Jfl

1nebr1l!1tion, Intervention and Insight: A Tnal Lawyer FInds Hm Soul
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
SOOstanceAbuae:1.00
2015-{)ft-18
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Logol Ethlcs:l.oo
2015-{)ft-18
~~(fogtCllftphp7cerl"103341a&aCtloond2'Mllcpd) _'1rem!!1~rnllill
IfDml;'!!I!"tI.ffiI~~m!'{t1n)!lf_J/O
Hot Topics In Employment Law

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-14
IP Basic. for Transactional Attorneys

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-<)11-14
fr=m!m.liJl<lillb'!UI1W.~=~_lU tEjrtl11':'l!l!jrw.1Jl
mOfrm ll l!:tI
How to Avokl Legal Malpractice Clalme

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-{)ft-18
mr!ni:f:r'{fg!!tC!rlllbnlC!!rtn!QJJ6Qt;&\'!dI0l1mdowo!wtJl
MJ1Z;:tiIGjB"JIl
m~1m=i' flgeICert.pttp?art<oi03254V&actton;:d!j7ffll!9adl wra::mlfC't:tMJ!}
i.~m(,'9(ftCfC'ghQ?gf!ft"fQ]25!1'!tdb?tr1kn1.!!tot)m
Legal Ethics: Civility and Zoolous Representation
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Logo! EItlIc:::1.oo
U"mrrrerMm
Wjtt'ryJN}:ZWlll
~!5
':mmm:lZlnUiHJilIl!lC.>tl,lliJl(!wI'!.1ill.ft.ll>.,...,_ _.l!l
LegoI Writing TIps fa< Advanced ProctltlOOelO
NEVADA(NV)
100
2015-<)11-18
.Il
ghPlqfto'193326&aCtloo~dllfmIa}C
2015-08-15
.w
e:tmi'lltm
~=ml!t.!J. HooteD" Ilhp1cgrtu1Q usn'actloo:o;dtM!llwdl ~t1:DllJl\
V~L'llgttCft'tphP1C!Ur-1032551&a(;t!QO"d9'lt!J!9.,o!d\
Medcalm
SclentJ~c
3i58
(fntlClltt phplc"F 19
1 &octloo-dowl!oDdl .
Pr!lcticitl Ethics; Avoldng Trouble with CHents, Courts and the State Bar
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
logoI EltlIco:1.oo
2015-08-18
Utigation In the 21st Century

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-18
Mediation Technl~e& for UUgators

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-15
""
.,""'''
Ortlr.CortftkQ\.A9IIEda;:dorII'or~CLEI"'Cl.E
',pO:':mJ!!rCWIIMtCrrt
-.1!l
201~-18
1 ThInk I Just Received eOlscovery; What Now?

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-15
'-J/vNNt~c:r"II~~
M,tt1)Ef1!!!?nWJ.!!l
nml\l!tJ_~Ill1l!1.wJ"...1~~lji1l\.""_ Mil'II'!1mJW!!l!M.l!l
Legal Consideratlona fa- Marijuana Buiinessetl
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201iHl11-15
How To Prepare Your C~ent for Deposition

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-15
lIoctCtrt obplciU.. 1 !l3254S&\Jctloo"dQ'M\l9iUU
l r9!lceftOOP7cUP"103tp124J1fUP!P'dol:'!!l!ofd)
legal Aspects of Fonmslc Document examination

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-<)11-18
How to Handa Cases 'Hith High Meds Attention

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-15
,-.,mrnm;rI'u(JtfCQftl)!!Q?Clrl"'10325Sl&UctklO"dOWDfoi!d)
ilmrmnmrw.w.
Gaming: Sharod Sovereignty & Tribal Soif-Government

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-{)ft-14
Honesty Is Bast PoUcy: How Far Can You Go In NegotlaUona
eru'o:IWf! !l!!!tl
llWUCgrt Mp1cuF103jaQIl&gcti(JedrnmJpadl
In~an
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legol Ethlcs:loo
2015-<)11-18
rna;.~m (tgelcilrtohp1c'rt"10J3!1f9&actlon~'t!NoIldl p",m'1'jI:itmtMlfl

Pra-lmmlb1'ation Income Tax Plannlng
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
wmrrmrtn;N2l,m
errnr.tt.1wII!mstl
Evidence Used In OUI alld Drug Case8
flootC!r!!tm7S;p$lQ3J6JQ&i1qtlorY"dowUItl.1t!1
.j}lD:;!W>~"'J!l
Principle Conslderatlons V\ItIen Handing a Divorce Case

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-18
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-<)11-15
mmMIa:ntl!miJJIlJtlI<ID&IllmJJ;~jQill.!ail/lOO~2YJIlIoftJ!l ~.lIll
e",;p.llilm a
Moving the Judge from Drudgery to Pmuaakln

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-011-18
Ilq!lclrtpnp7c!rt-1 933M2&acUOO-dpy.nload)
1I101:t!ln!!t*"r_.m

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-<)11-18
6WI ,rtrm!:tntl/lQttc.rl ohp1cert"16Hs"e&actJot!*downkladl 1fl&:f:q,rMJll

0niIne Securtty and RIsk Basics fOf Attorneys
_lIgt'!trgrtphQ?ctrE1QiJ81]3l!Ctiqrl!rte'hflhmdl
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
Protecting Emp!oyerlnformatloo
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
.mmn"-.JilIl!lld,1rOJp~.12lli.lllI~_!1l N:~j17Ul\~'i'\j'
jmrt3irom_m
.oo
'''''It'\ljMi~.lM1
MendelOI'/ Child Abuoe Reporting

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
Cl!egon
2015-08-18
"S:"'mtlmhltrjt1~~UIb.QlQRtl!1a3jel4&atjtfonW~ - J f f J
R08I Eatate Due Diligence
NEVADA(NV)
2.00
2015-08-18
2015-011-18
r::m;;tmr1V1
1!9IC!rlP!lp?cert=1GJ3612&actl9o"d9y;n!oadl
p ... ontIln]ury: UabIlIty, Dornages &
MliQfTfWrnreiw.w
l!e4C.t-fEj1lUmrtgeICQllPhPIC:U!"'1033819&uct\00>7dqmloyd)
CoIIocll~Hty
ShaRIPoint ~aI
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-011-18
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-011-18
BI'!I:twwm(IW"'",
ghllZ",to !Q33 (!&,,,!/q!I"'''''',,,,,iIl
1Ij''!1:'/fl!(lI.q.oo
D~covery
IIZt!tD!mrtlim.
& Data Storage Isaues
Pmuaslon: The Dangers of Over-AWMslve L..awyering
1i=!:mm!\i~?I.IilI<JldUJllJi1l.illl!1!1lll!lla~_I.m 1ZQ1!1.l1j'.IJl
NEVADA (NV)
100

NEVADA(NV)
tl!p),www *l'I!)'Q'dti ~c.tI ~
nit
~~"'~wtI~1
1093
.Il
1.00
Subatsnce Abuee:l.00
NEVADA(NV)
2015-08-18
i;m
1.00
t.,'@IIf%!tJ(kt!lcyrtDhp?c.rl"'033818&i!ctXJO"dQ'MJlpadl .i;:IMOIIII"eM.oo
2015-08-18
Ilnmm!lB'lIlkH!tcertohP?I2Jlt-IQ33l4!j&jlOtloo~ _m:DmlD!al.1!l
Structuring IntemBlianai Joint Ventures
The Eimlnatlon of 81 .. & Promotion of 0lv0Blty In 11>0 Legal Profeaslon

NEVAD,t,(NV)
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201~11-18
LegoI Ethlca:1.00
2015-08-19
1.00
lmm'RmIWt!'(tQetC!ItOOp?cere1933134f&!lCtion-dO\l!nfoidI
Mj'U\lmrurrw,,,Mm
'~temm'm'!Wtl' IlQtICuftpbp1c.rl""03lT 12&acUon-ckwQo!dl -a,J,iiptmnrnnMJ!l
SubstSlCe Abuse and Competence

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
The Umltationa of PenltJaSlon: Know Them and Use Them

NEVADA (NV)
2OHHl6-15
.,frelq{tgglCtII
Qbp7C1!&IQ325H'wt!9re>rl!?WO!o.)d1
1.00
-m1rgTl!!!I.m
2015-08-15
'tmmli\!tiUgttC.rt.phplC1re103a~n&acUoosta'tll1mll flj!ilXml!!tH"M.LIl
Tak. FIv.: Edifying and EtkJcatiooal Ethical Exampl..
The S~ MiEM. Closing: SaltIng 81g C_ In Ultl. TIme

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal EthIca:1.00
201~6-18
',nm'tmt!mmrw
Oqt'Clrtllhp7C!rtoool033U-4A
Tax Isa0a8 for Attomeya MId Law Anna
ac uon"dgy.nlcad,8t1:1l:!l%lmll!Z.'Il.w
2015-08-15
I.U4Mt. IMJi ldid' flggtcllli tjw1pnrP'jQ32!48&QGtloq-dlMf!kdl W;'il;;W!tMJ!l

Top 10 Way. 10 Stay Out 0/ EthIcal TEOUt;.
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
NEVADA(NV)
2015-08-19
l,m;:,,,III,,,
UstetCgrt phn?s:PIt-1Q)3Aft1&jlcttgnadQ'Mlkmdl
1.00
.Y!\llnIW' .oo
Legal EthIca:1.00
2015-08-19
NEVADA(NV)
mmm!l!Itlj/gttctrtphp1Cert-1033714&actforedoMlfoadl
UndsBlendng tho Impact of Cutluro and Gender to Help Eimlnate 81 ..
1.50
NEVADA(NV)
Tax Refunds from ponzt Scheme l.oeses
2015-08-19
i"kNjjM,,;!ga (lo-te
1.00
tEt
Php?ct!rt"'933Z03&9cUon-dgtmJoad!
am, liIilM,l'uW.w
Legal Ethlcs:1.00
2015-08-15
Ten Social Madia Mytha fOf Attorneys
',r'!lIf,ttXllm"
NEVADA(NV)
United States Taxation of ForeQl tOVestOl1l
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
2015-08-19
-mIRI!f'''ill
(InttCBrt ptwlCtrtwlQ3aOV&nctlnnstnydopd1
4m 'I1ln *".-.00
l
1.50
'j-I;mlrlrrfl/laqtC.rlphp1cGrt-1Q3~ IfImICI!t-m
2015-08-19
'm m';t:m'm"
The AnBtomy of a OUI Cssa

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
flQe!C,rl pbP?clO"1013120AactJortaodo'MJf9adt
~W;JIlll
Use of Truats In Asset Protection

NEVADA(NV)
1.00
201~6-15
li~rt:mmlmlla!lkll!g'!C9rtPhP1ctfl"'Q325!11&Alitlgn.d9'MJload\ aninl/IIiU 111m
2015-08-15
VeJuIng a Buslneu
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
1.50
2015-08-19
~!Wtl!3l1l1WillLolJ~;Llillll.o_lIjn"'ll'17m!!'!\WlIl
-amiJ""jf)
2015-08-19
':qfz'inm'tloq&tc!rt.I?hp7c.rt-1Q33121&aCtlon"rJoMHo!dl.m"mrmM.oo
The EJimlnatkm of BIas
Em
11V)"-w~.eornMwc.ml'?
m'H"R~T1!u:t'jha~ tUJltml!"1r!.1032SU&"C~d.I
The 000 and Don'ts 0/11>0 Teatifylng Export

NEVADA(NV)
10"
1$.I.w-.elll:lmlycrIllb.~.p,1l
.,.,,,,,
NEVADA(NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
m;C;IlmrnjI!lotlCp1tphp1t!U,,"1!)l371"&j1S~d)
."!rt1m!lltM.w
'w\Ihen Bias Tuma to Bu/tying: Strategies for Dealing with Hig-. Conftlct People
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethlca:1.00
201~6-19
'~mm!:lm!!!3!t1/1getC!flobp1c'rt.'QJ3723S.3CUory:odQVfl\lqad)
ammmmwm
WIooIng 00 Appeal
NEVADA(NV)
100
2015-06-1.
l,afr':m!tm~pJcRrt-10323t8bCtloo~
Working with Experta
""mmmM.1!l
NEVADA(NV)
2.00
Legal Ethlca:1.00
201~6-19
cmmlI34[(.1!"({getc8!tohP?Ctftwl03JI24&actiOn-d9'M1l9adl
M;Wa;t-m
Wrongful Deeth: A Practical Awoach

NEVADA(NV)
1.50
2015-08-1.
nm'*,!!I'tI~R1~~C1!d:m;i!\rnj'_1fl
11/11
1094
~.~~-
. -~-.
-----:"
-~---.
--
- ---
--~. ..
. ---:....-
"----_.
==....
_-
===
=='='" --::::..--:-::
==...ii.i"..
:=1.::=
.. __':..0 .....
---.---..
-~---.-
=::::
=-~---=-=
==.~"" --;=~
.........-:....--------~
...-
~--~=-..:;
1095
--"
1096
--------------~------~~--~~------~---~-------
December 9, 2004
HALE LANE
Page 3
legion, and whose dedication and tenacity throughout his academic career has been profound
were not given a chance. It has been three and a ha1fyears since Zach passed the 2001 Nevada
bar exam, and as such there has been more than enough time for Zach to learn from his mistakes.
And indeed, Zach has learned from his mistakes and made more tban enough effort to grow
alL
Thank you once again for the opportunity to recommend such a special and impressive young
man.
VerytrulY~
~(~fr/--Kcll~~lin
::ODMAIPCDOC$I.t!1..Rl'lODOC$'.l 16792\1
1097
December 9, 2004
HALE LANE
Page 2
him to exciting new discoveries .A..s a student of recovery, Zach is outstanding. As a sponsor, I
Zach has done every single thlng I have asked him to do in order to further his recovery. 'This
and work on each of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, Doing so has involved an
enormous amount of self searching and personal betterment, neither of which. from my
and willingness. Zach has regularly attended the weekly meetings of the State Bar of Nevada's
"Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers:' Additionally. Zach has taken great effort and care to
Boyd School of La.w whom he offended and apologizing with olarity and specificity for each of
his transgressions. He bas attempted to make restitution for the: movie theater incident and has
Zach has perfonned a good deal of community service in the fann of making coffee for
Aicoholics Anonymous meetings, helping to set up and put away chairs at meetings, and iending
support to fellow ANa.
passed three of the most difficult bar exams in the country in a matter of 15 months (the Nevada,
California, and Patent bar exams), He made the Dean's List several times while at the Boyd
maintained a high g.p.a. while earning a B.S. in Biology during his time at the University of
His work ethic. is further demonstrated by his accomplishments as an athlete. Zach was selected
as a 2nd team AU-State basketball player in Nevada's large school division in both 1994 and
1995. He was All-League three times. In 1995 the Nevada-Appeal chose Zach as the large
a National Merit Finalist and member (lfthe National Honor Society in high school. In addition
Zuch is an extremely accomplished musician who plays several instruments and has done much
composing.
work, leadership, education. or any other capacity in which he can spread his excitement and
share his talents with others. This most certainly includes being a member of the Nevada Bar.
In my opinion. it is vitally important that we give people like Zach a chance. It would surely set
a very dispiriting example if a young man like Zach, whose infraotions were relatively minor
;;ODMI\\!)CtJOCSI,HLRNonocSI4161n\1
1098
.'
HALE LANE
-----ATTOIH4E'tS AT L A W - - - - -
Ki.It'"
1=0 I Socond 1'1_1 ReM, N_o. 19511 .

Tckphornl (715) j17-~oOQ I F"""imil. (J7$) 7ilS-61 '19
W.b,itc! ilnp:/I",..,...,.baJ.c!anc.CQIIl
5#1
December 9, 2004
To:
EJlwatd EVllltrtHlll~
(T9;(H993)
SlmI~Lwc
J, SlcpUCIIP""k
Re:
Karc1lD. rknnJ_
!I.. CtaigHo .....ml
Stephell v. Nt>,,""ok
R.lclwd L- Cttnoh;
Zaeb Coughlin
Dear Sirs:
R.lc:llArd B._It
Alex 1. Fl.tlJlO.S
Kristin B, jvloMilJu
JlUt:AlB 1.. K~lIi
KcllyT"-il,ofin
N'. Pruricl;: FlA",,!!:un

MaJIhow E. WoodhMd
Michelle; D. Munin~
Roser W. Jc:pp&Ol1
I am proud to recommend a. close personal friend, Zach Coughlin, as a member of the

Nevada Bar. I was asked to '\vrite as one who has functioned in the capacity of a
J.;ln~fC.Ead
J.n!tuy 1. Nod:
Po."idh.GiIrI:ia
FradD. GibiOn, 1U
iissaF. CUQt~h
Tum:nlly A. Lll4J
FrederickJ. Schmidt
Jame&N~
Davjd G, uGr:wd
julia S. 00 III
TonyR.Som</lI
Patrick J, Reilly
SeQ"D. fl.millS
Teny M. Snyt!er
BfCIlt C. Ecke:olcy
Frodaiek II Gauchor
PII1:r.ioill C. H~\,(tbad
Matthew J, K>tUl2.r
M!tnhc:w B. Hipplet
EudM. ]ohn:\lon
Bryce 1<. Kwrlmolll
Dour!n C. Flower.!
Justin C, Tond
AI.:.";. O. Mleluud
!1wmus R. R}'OII
Doca. V. fJjiii..lOva
Zach grew iu learning, in character, in dtq:lth of understanding, I personally witnessed
Zach attend 90 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in 90 days between. March 2003
and July 2003. He Was a regular at the 6:45 a.m. '~eginners Are Winners" meeting
that meets each day of the week. At that time 1 don't thlnk Zach appreciated ntlly the
seriousness ofhls situation, as he failed to gather signatures attesting to his attendance
at these meetings. He: has since started collecting signatures at each meeting he
Anonymous.
RQyFarrow
P.;I.ulilleNgJ..oe
Andrew l'tarl
Zach is constantly trying to better hhI1Self. He has taken great efforts to read the best
of alcoholics, chronic pai~ relapse prevention, spirituality. and a large n1llIlber of
He seeks truth in each and every area of his life, whether in le:rtning, discussing
philosophy, or relating to his colleagues and fellow man, Because of his positive
!tALE LANE PEEKD:eN~lSON A.."ID HOWARD
LAS VEG!I...'; OFFICS, '':;00 Wesl S~b= AVtnu<: I !i1ahd1 FlOllf! Bol!. B! Us Vega" N~"d:> S9l~Z I Pirone (702) 22Z-2S00 I F;u:.ill1ilc (702) 365,6940
CARSON CITY OFfICI!: 777 Eo,sl WimaUl StreetJ Su,iu; 200 I eo""" City, N~vndo. R97011 PbJ;uc (TIS) 6846000 11.'Msimll. ('r.~"'.IIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIiillllllllIllllllllIiiIIIIIIIIIiiIIIIIIII'
1099
December 9, 2004
Page 2
Because ofthe above observations and conclusions, I hereby urge that Zach be
Very Sincerely,
(I,
(/6~~.i~,(>~L
c. Cae Swobe
CCS/kmf
1100
C. COE SWOBE
ATIORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO,NEVADA 89509
December 9, 2004

drug abuse fonowing his first meeting in Las Vegas with the Character and Fitness
enter the practice oflaw. He passed the Nevada Bar exam in July of2001, the California
October of 2002. 1 also observed he had a serious problem with alcohoL
abuse. He increased his attendance at AA meetings and his contacts and interaction
with other recovering alcoholics. Since April 01'2004, he has collected signatures
verifying attendance at over 135 AA meetings and continues to meet weekly with his
February 1,2003. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's
right things to foster and build a solid program tor recovery from the disease of alcohol
1101
8I20/2015
Ninth Step Amends

Sent: Sun 7/12/157:27 PM
'To:
springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net (springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net);
smeador@woodburnandwedge.com (smeador@woodburnandwedge.com);
kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com (kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com); toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net
(toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net); JProctor@mbareno.com Uproctor@mbareno.com);
info@springgatelaw.com (info@springgatelaw.com); linda.gardner@washoecourts.us
Dear Counsel,
Sincerely,
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NY, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402 ZachCOLl~hlil1((Dhotmail.c.;oll1
hltps:llbay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvC/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1102
1/1
8/2012015
Ninth Step Amends

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotrnail.com)
Sent: Sun 7/12/15 7:32 PM
'To:
schomsby@nvdetr.org (schomsby@nvdetr.org); skent@skentlaw.com
(skent@skentlaw.com); mike@tahoelawyer.com (mike@tahoelawyer.com);
cvellis@bhfs.com (cvellis@bhfs.com);je@eloreno.com Ge@eloreno.com);
tsusich@nvdetr.org (tsusich@nvdetr.org); nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net
Dear Counsel,
Sincerely,
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NY, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402 ZnchCollghlinrclillOtmaiLcom
Nevada law license currently on disabled inactive status
1103
1/1
8I20/2015
Ninth Step Amends

Sent: Sun 7/12/153:13 PM
To: rhill@richardhillaw.com (rhill@richardhillaw .com); cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
(cdbaker@richardhillaw.com); magunda@aol.com (magunda@aol.com)
Dear Dr. Merliss, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Baker,

Sincerely
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV, 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402 ZachCoughlin@hotmaiLcom
htlps:llbay176.mail.live.com/oi/mail.mvc/PrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1104
1/1
811912015

Sincerely,
945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV, 89503
Tele and Fax: 9496677402 ZachCoughlinii:}\botmail.com
htlps:llbay176.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvC/PrinIMessages?mkl=en-us
1105
212
8I19/2015
Ninth Step Amends

Sent: Sun 7/12/154:03 PM
To:
bhahn@da.washoecounty.us (bhahn@da.washoecounty. us); mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
(mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us); astege@da.washoecounty.us
(astege@da. washoecounty .us); zyoung@da.washoecounty.us (zyoung@da.washoecounty .us);
telcano@da.washoecounty.us (telcano@da. washoecounty .us); jgoodnight@washoecounty.us
(jgoodnight@washoecounty.us); mcovington@da.washoecounty.us
(mcovington@da.washoecounty.us); enovak@washoecounty.us (enovak@washoecounty .us);
jbosler@washoecounty.us (jbosler@washoecounty .us); jleslie@washoecounty.us
(j leslie@washoecounty. us); wongd@reno.gov (wongd@reno.gov); drakej@reno.gov
(drakej@reno.gov); sooudib@reno.gov (sooudib@reno.gov); HAZLETTSTEVENSC@RENO.GOV (hazlett-stevensc@reno.gov); robertsp@reno.gov
(robertsp@reno.gov); ormaasa@reno.gov (ormaasa@reno.gov); kadlicj@reno.gov
(kadlicj@reno.gov); bdogan@washoecounty,us (bdogan@washoecounty.us);
lstuchell@washoecounty.us (lstuchell@washoecounty .us); julie. wise@washoecourts.us
(julie. wise@washoecourts.us); Joey .hastings@washoecourts.us
(j oey .hastings@washoecourts.us); michelle. purdy@washoecourts.us
(michelle. purdy@washoecourts.us); jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us
(jhelzer@da.washoecounty .us); patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com
(patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com); glennm@nvbar.org (glennm@nvbar.org);
rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com (rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com); jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
(jgarin@lipsonneilson.com); cstemlicht@washoelegalservices.org
(cstemlicht@washoelegalservices.org); jsasser@washoelegalservices.org
(j sasser@washoelegalservices .org); pelcano@washoelegalservices.org
(pelcano@washoelegalservices.org); ksabo@washoelegalservices.org
(ksabo@washoelegalservices.org); mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org
(mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org); mashley@washoelegalservices.org
(mashley@washoelegalservices.org); dpringle@washoelegalservices.org
(dpringle@washoelegalservices.org); mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net
(mmangiaracina@nlslaw .net); hsotelo@tmcc.edu (hsotelo@tmcc.edu);
rharrison@washoelegalservices.org (rharrison@washoelegalservices.org);
cbaker@geherenlaw.com (cbaker@geherenlaw.com); msexton@washoecounty.us
(msexton@washoecounty. us); jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
(jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us); christensend@reno.gov (christensend@reno.gov);
fflaherty@dlpfd.com (fflaherty@dlpfd.com)
Dear Counsel,
1106
1/2
1107
1108
;'
Z1v:: \\{"(")v{~\L1~ s:. h,/ h\
<-,,/1'1'
'?'4r')
ltll~)fr
': J ZO/I'O
.----
lf~(}f'V1
nA/2;{3:T 1;;6
,-,,.~---"-~----,,--
sbN 'Le)/;:p O~)
I)
'II,lll''L! ')
4HI'-
I
-;;&\,C
ij~~~
.~i~~ 2'J::"~"~~~
tt'(;'l Hlp j if G~
7:')0
:FI\I~)
fA... i Z'l'/~~
~~--,
1109
AA
Morishita Law Fi.rIn L.L.C.
V'
lNT&LLECTTJAL PROP&RTY LAW
ROBE(t'l' \tYI\N" MORISHITA
27258. Jone6 Blvd., SuIte 102
Lau Vel\lls. Nevada 89146
Registered PatBlit l\ttOl'l1tly
tel (702) 222-2113

fllX (7()2) 227-0615
,,-mall rrm@llndersonmorlshltll.com
Utah and Nevada ORfS

Of COUNSEl" HOWARD &. HOWARD P.C.
October 13, 2004
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Re:
Application ofZacb Coughlin
. To Whom It May Concern:

It is with sincere pleasure that [recommend the admission ofZach Coughlin to the State
During that time) I directly supervised Zach. Zach performed competently and ethically in all the
work he performed. In my opillion, Zach has a moral ch~.ntcter that would be an asset to our bar

Sincerely,
RRM:kdc
G~\Andersoll &; Motishita\ooughlin letter.wpd
1110
924 Incline 'Way, Suite B
I Incline Village, NV 89451
{775} 298- 2690
I have known Zach Coughlin since high school, and have kept in regular touch through the years. Of late I
have been impressed with Zach's commitment to recovery and to rebuilding his life. He has taken many
positive steps including staying clean and sober, maintaining regular employment, and staying clear of
any legal trouble. I think that he has effectively changed the trajectory of his life, and could be again
trusted to practice law, and to function as a contributing member of society.
Thank you,
Jared Swanson
Owner, JD Publishing Inc.
406 539 3715 cell
1111
December 9, 2004
Pagel
HALE LANE
legion,- and whose dedication and tenacity throughout his academic career has been profound
were not given a chance. It has been three and a balf years since Zach passed the 2001 Nevada
bar exam~ and as such there has been more than enough time for Zach to learn. from his mistakes.
alL
Thank you once again for the opportunity to recommend such a special and impressive young
man.
"ODMA\l;'CnOCS\HL'l,NODOCS\.16791.\1
1112
December 9. 2004
Page 2
HALE LANE
him to exciting new discoveries. As a student of recovery. Zach is outstanding. As a sponsor, I

have watche4bim grow. seen his understanding and abilities not only in the context of our
weekly one hour meetings (which have totaled to nearly 40 hours), but when interacting with the
and worle on eaoh of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Doing so has involved an
expeIience. comes without an enormous amount of individual effort, honesty~ open-mindedness,
and Willingness. Zach has regularly attended the weekly meetings of the State Bar of Nevada's
"Lawyers Concemed for Lawyers.u Additionally. Zac:h has taken great effort and care to
his transgressions. He has attempted to make restitution for the movie theater incident and bas
Zach has performed a good deal of community service in the form of making coffee for
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, heiping to set up and put away chairs at IIleetings. and lending
support to fellow AA's.
Certainly there is no question whatsoever that Zach has what it takes to ntake a fine attorney. He
passed three of the most difficult bar exams in the country in a malier of 15 months (the Nevada,
California, and Patent bar eXanlli). He made the Dean~s Ljst several times while at the Boyd
School of Law and was a member of Boyd's law review, 11te Nevada Law Journal. Zach
Washin.gton and the University of Nevada, Reno.
as a 2nd team All-State basketball player in Nevada's large school division in both 1994 and
1995. He was AllLeague three times. In 1995 the Nevada-Appeal chose Zach as the large
school division Player of the Year for Northern Nevada High School Basketb.a11. Zach was also
a Na.tional Merit Finalist and member aithe National Honor Society in high school. In addition
Zach is an extremely accomplished musician who pla.ys several instruments and has done much
composing.
Always, in his work, Zach is consistent, dedicated and passionate, enthusiastic, cheerful, and a.
pleasure to work with. He has incredible creative: energies and a refreshing idealism tempered
work, leadership, education, or any other capacity in which he can spread his excitement BUd
share his talents with others. This most certainly includes being a member of the Nevada Bar.
In my opi:nio~ it is vitally important that we give people like Zach a chance. It would surely set
a very disph-iting example if a young man like Zach, whose infractions were relatively minor
1113
HALE LANE
-----/l.TTClRHE'tS AT L A W - - - - -
5#1 Kalz~~ I..:uu\ I $.eIlmJd FlOOr I ReM, N_~ 119511

Telephone (115)327-3000 II'oc.1imile (175) 7$6-6\ 79
Websill:;:bnp:l/wwwJiatoJanc.oom
December 9, 2004
To:

Re:
Zaeb Coughlill
Wwotd BVClo\1;EAllI
[I 921H9113)
SiI:w Lo.oc,
J. SLepllcnP~clc
Karou D. lkrlni>Qn
ML Craig Homlnl
S'.pb.cu V, N"'lJCak
Richs.nl L- \lImo",
Depr Sirs:
RicluIrd B~"""n,
Alel], fl>n.'ll!I
Kris1io.1l. MeMilla
Juws t. Kelly
KcUyTest.otm
1'1Patrick l'IDmK.n
Monlw E. Wood~d
Michelle D. Mum",
Rogor W. J "PP'DII
L~neeC. Bvt
JOrl!llIY L Nod:
p;wid ..... Gam
Fred. D. Gib.on, !II
SlhsaF. Ca<lbh
1'itmthy A.L\lb$
Frcdctivkl. Schmidt
JaIlll:liNewm:.m
Daviil G. leGr.wd
Julin S. Quid
TOIl)'R. SIlmel'!l
I'.trick J. ReWl'
S,:otl'D. l"1.m.l.1Q
lclT)I M. Snydllr
tln:m C. !!rke....1cy
Fr<:d.:rjel; It. /lander
Patrieill C. n~klllad
Martltew 1. Kreul2t!r
M.tJbcw a.. H't'l'l ...
IlradM.lohllslon
Elryu. K. K""l""ll)
DotJ~lw~ C. FJbW~l!I
luotin C. IOT1~
Alc.'Us O. Mich.:md
Th!l1Ili1.R.l';y:>1I
DooI V. IJjilirulllYl

2003, and through a shared friend, was introduced to Zacn.. Zach re-que~ied that I
work with him in his reCQvery from alcohol abuse and in getting his life back on track.
Zach grew in learning. in character, in depth of understanding. I personally witnessed
and July 2003. He was 11 regular at the 6:45 a.m. "Beginners Are Winners" meeting
that meets each day of the week. At that time I don't think Zach appreciated fully the
seriousness afhis situation, as he failed to gather signatutes attesting to his attendance
attends and his current collections numbers over one hundred signa.tures, each
signature representing It one hour meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. Further) I am
meetings (one hour long personal narratives from AA member attesting to own story
and its courage strength and hope) from Renofs main office of Alcoholics
Anonymous.
~sl
Royi'atroW
F.uli... Ngu.:
Andrew!'wl
and handbooks on depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. adult children
of alcoholics, chronic PaiD; relapse prevention, spirituality. and a large number of
He seeks truth in each and every area of his life. whether in learning. discussing
philosophy. or relating to his colleagues and fellow man. Because of his positive
him. so special, Zach's questions never go unanswered, and his searches always bring
IillE LANE .PEEK DEN~l.SON AN]) HOW,UID
I.i\S VIlG ...:; OFl'JCS: 2300 W",,( $~h= Av~n"" 1.e:1shdl Ftoo'lllo",l! Las V~~N"""Q;. a91011l'bolle (102) 2222S0Q J l'..:sin.1<: (702) )65.11911)
C.'\RSON' CITY OFE'lCE: 777 E:lst William Stn:.t I Suitt 2ao I
CiIy. NCV1\d<1 a9701 11'oouc (TI5) ea4-6000 tflwsl1nilB {i.6;i ~_1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII1IIIiIIIIIa.
0.""'.,
1114

Re: Zach Coughlin
the San Diego area.
i have been impressed by his sobriety, dedication to recovery, and
conversations.
Roger W. Rasmusen
Rancho Santa Fe, CA
858 245-0929
RRSCA@AOL.COM
1115
Bill Martin, MFT

MFC33939
1337 Camino Del Mar, 5tel. E
205
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-755-2407

San Diego, CA 92108
6196869302
bill@shrink.tv
www.counseljng-connection.com
July 20, 2015

Reno, NV 89521
Dear Office of the Bar Counsel.
309.0 Adjustment 0/0 with Depressed Mood
He is a frequent meeting atiender, has a sponsor, and is working the
for life.
12~Step recovery as more important in Mr. Coughlin's case than
psychotherapy, With ongoing involvement in 12 Step recovery,
Bill C. Martin, MFT
1116
December 9, 2004
Page 2
Very Sincerely,
CCS/kmf
1117
C. COE SWOBE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO,NEVADA 89509
December 9,2004
October of 2002. 1 also observed he had a serious problem with alcohol.

In .February of 2003, Zach moved back to Reno, where his parents reside,
abuse. He increased his attendance at AA meetings and his contacts and interaction
with other recovering alcoholics. Since April of2004, he has conected signatures
verifying attendance at over 135 AA meetings and continues to meet weekly with his
February 1, 2003, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's
the past two years, th~.t if he continues on his present path of abstaining from alcohol and
members of the disease of alcohol and drug abuse, he will not relapse,
1118
Knute Knudson
Reno, NV 89523
(775) 448-1528
August 17, 2015
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89102
society..
/
S~;:~'
1:(/
r:54l.:'.k:;V?t!~cr~
/ / -I-
KJute Knuds n
1119
--
.......----------------------------------~~~~
~~~~~-~~~-~---~-

phone805-968-2620
Isla VistaUMC@gmail.com
August 20,2015
rehearsal in October 2014. Talking with him, it became clear that he "vas undergoing a time of sou!
Respectfully,
----.....
1120
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
working with painting wmpany owned and operated by local AA membei. He had been following the
sponsor.
~~EJ.),
Charlie Hoar
386 13th Street

Del Mar, CA 92014
By Appointment
Office: (858) 794-0546

Fox: (858) 764-0531 cell: 858
232 7788
1121
JOHN J. KADLIC
ATfOKNt:V AI' LAW
Tlll.l.lPHONl-!
POST OFFICE L30x 2477 .

.. RIlNO. NINA[)A 89505
(775) 322709~ .
FAX
(775) 3227511
December 9,2004

1 am writing thi$letter on behalf ofZack Coughlin who is seeking admission to the State Bar of
Nevada.
In my case, I have known Zack: Coughlin for over fifteen years. His father, lim Coughlin, as well
being our family physician., is the godfathe(' and his wife is the godmother of my daughter. Blair who
is ~ow fourteen years old.
I have had a chance to watch Zack through \Us high school years and his entering coRege. He was
both a ex.cellent student as well as a fine athletic. r was very pleased when he choose to enter law
school.
Since his graduation from law school, I have had a number of opportunities to speak to Zack. 1n
the past., I have used him to do some legal research for me. He did a fine job in that regard and 1 used
I think Zack has matured as a individual and possesses the qualities tbat would make bim a fine
lawyer. It is my sincere hope that he win be given the opportunity to practice law.
1122
WILLIAM M. HENRICH
A rrORNEY AT LAW

SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92111
(858) 576-4484
August 10, 2015

from the courage of his disclosures to me and others to his extraordinary growth in seifawareness for a man of his age. His rapid personal progress is evident by his
problem associating Zach as co-counselor trusting him with cHent confidences should the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed in San Diego, CA,
William M. Henrich
1123
-3-

Mr.
to believe he is disabled. unable to
- --- r.o1H:rhlin
-- --0------ h<ls
----- <lsked
- -- if I continue
reinstatement.
--~
out of town from August 17 -August 27. I believe his hearing is scheduled for the
morning of the 25 th . If needed, I can be contacted by cell phone that morning
1124
-2-

by Charlie Hoar, Ed. D., MFT. In June, MediCal rejected Mr. Coughlin's use of two
attendance. He was impressed with Mr. Coughlin's conSistency and persistence, and
1125
8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB: 9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE NAME: In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Respondent
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
II . . .

attorney today due to his dis regulated emotional state and continuing
1126
HEITING & IRWIN

JAMES DITD !lE!TING'
RICHARD H IRWIN"
JOSHUA CATES. of coufISl'l
JEANSIMON SERRANO
SARA B. MORGAN
DENNIS It STOUT
5885 BROCKTON AVENUE

(95 I) 682-6400
KEITH PILAi,
AlTORNEYS'tNVESTIOATOR
fAX (951) 682-4072
o IF CHECKED, RESI'ONO TO
PO BOX 1
WRIGIfIWOOD. CA ?2397
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORl'ORATION

"CERTlfIED WORKERS' COMI'. SPECIALIST
(760) 249900\1
July 15,2015
Zach Coughlin
DearZacn:
recovery.
the State Bar.
Best regards t
JOH:gsa
1127
..
BERNARD M. HANSEN
Attorney at Law
(619) 283-3371
August 13,2015
State Bar of Nevada
Las Vtegas, NY 89102
Dear Sir or Madam:
Since 2009, 1 have regularly attended the Other Bar Tuesday Night Meeting in
San Diego. The Other Bar is a network of recGvering lawyers and judges throughout the
Perhaps I have become too jaded, but I do not blindly believe that a new attendee
at our meeting is without secondary motives. This includes trying to finagle a letter of
support. When I met lach at the beginning of this year at the Tuesday night meeting, 1
As I listened to lack over the months, it became apparent that the message of the
need to live a psychologically healthy life was permeating into his brain, When he shared,
he gave specific examples of issues he was \\lcstling with and what he was doing to
cope.
However, one never knows what another is truly thinking. Then, I saw lack at
other 12.step meetings around town. Meetings where there could be no temptation to
My pt:rsonal experience with Zack leads me to believe that he can be a caring and
Tnrlv yours,
~tv\.
Bernard M. Hansen
BMHI
1128
08-19-'1509:02 FROM- RenoFamilyPhys
7758515710
T-272 P0002/0002 F-833

August 17,2015
RE:
COUOHLm~ZACHARY
Dear Sir:
I am ZacIl1s father and a fonner medical director of St Mary's Chemical Dependency Program, I have
Zack was a complete straight arrow tllIOUghout his high school years. He was Ii National Merit Finalist.
Unfortul1ately. he developed an addiction to alcohol and drugs. He has paid n tretnendous price tor his
addiction. He has lost over 10 years of his life and bas alienated himself from Ws family and his peers.
I feel strongly that he is now sincere in his desire to change his life Wid to live soberly. He has been "
very active in AA and I feel as though we finally have the old Zack back..
multiple AA meetings with him and I have had contact with him. on an almost daily basis. 1know he is
remorseful and is willing to do whatever the Nevada Bar may ask of hhn. I feel strongly that he is worth
saving.
Since~ly
yours.
,~~-U
Timothy D. Coughli~ M,D.

IDe/ag
7111 South Virginia Street Reno~ Nevada 89511

775-851-5700 Frot 775-851-5710
1129
August 19 , 2015
State Bar of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV 89102
officer in the U.S. Navy. My du-ties, among others, are to
provide counsel to senior principals regarding the Navy's
messaging for military operations and humanitarian relief
efforts. As a paid communicator, I must make critical decisions
regarding one's intent and motivation when interacting with
others.
I have known Zach Cough 1 in since December 2014 \Arhen I met
him in a recovery program. From the start, I sensed a kindred
soul and like myself dedicated to ove~coming setbacks. He's
demonstrated himself as a supportive friend, a trusted adviser,
and his potential and growth has been amazing to witness. I'm
fully confident he's committed to making substantial changes in
his life and will one day make a profound contribution to the
legal community. As a testament to his character, he helped me
with my special needs dog accompanying me on numerous medical
appointments and assisting with a physical therapy program for
him. He is the person I turn to when I need a supportive ear,
I have complete faith and confidence in Mr. Coughlin's
character and judgment. If you have additional questions, I can
be reached at (808)-388-3423.
Sincerely,
~C ~0Q;L~
__
Theresa Donnelly
~
United States Navy
1130
775-201-0278
Carly Coughlin
p.1
Coughlin Vocational COilnseling

4790 Caughlin Parkway Suite 379
Reno, NV 89S19
August 17.2015
To Whom 11 May Concern:

I am related to Mr. Coughlin. I have known:Mr, Coughlin for 39 years. I would recolllniend Mr.
and it does not appear as though Mr. Coughlin shall repeat those mistakes :in the future. Mr.
Coughlin. is a younger individual who will benefit society by returning to the workforce.
Respectfully Submitted:
(!u~~
MS,CRe
Carly'eoughlfu,CJ
.~
1131
Damian Sinnott
576 Ridge Street

Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 376-8378
dsinnott.esq(iv,gmaiLcom
August 21, 2015
State Bar of Nevada
3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste.l 00

1 have lived in Northern Nevada most of my life. My wife and I have lived in Reno for the past 6 years
andjust started a family here. I am a practicing attorney licensed both here and in California. Currently,
I work for the Lyon County District Attorney's Office as a Deputy Di&1rict Attorney; I have been so
Swobe introduced me to the program. My clirrent employment and familial relationships are only
possible because 1 am sober. I take my sobriety very seriously.
incredible ameliorative change in him. Now I see someone;: who is taking responsibility for his actions,
someone attempting to change himself for the betH."!,
. someone taking positive steps to get a handle on all
facets of his life.
As an attorney in Nevada, I feel confident that Zach would be Ull upstanding member of the Nevada Bar.
He has many attributes that lend themselves to being a great attorney. I have reviewed some of Zach's
legul work, including that done on his own behalf during the time his law license was temporarily
that he is now fit to resume the practice oflaw without any further demonstration orhis competency or
learning in the law. As a recovering alcoholic myself, I am confident that Zach is committed to his
outlook.
Sincerely,
Iyt~
1132

1128slVlanzanita Road
(619) 895-2589
mbrennan34@cox.net
August 11,2015
State Bar of Nevada

3100 \Xf, Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Re:
Zach Coughlin Petition fot Reinstatement
I am an art-orney licenced in Calif()rnia in good standing since 2006, 1 am also the point of
contact for the Other Bat in the San Diego area, a California state-wide organization of law students,
abuse. In this capacity, I also attend weekly meetings of the Other Bar ill the San Diego area as I
have done for the past 12 yeats when 1 commenced law school.
I have known Zach Coughlin through my involvement with the Other Bal: where he has
attended out weekly meetings on numewus occasions. During the course my interactions with
changes in his Iift~. I Ie has been forthright nnd honest with all members of our group, and 1 huve
never entert;\il1Cd j"he thought that he was not stable in his prc~cnt commitment to recovery. Rather,
r:.fr. Coughlin has demonstrated insight into his recovery and acqull:ed knowledge to prevent
recurrence of some past poor decisions, He has consistently maintained his commitment to overall
m('mal and physical health, despite tlle challenges tn his life.
r have no reservations about endorsing Mr. Coughlin's character and his reinstatement.
Sincetely yours,
lvloira S. Brcllnan
1133
1
i2
. FILID
Case No. 11 TR 26800 21
DEPT. NO.3
Dept. 3 ,
APR
;3
5
6
,~,
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
./
"
'
",I,
~6RIiNAS~ HOLMES,JUDGE
'4
7
8'
1201~
TIME
"
COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NaVADA
'
{'
*,* * * ~, .
CITY OF RJ;NO;
.,1
_.
Plaintiff,
VI.
ORDER OFDISMISSAL
.1"

Defendant.
----___________________
1
16
17
18
19
20
...
21
Dated this 7th day of April; 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:i'
,!
22
'."'
.~~~
. DorothYNash'
elmes'
Municipal Judge
",...
. ,.
23
24
25
26
,~,
,,;.
27
RENO
28
MVIIICIPAI. COURT
10.0..... 001
""".WNIOI
(702)m-mo
1134
<
'
CiRIIEIC(uE Of SERVICE
Reno, Nevada, that
lam over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above action, and that
,
on this date, served a true and correct copy of the attached document to the following as set .
forth below:
..L Placing said document In a 1I.led 'nvelope and placed for collecting and mailing by
Unites States mall In Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary busine..
practices,
Facsimile (FAX)
...L

Inner-office mail following ordinary bu.iness practices
I

Booking # 1317561
Washoe County Detention FacUlty
911 Parr Blvd
:Reno NV 96512
Dan Wong
Chief Criminal Deputy City Att~mey
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
Rlno Municipal Court

P.O. Box 1'00
Rlno, NV 811808
(775) 33<4-3822
1135
1
2
FILlED

OEPT. NO.3
Case No. : 11 CR 26405

Dept. 3
APR 7 20t~
TIME~<
BY ~
OOROTHY NASH HOLMES, JUDGE
8
9 - CITY OF RENO,
10
11
Plaintiff,
va.
ORDER OFDISMISSAL
13
14
15)
Defendant.
______________________
16
interest of justice, that this case bo, and horcby is, DISMISSED.
17
18
19
20
21
22
ZACHARYBARKERCOUGHLm,
~
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
=1~~
Municipal Judge
23
24
25
26
.27
!t1NO
M\JNICIPjI, COUItf
,..0.... 1...
A.... WNW
28
(7OJ) 33f.mII
1136
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
1137
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
June 3, 2015). He came because he wanted to be free
the course of about a month and a half ( April 30 --June
ed, self-disclosing, eager to learn about his weaknesses and to set about
I found him to be motivat
motivated,
- to obtain a
recommendations of Dr. Earl S. Nielsen of Reno, NV who initially evaluated him in 2014, -to
MediCal
Cal case manager to choose between seeing me or the other therapist (
week, he was asked by the Medi
sponsor.
RespeC~fUIlY,
(JrUvW
J. U,
~
~ E'r &-41::
J ,U
.
Charlie Hoar
386 13th Street

Del Mar, CA 92014
By Appointment
Office: (858) 794-0546

Fax: (858) 7 64-0531 cell: 858
232 7788
1138
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
1139
8/20/2015
8/20/2015

COURSE NAME
CERTIFIED STATE
CREDIT HOURS
CERTIFICATE DATE
ACTIONS
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
(#)
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
(#)
Business Valuation: Theory, Application, Controversies, Recent Developments & Errors

NEVADA (NV)
5.50
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Cause Marketing: Special Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For Charities
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
Choice of Entity
NEVADA (NV)
2.00
8/20/2015
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-16
(#)
Avoiding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims: An Expert's Perspective

NEVADA (NV)
3.00
Legal Ethics:3.00
2015-08-15
1/11
8/20/2015
2015-08-16
2/11
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses - Do You Want to Take This PI Case?
NEVADA (NV)
3.00
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Collections Law
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-16
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-14

NEVADA (NV)
2.50
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
eDiscovery
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

3/11
(#)
1140
4/11
8/20/2015
8/20/2015
NEVADA (NV)
3.50
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)
(#)
5/11
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
(#)
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
2.00
2015-08-18
(#)
Personal Injury: Liability, Damages & Collectibility

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
Personal Injury: A Detailed Examination of Liability, Damages and Collectibility

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
6/11
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
8/20/2015
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
8/20/2015

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18

NEVADA (NV)
7/11
(#)
1141
8/11
8/20/2015
8/20/2015
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
(#)
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-18
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-15
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-19
(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15
(#)
(#)
(#)
Valuing a Business
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)

(#)

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-15

NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-19
8/20/2015
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-18
9/11
10/11

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-19
(#)
When Bias Turns to Bullying: Strategies for Dealing with High Conflict People
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
(#)
(#)
(#)
Winning on Appeal
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
2015-08-14
NEVADA (NV)
2.00
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-19
NEVADA (NV)
1.50
2015-08-14
(#)
11/11
1142
FOR
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473

1.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
FOR


BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473
FOR
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
FOR
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: ACOA13-VD
08/16/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473

3.00 hrs
3.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Business Valuation: Theory, Application, Controversies, Recent

Developments & Errors
Cause Marketing: Special Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For
Charities
Choice of Entity

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
FOR

3.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/16/2015
9473



BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473



BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473



BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

FOR
Zachary Coughlin

eDiscovery
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473

FOR
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
2.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin

2.50 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/14/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR

FOR
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
5.50 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
Collections Law

TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0F12-VD
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
08/16/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses - Do You Want to Take This PI
Case?
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Avoiding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims: An Expert's

Perspective
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

FOR

FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/14/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
BAR NUMBER:

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473

FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
3.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473
TOTAL Hours:
Substance Abuse:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
FOR

Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

FOR
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473
FOR

1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0V12-VD
08/18/2015
9473


TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0T12-VD
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: ACOE13-VD
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: AC0X12-VD
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin


Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

Personal Injury: A Detailed Examination of Liability, Damages and
Collectibility
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR

FOR
Zachary Coughlin

1.00 hrs
08/14/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
08/18/2015
9473
Independent Contractor/Employee Distinctions: Help Clients (And Your

Firm) Minimize Liability

BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR


TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
2.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473
FOR


BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473


1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs
08/18/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: C12AC0-VD
08/18/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/18/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: ACQJ12-VD
08/19/2015
9473
1.50 hrs
08/19/2015
9473
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473


BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Zachary Coughlin
Winning on Appeal
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
08/15/2015
9473
TOTAL Hours:
1.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: E12AC0-VD
08/19/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/15/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473


FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
TOTAL Hours:

FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
STATE COURSE NUMBER: A12AC0-VD

1.00 hrs
08/19/2015
9473
Zachary Coughlin
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
FOR
Zachary Coughlin

TOTAL Hours:
FOR
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
Zachary Coughlin

1.50 hrs
TOTAL Hours:
Substance Abuse:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
FOR
08/18/2015
9473

1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs
FOR
Zachary Coughlin
TOTAL Hours:
Substance Abuse:
FOR

TOTAL Hours:
BAR NUMBER:
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
2.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473

TOTAL Hours:
1.50 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/14/2015
9473
1143
TOTAL Hours:
Legal Ethics:
1.00 hrs
1.00 hrs

BAR NUMBER:
08/19/2015
9473
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 7
*
i
------------------
EXHIBIT
1144

" * #* '!* *

*
(* $*%&**

)
** *
PR>F2R)*,(6
#1(6.(6
$6 6

!6
6
26 %+/6-&36
,8)3"R

'6
GH#R
"4056
I+-ER=$@.;R
R
?I$RR*;J?D(K94
R

"%NR
IIMIQCR

% %@5R :;7%R
</6R%LA0IOR
B&!1'R

$%
#!%

1145
EXHIBIT 8
,I'
EXHIBIT 8
'EXHIBIT
g 1
- - - -
--------------------~--~-
1146
--
-------
C. COE SWOBE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO, NEVADA 89509
December 9, 2004

enter the practice of Jaw. He passed the Nevada Bar exam in July of 2001, the California
February 1, 2003. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's
1147
December 9, 2004
Page _2
'Very Sincerely,
(J
(1 _(!e,-<- .d __..,cltz--
c. Coe Swobe
CCS/kmf
1148
1149
1150
1151
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 11
,
EXHIBIT
I 1/
1152
8/19/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: bhahn@da.washoecounty.us(bhahn@da.washoecounty.us)mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us
(mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us)astege@da.washoecounty.us
(astege@da.washoecounty.us)zyoung@da.washoecounty.us(zyoung@da.washoecounty.us)
telcano@da.washoecounty.us(telcano@da.washoecounty.us)jgoodnight@washoecounty.us
(jgoodnight@washoecounty.us)mcovington@da.washoecounty.us
(mcovington@da.washoecounty.us)enovak@washoecounty.us(enovak@washoecounty.us)
jbosler@washoecounty.us(jbosler@washoecounty.us)jleslie@washoecounty.us
(jleslie@washoecounty.us)wongd@reno.gov(wongd@reno.gov)drakej@reno.gov
(drakej@reno.gov)sooudib@reno.gov(sooudib@reno.gov)HAZLETTSTEVENSC@RENO.GOV(hazlettstevensc@reno.gov)robertsp@reno.gov
(robertsp@reno.gov)ormaasa@reno.gov(ormaasa@reno.gov)kadlicj@reno.gov
(kadlicj@reno.gov)bdogan@washoecounty.us(bdogan@washoecounty.us)
lstuchell@washoecounty.us(lstuchell@washoecounty.us)julie.wise@washoecourts.us
(julie.wise@washoecourts.us)Joey.hastings@washoecourts.us
(joey.hastings@washoecourts.us)michelle.purdy@washoecourts.us
(michelle.purdy@washoecourts.us)jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us
(jhelzer@da.washoecounty.us)patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com
(patrickkinglawyer@gmail.com)glennm@nvbar.org(glennm@nvbar.org)
rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com(rbrucelindsaylaw@yahoo.com)jgarin@lipsonneilson.com
(jgarin@lipsonneilson.com)csternlicht@washoelegalservices.org
(csternlicht@washoelegalservices.org)jsasser@washoelegalservices.org
(jsasser@washoelegalservices.org)pelcano@washoelegalservices.org
(pelcano@washoelegalservices.org)ksabo@washoelegalservices.org
(ksabo@washoelegalservices.org)mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org
(mmangiaracina@washoelegalservices.org)mashley@washoelegalservices.org
(mashley@washoelegalservices.org)dpringle@washoelegalservices.org
(dpringle@washoelegalservices.org)mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net
(mmangiaracina@nlslaw.net)hsotelo@tmcc.edu(hsotelo@tmcc.edu)
rharrison@washoelegalservices.org(rharrison@washoelegalservices.org)
cbaker@geherenlaw.com(cbaker@geherenlaw.com)msexton@washoecounty.us
(msexton@washoecounty.us)jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us
(jhelzer@mail.co.washoe.nv.us)christensend@reno.gov(christensend@reno.gov)
fflaherty@dlpfd.com(fflaherty@dlpfd.com)
DearCounsel,
1153
1/2
8/19/2015
Sincerely,
1154
2/2
8/20/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: rhill@richardhillaw.com(rhill@richardhillaw.com)cdbaker@richardhillaw.com
(cdbaker@richardhillaw.com)magunda@aol.com(magunda@aol.com)
DearDr.Merliss,Mr.Hill,andMr.Baker,
Sincerely
1155
1/1
8/20/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: schornsby@nvdetr.org(schornsby@nvdetr.org)skent@skentlaw.com
(skent@skentlaw.com)mike@tahoelawyer.com(mike@tahoelawyer.com)
cvellis@bhfs.com(cvellis@bhfs.com)je@eloreno.com(je@eloreno.com)
tsusich@nvdetr.org(tsusich@nvdetr.org)nevtelassn@sbcglobal.net
DearCounsel,
Sincerely,
Nevadalawlicensecurrentlyondisabledinactivestatus
1156
1/1
8/20/2015
Print
Close
NinthStepAmends
To: springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net(springgatelaw@sbcglobal.net)
smeador@woodburnandwedge.com(smeador@woodburnandwedge.com)
kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com(kathy@kbreckenridgelaw.com)toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net
(toddtorvinen@sbcglobal.net)JProctor@mbareno.com(jproctor@mbareno.com)
info@springgatelaw.com(info@springgatelaw.com)linda.gardner@washoecourts.us
DearCounsel,
Sincerely,
1157
1/1
EXHIBIT 12
EXHIBIT 12
I
i
t~
1158
I ~-~~~ --------~~
I ~~
1159
1160
1161
EXHIBIT 13
EXHIBIT 13
I
~rr
1162

(619) 895-2589
mbrennan34@cox.net
August 11, 2015
of Nevada
State Bar of'Nevada
Charleston
3100 W. C
harleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las
Uts Vegas, NV
NY 89102
Re:
Re:

I am an attorney licenced in California in good standing since 2006. 1I am also the point of
lawyers, judges, and other legal pro
professionals
substance
fessionals supporting each other in recovery from sub
stance
area as I
abuse. In this capacity, I also attend weekly ~eetings
meetings of the Other Bar in the San Diego arca
have done for the past 12 years when rI commenced law school.
school.
Ir have known Zach Coughlin through my involvement with the Other Bar where he has
attended oour
ur weekly meetings on numerous occasions. During the course my interactions with
necessaty
changes in his life. He has been forthright and honest with all members of our group, and Ir have
entertained the thought that he was not stable in his present commitment to recovery. Rather,
never ente.rtained
recurrence of some past poor
pOOl' decisions. He has consistently maintained his commitment to overall
ove.call
mental and physical health,
healdl, despite the challenges in his life.
1I have no reservations
re.<;Clvations about endorsing Mr. Coughlin's character and his reinstatement.
Sincerely yours,
Moira S. Brennan
1163
/,t ~, THE LAW OFFICE OF ;\.t ~\

DAMIAN SINNOTT ~..L~
.,.;.,L~
Damian Sinnott
576 Ridge Street
Reno, Nevada 8950
89501I
(775) 376-8378
dsinnott.esq@gmail.com
August 21, 2015

State Bar of Nevada
3100
100

1I have lived in Northern Nevada most of my life. My wife and I have lived in Reno for the past 6 years
and just started a family here. I am a practicing attorney licensed both here and in California.
andjust
CaJifomia. Currently,
I work for the Lyon County District
Di strict Attorney's
Attorney ' s Office as a Deputy District Attorney; I( have been so
possible because I am sober. IJ take my sobriety very seriously.
fLfSt started in recovery. I believe at that time Zach was already in some legal
Zach and I met when I first
trouble, but 1I was not sure exactly what was going on. Over the course of the next three years, I got to
While IJ have seen 2ach
Zach in meetings and talked to him on and off over the years, I have recently seen an
ameliorative
change.in him. Now I see someone who is taking responsibility
incredible ameli
orative change'
responsi bility for his actions,
facets of his life.
As an attorney in Nevada, I feel confident that lach
Zach would be an upstanding member of the Nevada Bar.
He has many attributes that lend themselves to being a great attorney. I have reviewed some of
ofZach's
Zach's
that he
oflaw
be is now fit to resume the practice of
law without any further demonstration of his competency or
learning in the law. As a recovering alcoholic myself, ]I am confident that Zach is committed to his
Zach's friend,
frie nd, ]I am happy that he
recovery. This is evidenced by his continued dedication to sobriety. As 2ach's
is getting a handle on his addiction problems. Ir have seen and heard the change in his attitude and his
outlook.
outl
ook..
recommend reinstatement in the Nevada Bar Association for lach

Zach Coughlin. Feel free to
1I highly reconunend
s7 U
Si~
Damian Sinnott,
Sirmott, Esq.
1164
775-201-0278
Carly Coughlin
p.1

4790
4 790 Caughlin Parkway Suite 3379
79
Reno, NV 89519
August 17,2015
R.e:
I am related to Mr. Coughlin. I have known Mr. Coughlin for 39 years. I would recommend Mr.
au
{!u
Carly
1165
August
9,, 2015
August 119
20 1 5
State Bar
Bar of
of Nevada
Nevada
State
3100 W.
W. Charles
Charleston
Blvd.,
., Suite
Suite 100
100
3100
t on Blvd
Las
Vegas
,
NV
89102
Las Vegas , NV 89 1 02
SUBJECT :: Zach
Zach Coughlin
Coughlin Petition
Petition for
for Reinstatement
Reinstatement
SUBJECT
To Whom
Whom it
it May
May Concern
Concern :
To
My
My name
name is
is Lt . Theresa Donnelly
Donnelly , and
and II ' m a public affairs
affairs
in the
the U.S
U. S . Navy
Navy . My
My duties
duties , among others,
others , are to
to
officer in
Navy ' s
provide counsel to senior p r incipals regarding the Navy
messagi n g for military operations and humanitarian relief
messaging
efforts. As a paid communicator , I must make critical decisions
r egarding one ' s intent
inte n t and motivat
mot i vation
regarding
i on when interacting with
others.
I have known Zach Coughlin since December 2014 when I met
sensed
him in a recovery program . From the start , I sen
sed a kindred
oveEcoming setbacks.
soul and like myself dedicated to overcoming
setbacks . He ' s
demonstrated himself as a supportive friend , a trusted adviser ,
and his potential
potential and growth has been amazing to witness . I ' m
fully
fu l ly confident
con fident he ' s committed to making substantial changes in
his life and will one day make a profound contribution tto
o the
lega
l community . As a testament to his character , he helped me
legal
with my special needs dog accompanying me on numerous medica
l
medical
appointments and assisting with a physical therapy
the r apy program for
him.
him . He is the person
p erson I turn to when
wh e n I need a supportive ear ,
and I know he ' s tthere
h ere for me in my
my times of need .
I have
have complete faith
faith and
and conf
con f idence
idence in Mr.
Mr . Coughlin ' s
character and judgment. If
If you
you have
have additional questions
questio n s ,, I can
be
rea
ched
at
(808)
388
3423
.
be reached
(808) - 388 Sincerely
Sincerely,,
~~~~
~~l~~d
Theresa Donnelly
c::==J'
Public
Public Affairs
Affairs Officer
Officer
United
United States
States Navy
Navy
1166
7758515710
T-272 P0002/0002 F-833

August 17, 2015
RE: COUGHLIN, ZACHARY
Dear Sir:
I am Zacfl's father and a fonner medical director of St. Mary's Chemical Dependency Program. I have
Zack was a complete straight arrow throughout his high school years. He was a National Merit Finalist,
Unfortunately, he developed an addiction to alcohol and drugs. He has paid a tremendous price for his
addiction. He has lost over 10 years of his life a11d has alienated himself from his family and his peers.
I feel strongly that he is now sincere in his desire to change his life and to Jive soberly. He has been .
very active in AA and I feel as though we finally have the old Zack back
multiple AA meetings with him and I have had contact with him on an almost daily basis. I know he is
saving.
Sincercily yours,
,~;tl,n.
Timothy D. Coughlin, M.D.

TDC!ag
7111 South Virginia Street Reno, Nevada 89511

775-851-5700 Fax 775-851-5710
1167
..
BERNARD M. HANSEN
Attorney at Law
283-337 1
(619) 283-3371
August 13, 2015

State
Sl'ate Bar of Nevada
3100 '1./.
W. Charleston Blvd., Suite
Su ite 100
Y"gas. NV
NY 89102
Las Vegas,
Dear S
ir or Madam:
Sir
bli ndly believe that a new atltendee
attendee
Perhaps II have become too jaded, but II do not blindly
ieller of
at our meeting is without secondary motives. This includes trying to finagle a letter
suppo1t.
SUppoI1. When II met Zach at the beginning of this year at the Tuesday night meeting,
meet ing, II
Zack over the months, it became apparent that the message of the
As I listened to lack
psycho logically healthy life was permeating into his brain. When he shared,
need to live a psychologically
v.rrestli ng with and what he was doing
do ing to
he gave specific examples of issues he was wrestling
cope.
However, one never knows what another is truly thinking. Then, I saw Zack
lack at
"I2-step meetings around town. Meetings where there could be no temptation to
other 12-step
lach was there because he wanted (and
lener of support. Zach
solicit any member for a letter
there .
lack leads me to believe that he can be a caring and
My personal experience with Zack
on his
shou ld look kindly o,n
effective advocate for others and this Honorable Bar should
Truly yours,
B~~ ~
BMHI
BMH/
1168
HEITING & IRWIN

JAMES orro
OTTO HEITlNG
HEITING"
RICHARDH.
..
IRWIN
RICHARD H. IRWIN
5885 BROCKTON A VENUE

(951)
(95 I) 682-6400
FAX
(951)
f AX (95
I) 682-4072
JOSHUA CA
TES, of
cou,uef
CATES.
oJcourucf
JEAN-SIMON SERRANO
SARA B. MORGAN
DENNIS R STOUT
KEITH PILAT,
AITORNEYS'
ATTORNEYS' INVESTIGATOR
O
o IF CHECKED,
CHECKED. RESPOND TO
TO
PO.
BOX I
P
D. 80X
WRJGHTWOOD, CA 92397
WRIGHTWOOD,
(760) 249-9000
A PROFESSIONAL LAW
LA W CORPORATION
CERTIFIED
CERTIFIED WORKERS' COMP,
COMP. SPECIALIST
July 15, 2015
Zachcouqhlin@hotmail.com
Zach Coughlin
Dear Zach:
recovery.
program.
Bar.
the State Bar.
Best regards,
~
.
1'''''
JAM S OTTO HEITING
JOH:gsa
1169
8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB: 9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
1170
1171

reinstatement.

1172
WILLIAM M. HENRICH
ATTORNEY AT LAW

(858) 576-4484
August 10, 2015

problem associating Zach as co-counsel or trusting him with client confidences should the
William M. Henrich
1173
JOI-IN .J ..KADLIC
/\ TIOKNt:v
Ar
LAW
Tl:.l.lJPHONE
l3ox 2477
RJJN(), NEVADA 89505
PosT Or:r-JCE
(775) 322-7099
FAX
(775) 322-7511
December 9, 2004
To Whom Tt May Coocem:
I am writing this letter on behalf ofZack Coughlin who is seeking admission to the State Bar of
Nevada.
In my case, I have known Zack Coughlin for over fifteen years. His father, Tim Coughlin, as well
being our family physician. is the godfather and his wife is the godmother of my daughter, Blair who
I have had a chance to watch Zack through \us high school years and his entering college. He was
both a excellent student as well as a fine athletic. Twas very pleased when he choose to enter law
school.
Since his graduation from law school, I have had a number of opportunities to speak to Zack. In
the p~ I have used him to do some legal research for me. He did a fine job in that regard and I used
I think Zack has matured as a individual and possesses the qualities that would make him a fine
lawyer. It is my sincere hope that he will be given the opportunity to practice law.
1174
Charlie Hoar, Ed.D, CADC 11, CCGC I
7/22/15
Zachary Coughlin.
because he was getting services from public sector Medical, which only funds outpatient therapy once a
week, he was asked by the Medi Cal case manager to choose between seeing me or the other therapist (
sponsor.
~~EJ)
Charlie Hoar
1175

phone805-968-2620
IslaVistaUMC@gmail.com
August 20, 2015

Respectfully,
__________________________________________
1176
Knute Knudson
Reno, NY
NV 89523
(775) 448-1528
August 17, 2015
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89102
society.
I/
s~~fly,
S~~~ly,
~
-~ZZLc_;~,tg._-e7~(--" \/1:j_
.~zz- k:;~~g.--e'
Ki{ute Knuds6n
.<Jute
........
....
-I-I - -. / /
'*'</ \/lJ...
1177
C. COE SWOBE
ATIORNEY AT LAW
3 Bret Harte Avenue
RENO, NEVADA 89509
December 9, 2004

February 1, -2003. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have discussed Zach's
and drug abuse. I believe, from my observation of Zach's performance and attitude over
1178
December 9, 2004
Page2
admitted to practice l~w in the State of Nevada.
Very Sincerely,
(, _ (!0.e_
_A__._;..,;L
C. Coe Swobe
CCS/kmf
1179
Bill Martin, MFT

MFC33939
205
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-755-2407
2525 Camino Del Rio S. , Ste.

San Diego, CA 92108
619-686-9302
bill@shrink.tv
www.counseling-connection.com
July 20, 2015

Reno, NV 89521
for life.
Bill C. Martin, MFT
1180

Re: Zach Coughlin
the San Diego area.
conversations.
Roger W. Rasmusen
Rancho Santa Fe, CA
858 245-0929
RRSCA@AOL.COM
1181
HALE LANE
- - - - - A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W - - - - -
5441 Kiotzl<~ unc I Second Floer I RellO, Na-.iu 89511

Tclcphon<: (715) 327-3000 I FOGSiniilc (J7S) 781>6179
Website: hnp://......-w.halclaDc.com
December 9, 2004
I;,Jwud Evcmt Biilo

(1929-1993)
Su:ve UJIC
J . SrephcnPook
K1rcu D. Donni,.on
~ Craig Hovr.u<l
S1cpbion V. Nov-.1eek
Richan! L. Elmore
To:

Re:
Zach Coughlin
Dear Sirs:
ltichard Bonne
Alex 1. Fl~ng:u
Krimn B. McMiJJ3.11
Jam:sLKolly
Kelly Testolin
N. l'anick Plnn;,g,n
M:lllhcw E. Woodheod
),fahcDc D. Muni"'
Jloger W. Jeppson
L"-nceC. &rl
Jeremy J. Nod:
D:tvid A. G,rcia
F,ed D. Gib,on, 111
.Slissa F. Cndish
Timothy A. LuhS
Frederick 1. Scl.midt
Jame, Newman
,
David G. ueit.1lld
Julin S. Gold
Tony R. Somers
Patrick]. R~llly
Score D. flemiug
Icny M. Snyd!r
Brem C. .r;:cker.,Jcy
Frcdaick ~ Baru,hcr
Palricia C. Jlilst...d
MaI!hcw J. KreuiZer
Mallhcw B. Hippl<t
Bud M. Johns!On
Bryce X. KummolO
DouiJ.. C. Flower.i
Justin C. Iono:$
Alexi, G. Mleh:md
Thomas R. Ryan
Dora V. Djili:u1ova

student ofrecovery.
Zach grew in learning, in character, in depth of understanding. I personally witnessed
that meets each day of the week. At that time I don' t think Zach appreciated fully the
seriousness of his situation, as he failed to gather signatllres attesting to his attendance
aware that Zach has checked out and listened to audio cassettes of over 200 speaker
and its courage strength _and hope) from Reno' s main office of Alcoholics
Anonymous.
Roy Farrow
P~uli11e Ng L:c
Andrew Ptarl
of alcoholics, chronic pain, relapse prevention, spirituality, and a large number of
He seeks truth in each and every area of his life. whether in learning, discussing
HALE LANE PEEK DENNISON AND HOWARD
(76rliii-------.
LAS VEGAS O!'FJCB: 2.300 Wcsl Salwa Avenue I fighd1 Floor I Bo1< B j Las Vegas, NiOY<h 891021 Phone (702} 222-2500 Il'acilmile (702) 3656910
CARSON CITY OFFICE: 777 East William Stn:ct I Suite 200 I Ctnon Ciiy, Ncvndo. 89701 I Phone (nS) 684-6000 I Fa<:simtle
1182
December 9, 2004
Page2
HALE LANE
-
--A.TTOtltNEY &T L A W - - -
him to exciting new discoveries. As a student of recovery, Zach is outstanding. As a sponsor, I

and work on each of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Doing so has involved an
and willingness. Zach bas regularly attended the weekly meetings of the State Bar of Nevada's
"Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers." Additionally, Zach has taken great effort and care to
his transgressions. He has attempted to make restitution for the movie theater incident and has
served 10 hours of comm.unity service (handling calls and preparing pamphlets at Reno's main
Zach has performed a good deal of commuruty service in the form of making coffee for
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, helping to set up and put away chairs at meetings, and lending
support to fellow A.A's.
passed three.of the most difficult bar exams in the country in a matter of 15 months (the Nevada,
California, and Patent bar exams). He made the Dean's List several times while at the Boyd
Washington and the UniversityofNevada, Reno.
as a znd team AU-State basketball player in Nevada's large school division in both 1994 and
1995_ He was All-League three times. In 1995 the Nevada-Appeal chose Zach as the large
a National Merit Finalist and member of the National Honor Society in high school. In addition
Zach is an extremely accomplished musician who plays several instruments and bas done much
composing.
share his talents with others. lb.is most certainly includes being a member of the Nevada Bar.
a very dispiriting example if a young man like Zach, whose infractions were relatively minor
;;ODMAIPCDOCS\HLll.NODOCS\416792\I
1183
HALE LANE
December 9, 2004
Page3
---A.TToaM&YS. .AT L A W - - -
legion, and whose dedication and tenacity throughout his academic career has been profmmd
were not given a chance. It has been three and a half years since Zach passed the 2001 Nevada
bar exam. and as such there has been more than enough time for Zach to learn from his mistakes.
all.
Thank you once again
for the.opportunity to recommend such a special and impressive young
man.
Vecytruly~
lf:/R ~~/--Kell~~olin
::ODMA\PCDOCSll-ll.RNODOCS\416792\t
1184
ToWhomitMayConcern:
IhaveknownZachCoughlinsincehighschool,andhavekeptinregulartouchthroughtheyears.OflateI
havebeenimpressedwithZachscommitmenttorecoveryandtorebuildinghislife.Hehastakenmany
positivestepsincludingstayingcleanandsober,maintainingregularemployment,andstayingclearof
anylegaltrouble.Ithinkthathehaseffectivelychangedthetrajectoryofhislife,andcouldbeagain
trustedtopracticelaw,andtofunctionasacontributingmemberofsociety.
Thankyou,
JaredSwanson
Owner,JDPublishingInc.
4065393715cell
1185
AA
V
1
Morishita
Law Finn L.L.c.
1NTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
ROBERT RY1\N MORI5HIT.t\
2725 S. Jones Blvd., Suite 102
Registe~d Patent i\ttorney

Utah and Nevada Bars
La:; Ve.e,as, Nevada 89146

tel {702) 222-2113
fox (702) 227-0615
e-mail rrm@andersonmorl:.hita.com
OF COUNSEi,, HO\VARD &. HOWARD P.C.
October 13, 2004
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Re:

It is with sincere pleasure that I recommend the admission of Zach Coughlin to the State
During that time, I directly supervised Zach. Zach performed competently and ethically in all the
work he performed. In my opinion, Zach has a moral character that would be an asset to our bar

Sincerely,

RRM:kdc
G:\Anderson & Morishita\ooughlin letter.wpd
----
1186
EXHIBIT 14
EXHIBIT 14
,
EXHIBIT
Ii
1187
1I
<2
12
FILID
FILED
RENO
MUNICIPAL COURT
DEPT.
DEPT. NO.3
NO. 3
CaseNo.
No. 11
Case
11 TR.
TR 26800 21
APR
201~
APR -17 2014
i1<' :
Dept. 3
Dept.
T1ME:wr-_ _ _ _ __
TIME
BY
BY
COROT~
NASH HOLMES,
HOLMES, JUDGE
JUDGE
DOROT Y NASH
33
44
55
IN
IN THE
THE MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL COURT
COURT OF
OF THE
THE CITY OF RENO
66
COUNTY
COUNTY OF
OF WASHOE,
WASHOE, STATE
STATE OF NEVADA
...............
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER
OFDISMISSAL
DISMISSAL
ORDER OF
vs.
12
BARKER COUGHLIN,
ZACHARY BARKER
COUGHLIN,
13
Defendant.
Defendant,
______________________
~I
14
15
16
IT IS
IS THE
THEORDER
ORDEROF
OFTHIS
THfSCOURT,
COURT, for good
good cause
cause appearing
appearing and
and in
in the
the
IT
interest of
justice, that
of justice,
thatthis
thiscase
casebe,
be,and
andhereby
herebyis,
is,DISMISSED.
DISMISSED.
17
IT
IT IS
ISSO
SOORDERED.
ORDERED.
18
18
Dated
Dated this
this 77thth day of
ofApril,
April, 2014,
2014.
19
19
20
20
21
21
.&~~~
.Dorothy
Dorothy Nash
NaSlfOfmes
. .
Valmes
Municipal Judge
Judge
Municipal
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
RENO
RENO
MUNICIPAL.
MUNICIPALCOURT
COURT
P.O.
P.o.Dm
!lor1000
1Il00
Reno.
W 0605
Reno,"",""
(102)
335400
(7II2)3u-mo
28
28
1188
..
'
- '
ceBTIEICAIE
SERVIQfi
Pursuant to NRCP
NRCP 5(b),
5(b), IIcertify
certify that
that I am
employeeofofthe
theReno
RenoMunicipal
MunicipalCourt,
Court,
am an employee
Reno, Nevada,
Nevada,that
thatIIam
am over
overthe
theage
ageofof18
18years
yearsand
andnot
notaaparty
partytotothe
theabove
aboveaction,
action,and
andthat
that
on this date, served
servedaatrue
trueand
andcorrect
correct copy
copy of
of the
the attached
attacheddocument
documenttotothe
thefollowing
following as
asset
set
forth
forth below:
...L
Placing
said
document
a sealed
envelope
and
placed
collectingand
andmailing
mailingby
by
X Placing
said
document
in in
a sealed
envelope
and
placed
forfor
collecting
Unites States
States mail
mall in
in Reno,
Reno, Nevada,
Nevada, postage
postageprepaid,
prepaid,following
followingordinary
ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile
(FAX)
Facsimile (FAX)
X
...L
Electronic
Mail (E-mail)
(E-mail) to
toCity
City Attorney
Attorney
Electronic Mail
Inner-office mail following
practices
following ordinary
ordinarybusiness
business practices
Personal
DeliverytotoCity
City Attorney
Attorney
Personal Delivery
Mr.
Mr. Zachary
Zachary B. Coughlin
Booking
1317551
Booking ## 1317561
Washoe
CountyDetention
DetentionFacility
Facility
Washoe County
911 Parr
Parr Blvd
Blvd
:Reno
Reno NV 95512
96512
Dan Wong
Chief
Criminal Deputy
DeputyCity
City Attorney
Attorney
Chief Criminal
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
DATED:
DATED: April",
April 7, 2014.
2014.
Marilyiinrogn
Judici I Assistsint
Depa rtment Three

P.O. Box 1900
1800
Reno.
89505
Reno, NV
NV 80505
(776)
3343822
(770 334-3822
1189
1I
22
FILED
FILED
RENO
RENO MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL COURT
COURT
OEPT.
DEPT. NO.3
NO. 3
Case No.
No. 11
11CR
CR 26405
Case
26405
APR
2014
APR -77 2014
TIME
~~E<tk:::
BY 411LAC
Dept. 3
Dept.
33
44
55
IN THE
THE MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPALCOURT
IN
COURTOF
OFTHE
THE CITY
CITY OF
OF RENO
RENO
66
..
COUNTY
COUNTY OF
OF WASHOE,
WASHOE, STATE
STATE OF NEVADA
'" '" '" '" '"
8
9
CITY OF RENO,
10
11
DOROTHY NASH
DOROTHY
NASH HOLMES,
HOLMES, JUDGE
JUDGE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
OFDISMISSAL
DISMISSAL
ORDER OF
vs.
12
ZACHARY BARKER
BARKER COUGHLIN,
COUGHLIN,
13
Defendant,
Defendant.
________________________
~I
14
15'
THISCOURT,
COURT, for good cause
cause appearing
appearing and
and in
in the
the
IT IS THE ORDER OF rigs
16
interest of
justice, that
of justice,
thatthis
thiscase
casebe,
be,and
andhereby
herebyis,
is,DISMISSED.
DISMISSED.
17
IT
IT IS
ISSO
SOORDERED.
ORDERED.
th day of
ofApril,
April, 2014.
2014.
Dated this 77th
18
19
19
20
21
21
=~~
Dorothy Nash Holmes

Municipal Judge
Judge
Municipal
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
RENO
RENO
MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPALCOURT
COUFtT
P.O.
Be, 1900
1'.0.8011_
28
28
Reno,
W 49606
A.no,~UI06
(10E)
5344200
~33f.D80
1190
EXHIBIT 15
EXHIBIT 15
,
EXHIBIT
11191
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
RE: THE MATTER OF

ACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
)
)
) CASE 60975
)
)
)
11
12
13
14
15
NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE OF COURT'S ORDER OF 4/23/14 AND RESPONSE TO

SCR 117 PETITION
The undersigned, Coughlin, submits this on his own behalf to apprise this
Honorable Court of the fact that he never received a copy of its Order of 4/23/14 and only
16
became aware of it upon it being referenced in the attachment to an email of 7/9/14 from
17
18
19
20
21
the State Bar's Laura Peters, which also attached an Order of 6/30114 in this same case.
Coughlin has confmned with the Clerk's Office that such 4/23/14 Order was
mailed to the Washoe County Detention Center, and received as return to sender by the
Clerk's Office on May 2,2014. Coughlin's incarceration ended on 4/18/14. Coughlin
22
apprised the Clerk's Office and OBC of his change of address shortly after his release (see
23
24
attached 517/14 correspondence to Clerk's Office attached in addition to Coughlin's filing
25
of 517/14 in 65587 listing his current address therein), however, the Clerk's Office did not
26
remail such returned to sender 4/23/14 Order to Coughlin.
27
28
- 1127-
1192
Coughlin has made several respectful telephone calls (leaving voice mails) and
2
3
emails to the SBN since April 18, 2014 (please see attached Coughlin's correspondences
to the OBC Of 5/2114 and 5/12114 and one of 7/22/14 informing the OBC that Coughlin is
scheduled to be evaluated by Dr. Nielsen on 7/25/14) and received nothing in the way of a
5
response other than the filing by the aBC's Machado of 6/3/14 in 62337, until Peter's
email of 7/9/14. The late filed Status Report filed by the aBC's Pattee on approximately
7/11114 indicates that this Court's Order of 4/23/14 was received by the aBC's Las Vegas
Office, then forwarded to it's Reno Office, yet not, apparently, received by the Reno
10
Office. Coughlin did, on July 1ih, 2014, [mally receive a copy of this Court's 6/30114
11
12
from this Court. The delay in Coughlin's receiving from this Court its 6/30/14 Order in
13
60975 seems to indicate that Coughlin's address of record with this Court, at least as far as
14
this case is concerned, had yet to be updated at the time entry of such 6/30/14 Order.
15
Coughlin recognizes that he should have (if indeed he failed to) specifically
16
indentified to the Clerk's Office each case he is a party to and presented a more obvious
17
18
indication that he was no longer incarcerated and that the address listed on the pleadings
19
he filed following his release was then his current address. Nonetheless, had the aBC
20
contacted Coughlin to inform him of the "medical expert chosen by the State Bar" (as
21
required by this Court's 4/23/14 Order) and thereafter timely complied with its dictate that
22
the aBC file a status report by 5/23/14, over two months progress in this matter, and,
23
24
25
26
seemingly, in the companion disciplinary proceeding in 62337 could have been better
utilized.
27
28
- 2/27-
1193
2
3
It is relevant to note that the substance ofNNDB Chairman Susich's SCR 117
Petition in 60975 has been addressed by Respondent's filings in 62337, and Respondent
seeks to incorporate such herein again here now. The undersigned hereby denies the
allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 22 of the SCR 117 Petition.

5
Gist ofthe SCR 117 Petition is:
-numerous complaints received,
-Screening Panel believes Coughlin is either mentally ill or addicted to something,
yet they are not sure which and offer nothing in the way of evidence to support any
10
accusation that Coughlin is suffering any sort of chemical dependency, much less one
11
12
sufficient to render him incapable ofpracticing law. As support for the apparent
13
accusation that Coughlin is incapable of practicing due to "mental infirmity" or "illness"
14
the Petition makes mention of only three filings (one of 2/21112, another of 3/5/12,a dn a
15
third of 317/12) Coughlin submitted on his own behalf, as a pro se criminal defendant
16
forced to represent himselfwhere Coughlin had never practiced on a single criminal matter
17
18
19
20
21
at any point in his career at such time.

-some unattributed hearsay alleging that Coughlin's admission had been deferred,
with some condition that he receive psychological counseling, thereafter admitting that
Coughlin was admitted to practice law, albeit managing to incorrectly state the date of
22
Coughlin's admission to practice (offby some eights months).

23
24
25
26
27
-some alleged refusal to cooperate with Bar Counsel regarding the investigation
and resolution of such purported grievances
-an alleged conviction for petty larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a
Wal-Mart store, which was allegedly affirmed on appeal
28
- 3/27-
1194
-an alleged contempt citation purporting Coughlin to have disregarded the
directives of the judge making demeaning statements such "WOW" and "laughing during
testimony" and questioning t.he judge's authority
-another petty larceny arrest occurring 17 days prior to the Wal-Mart petty larceny
5
6
7
8
9
arrest. No conviction alleged.

Neither of the filings the NNDB attached to its SCR 117 Petition establish that
Coughlin demonstrated any inability to render adequate legal service by reason of mental
or physical illness or infirmity, or addiction to, or dependence upon, intoxicants or drugs.
10
They may establish that Coughlin was undergoing an adjustment reaction to a tumultuous
11
12
period in his life (breakup of a four year long domestic partnership, extreme familial strife,
13
difficulty finding employment during a period in Washoe County witnessing 15%
14
unemployment, and at least two wrongful arrests) wherein he was not a very likable or
15
charming fellow. Coughlin was never committed, nor ever subject to inpatient treatment
16
for drug or alcohol addiction.

17
18
One, RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacated both of the orders attached as Exhibits 4
19
and 5 to such SCR 117 Petition herein by way of her attached 4/9/14 Order(s) of Dismissal
20
(which begat this Court's 5/16/14 Order in 62337 in response to Coughlin's attaching such
21
Orders of Disrnissal to his 4/22/14 filing in 62337) of such case (which Coughlin was
22
never permitted to appeal nor even challenge by Writ of Mandate to whatever extent
23
24
25
26
27
Pengilly's proviso applies to a pro se attorney defendant found in contempt).i

CJS ATTNCLI 70: Grounds for suspension; Mental or physical
illness, alcoholism, or drug addiction 45k38; Civil RightsklO72
Commitment for the treatment of mental illness likewise may
warrant suspension or disbarment.[2] Under some disciplinary rules, the
inability to render adequate legal service by reason of mental or physical
28
- 4/27-
1195
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
illness or infirmity, or addiction to, or dependence upon, intoxicants or

drugs warrants suspension.[5]
[FN2] Fla.-The Florida Bar v. Major, 270 So. 2D 7 (Fla. 1972).
Extended hospitalization The fact that a hospitalized attorney was
suffering from a depressed state of mind and would require treatment over
an extended period of time warranted suspension, under circumstances.
Mont.-In re Meyer, 141 Mont. 167,377 P.2D 364 (1962).
Indefinite suspension permitted Under compelling facts, a
court has the power to suspend an attorney indefinitely until such
time as his or her mental competency is confirmed. N.Y.-Matter of
Rochlin, 100 A.D.2D 263, 474 N.y'S.2D 14 (1st Dep't 1984).
Personality disorder Continued suspension from practice on an
indefinite basis, subject to further order of court, is merited where an
attorney suffering from a personality disorder is continuing to undergo
treatment on a regular basis in psychoanalytical psychotherapy.
N.J.-In re Fleisher, 66 N.J. 398,331 A.2D 611 (1975). [FN5] Md.Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cooper, 279 Md. 605, 369 A.2D 1059
(1977). Indefinite suspension appropriate (1) The appropriate sanction for
appearing in the office in an intoxicated condition, while conferring with
clients, and depositing moneys of clients in a personal account is
indefinite suspension, not disbarment. S.C.-Matter of Rushton, 286 S.C.
543,335 S.E.2D 238 (1985). CJS ATTNCLI 70
14
15
Simply put, Coughlin has at no time been incapable of practicing law, and has not
16
done anything bad enough to get disbarred for, much less to justify a suspension of the
17
length to which his current temporary suspension has already run (ie, over two years).
18
Coughlin has punished himself enough, it is time to let him get on with his life.
19
The SCR 117 Petition her does not allege anything even close to Coughlin
20
21
appearing in the office in an intoxicated condition while conferring with clients, much less
22
misappropriating any client funds. Further, it is interesting to note that, while the SBN's
23
8/23/12 SCR 105 Complaint at issue in 62337 included amongst its vague charges both of
24
the filings by Coughlin attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 in the SCR 117 Petition in 60975 of
25
5/30112, come time for the disciplinary hearing, the SBN completely abandoned any
26
27
28
attempt to paint such as misconduct of any sort (not even within the faux SCR 117 style
RPC 1.1 "competence" approach the SBN constantly took during such SCR 105,
- 5/27-
1196
102/111 (8) formal disciplinary hearing (versus the plural "proceedings" ... to reference the
distinction between the process set forth in an SCR 111 (8) referral and those inherent to
SCR 105 Complaints and or SCR 102 Petitions being filed).
Clearly, the SBN abandoned any attempt to paint those two filings by Coughlin as
5
6
misconduct considering what they really revealed was that Coughlin brought to light the
fact that the Washoe County Sheriff's Office currently burglarizes tenants instead of
following the dictate ofNRS 40.253 requiring a tenant be given 24 hours from "receipt" of
a summary removal order prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout. The fact that it
10
is the Washoe County District Attorney's Office (which employs the same NNDB member
11
12
DDA Bruch Hahn that sat on Coughlin's April 20 12 Screening Panel) which defends the
13
Washoe County Sheriff's violations ofNRS 40.253 incident to the manner in which it
14
conducts summary lockouts, it's obviously quite trOUbling.
15
One could go on about Washoe Legal Services's Director Elcano's daughter also
16
being an attorney employed with the WCDA's Office and DDA Kandaras (also a NNDB
17
18
member) and WLS failing to accord Coughlin access to legal tools during a curiously
19
lengthy recent incarceration (November ih, 2013 to April 18th, 2014) (apparently a public
20
officer for the purposes of an SCR 111 (6) analysis is not the same as for an NRS
21
169.l63INRS 193.019 inquiry, see SBN's January 30th , 2014 SCR 111 Petition in
22
64903 ... ) but surely there are better ways to cultivate the access to justice in Nevada than
23
24
25
to continue on with some of these losing battles.

Additionally, such trespass conviction was vacated by RMC Judge Nash Holmes as
26
well, though, and only after Washoe Legal Services and its Director Elcano got the
27
dismissals and waivers and withdrawals it sought, did RMC Judge Gardner purport to
28
- 6127-
1197
somehow undo the 4/9/14 Order of Dismissal in such trespass case entered by Judge
Holmes (please see SBN's 6/3/14 filing in 62337 and Coughlin's response thereto).
Further, the IFP attached as Exhibit 6 to the SCR 117 Petition has been addressed
in 62337 at length. In summary, such was filed 12114/11 (though an Order by Judge
5
Howard contained a seeming scriveners error in according such an 11/14/11 filing
date ... which contributed to some vague sense the SBN and NNDB attempted to put
forward that Coughlin somehow failed to identify himself as an attorney either within such
filing (he did, in both the fax cover page thereto and in the email to the Reno Municipal
10
Court he attached such to after RMC Clerk Ballard communicated, in writing, permission
11
12
to submit such filings by email..never mind the fact that the trial was 11/30/11 ... at the
13
conclusion of which attorney Coughlin plead for a stay of his summary three day
14
incarceration of any length at all in an attempt to avoid prejudice to his clients ... which
15
RMC Judge Howard summarily dismissed, only to subsequently refuse to file the
16
transcript Nevada Constit. Art 6 Sec 8 specifically allowed the Legislature to require "the
17
18
19
20
21
justice" file per NRS 189.030(3).

This is one of the SBN and NNDB's darker moments here, this baseless IFP quasiallegation. Curiously, the SCR 117 Petition fails to allege Coughlin failed to identify
himself as an attorney prior to such IFP Motion being filed (whereas the SBN's 8/23/12
22
Complaint in 62337 sort of manages to feebly allege that, whereas the Panel in 62337 free23
24
styled on that by deemimg some alleged "failure to identify any income from the practice
25
oflaw" be at least close to a violation of RPC 8.4(c) (despite such alleged being not pled
26
in violation of Schaefer). Whichever, it is all ridiculous and grasping. Coughlin was
27
making next to no money trying to practice law and do whatever else he could to make
28
- 7127-
1198
ends meet at such time as that IFP Motion/Declaration was signed (November 22,2011,
which Coughlin refilled on December 14,2011 ... some local judges refuse to acknowledge
Buckwalter, insisting broke people with no money pay a notary $5 for every IFP
Application to have an Affidavit rather than a Declaration (very ironic this Court's fine decision in
5
6
7
8
10
11
60302 reversing in part where Coughlin's suit against WLS and its Director Elcano was dismissed based
upon a ruling that Coughlin using the 2JDC's own Declaration of Proof of Service of the Summons and
Complaint somehow was ineffective where NRCP 4 references an affidavit ... ) despite NRS 53.045 ... ).
The court there was well aware Coughlin was then an attorney licensed in Nevada
representing clients. To suggest that Coughlin thereafter either attempted to mislead
anyone (which is not what the SCR 117 Petition alleges) by listing his self employment as
12
a "Jack of All Trades" making $800 a month (RMC Judge Howard cares not for ADKT
13
14
15
16
17
411 's dictates, rmding them optional. .. ) is unsupportable.

Indeed, the SBN's 8/23/12 Complaint in 62337 (which is not at issue here, but
since Coughlin got to litigate 60975 (or was forced to) in the setting of 62337, why not? .. )
failed to even allege Coughlin "failed to identify any income from the practice of law
18
(rather, the Panel threw that in in an attempt to bolster its embarrassing 12/14/12 Findings
19
20
21
22
23
of Fact; Conclusions of Law and the "Recommendation" buried therein.

This SCR 117 Petition, though, rather, seems to just point out that Coughlin was
poor and appears to point to such as a stand in for his being crazy, mentally ill, unfit,
whatever. .. Susich wrote: "18. On December 14, 2011, Respondent filed an Affidavit of
24

25
26
Respondent alleges that he has almost no income and refers to himself as being employed
27
as a 'Jack of All Trades."" Funny, when was the last time Susich/OBCINNDB filed an
28
SCR 117 Petition because an attorney was making too much money? Since when is
- 8/27-
1199
indicating one has almost no income (not hard to believe during the time period of
November 22
nd
2011 to December 14th, 2012, here, given the wrongful arrest of Coughlin
on 8/20/11 (the first of many), which, by the way, involved and allegedly depended upon
the warrantless search of a smart phone, something the United States Supreme Court has
5
6
recently decided is a Fourth Amendment violation ... nice precedent: attorney's in Nevada
arguing for the Fourth Amendment must be SCR 117 mentally ill ... ), a wrongful arrest by
a tribal police office on 9/9/11 (in violation ofNRS 171.136 and 171.1255, never mind
that Coughlin did not steal anything) for the alleged theft of a candy bar and some cough
10
drops, followed quickly by a wrongful no cause summary eviction of a commercial tenant

11
12
in violation ofNRS 40.254 served upon along with the Washoe County Sheriffs Office
l3
and Reno attorney Richard G. Hill, Esq. and Casey D. Baker, Esq. burglarizing Coughlin's
14
former home law office on 1111111 and again at the time of the wrongful criminal trespass
15
arrest of 11/13/11 (where WCSO refuses to obey NRS 40.253 's "24 hours" dictate and the
16
WCDAlNNDB/SBN/ and Washoe Legal Services (home oflandlord tenant legal aid,
17
18
allegedly) all just countenance such because when you are part of the in crowd, why make
19
waves, right? Who wants Washoe County to have anything better than a sub-Third World
20
level tenant's rights landscape anyways? Never mind that Hill and Merliss had to lie to the
21
police to get Coughlin arrested, alleging they warned Coughlin to leave and he refused to
22
(once they sus sed out that a Summary Lockout Order (particularly one executed
23
24
prematurely, and therefore, stale, void, expired) is not tantamount to a criminal trespass
25
warning (oh, I could go on for hours about all the fraud Hill, Baker and Merliss engaged in
26
(lying that the term of the lease was "12 months" when it plainly states "not less than 12
27
months" and contains nothing in the way of a landlord's no cause termination right
28
- 9/27-
1200
(Coughlin submitted for filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in response to 61383
going under but, for some reason, it has never been accorded a case number by this
Court's Clerk's Office. http://www.scribd.comldoc/233302390/}0-23-13-Submission-of-
Petition- for-Cert-or-Mandamus-Re-Merliss-1708-03628-613 83-Receipt-Pending-EFlex

5
6
Mr. Whittemore's defense in his disciplinary matter may have been aided by
Coughlin's setting out all the arguments that Panel Chair turned attorney for Whittemore
Echeverria (whom curtly dismissed such positions when Coughlin made them and or
sought to lay them out further) later would make on his behalf at to the lack preclusive
10
effect of a conviction of a crime (where Coughlin made such arguments with the caveat
11
12
that he did not admit to any convictions existing) (or in Coughlin's case "in essence, a
13
conviction" (see p 225 of transcript in 62337, or some conviction allegedly "affirmed"
14
with respect to the matter at issue in 60838, where the SBN and Coughlin now disagree as
15
to whether such conviction was even affirmed on appeal (which "conviction"? The one for
16
summary contempt or the petty larceny conviction, where both were allegedly entered on
17
18
the same day, 11/30111, such contempt conviction being attached to the SCR 117 Petition
19
as Exhibit 1) ) or as to such not operating to make irrelevant a respondent's intent incident
20
thereto (especially for the mitigation analysis, extent of punishment calculus, and, even, as
21
to whether respondent "guilty" of violating, say, RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting
22
adversely on moral character or fitness), or 8.4(c), etc., etc.).
23
To specifically address the SCR 117 Petition more clearly than did Coughlin's
24
25
6/18/12 submission, where such reads, in relevant part (Respondent hereafter excerpts the
26
relevant portions of the SCR 117 Petition with his responses and arguments directed
27
thereto in parentheses interspersed therealong):
28
- 10/27-
1201
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The State Bar of Nevada (State Bar), by and through 1. Thomas

Susich, Esq., Chair of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB),
petitions this Honorable Court, as follows:
1. The NNDB Chair has been informed that the State Bar of
Nevada has received numerous (NOTE: more than two? Again, the
aBC's coy attempts to make it appear that 2JDC Judge L. Gardner
somehow submitted a grievance or complaint attaching her vacated
4/13/09 Order After Trial in DV08-01168 brings about curious use of
terms like "received" and "numerous") complaints andlor grievances
regarding the behavior of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Bar #9473
(Respondent).
2. The State Bar designated a Screening Panel to review the
complaints and grievances concerning Respondent Coughlin. The
Screening Panel met on or about April 16, 2012 ...
(NOTE: the Panel actually met on April 10, 2012 and told King he
needed more to get the go ahead to file an SCR 105 Complaint, so King
gathered some more alleged firepower and met again with the Panel on
13
4/16/12), and made various findings and recommendations, (NOTE:

14
15
Coughlin has repeatedly been denied access to such, and the conflict
16
inherent to haVing WCDA Hahn sit on such NNDB Screening Panel is
17
nearly as troubling as having CAA W Executive Board President 2JDC
18
Judge Stephen P. Elliott preside over Coughlin's lawsuit against CAA W
19
and Washoe Legal Services at issue in the appeal in 60317)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
... including the following: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

("SCR") 117(2) the Screening Panel believes that Respondent is incapable
of continuing the practice of law because of mental infirmity, illness or
addiction. The Panel recommends the filing of a petition with the Supreme
Court seeking a determination of the attorney's competency. Respondent
has been asked irhe wishes to stipulate to the filing ora joint petition
and he does not.
(NOTE: while it may not even be true to indicate that Coughlin expressed a firm
refusal to so stipulate, any suggestion that Coughlin did not indicate a willingness to go
28
- l1!27-
1202
on a temporary suspension of something less burden of proof shifting than the SCR 117
joint disability petition variety, is not true, as Coughlin did express an interest in such an
arrangement \vith the SBN and NNDB.).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3. The NNDB Chair has reviewed various materials to evaluate the

recommendation of the Screening Panel to file a petition with the Supreme
4. The State Bar Office has informed the NNDB Chair that the
Respondent may have a history of mental illness. The NNDB Chair has
been informed that the Supreme Court issued an order on December 18,
2002, deferring the admission of Zachary B. Coughlin as an attorney at
law in this state. The NNDB Chair has been informed that said deferral
was at least partially based upon a condition that Mr. Coughlin receive
psychological counseling. The NNDB Chair has been intormed that
Zachary B. Coughlin was finally admitted to practice law on October 1,
2004."
12
(NOTE: well.. .. Coughlin got an email from Christiansen, Esq.'s (Sanft) Office
13
around September 27
th
2004 announcing that. .. but, for whatever reason (never made
14
15
known to Coughlin), he was not admitted until May, 2005 ... perhaps another instance of
16
something like Coughlin not being served the 4/23/14 Order here, or the SBN's Patrice
17
Eichman unilaterally and secretively failing to submit the Request for Consideration
18
Coughlin submitted for filing at the conclusion ofthe deferral period in November
19
20037).
20
21
Regardless, Coughlin does not believe he has any history of "mental illness".
22
Regardless, the OBCINNDB offer absolutely nothing in the way of actual factual
23
support or even anecdotal evidence to support this innuendo.
24
25
26
27
"5. The NNDB Chair has received and reviewed the multiple
6. The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has been
notified ofthe grievances and complaints; but, Respondent has refused
to cooperate with Bar Counsel, regarding the investigation and resolution
of same.
28
- 12/27-
1203
2
3
(NOTE: that is not really true, as Coughlin demonstrates in 62337 (see the 665
pages of correspondence between Coughlin and the SBN prior to the filing of the formal
Complaint on 8/23/12 (nearly all of it from Coughlin to the SBN addressing the
grievances and disproving them), the OBC was quite coy about just what was a grievance,
5
how many there were, how many were written by judges, whom submitted what and at
whose behest (which is problematic now that 2JDC Judge L. Gardner's 4/13/09 Order
After Trial referred to in Paragraph 21 of the SCR 117 Petition has been shown to have
been vacated by way of her 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce (so, perhaps, Susich and
10
King ought review RPC 3.1 some and apply it to their own work ... and perhaps RMC
11
12
Judge William L. Gardner should not take vacated orders passed to him by his sister
13
(especially where he refuses to recuse himself from the criminal trespass trial involving
14
attorney's Hill and Baker here, only to then violate the mandatory competency evaluation
15
stay per NRS 178.405, .415, only to the purport to speak for Judge Nash Holmes in
16
answering the OBC's ex parte imploration to set aside the Order of Dismissal vacating
17
18
such criminal trespass conviction that RMC Judge Nash Holmes entered on 4/9/14
19
(attached to Coughlin's 4122/14 filing in 62337), exiting 2JDC Judge L. Gardner, three
20
years after the fact, and then pass them on to his fellow RMC Judge Nash Holmes without
21
mentioning that such order (which allegedly was a sanction) had been vacated by the
22
6119/09 Final Decree of Divorce (but not before WLS's Elcano managed to justify his
23
24
firing legal aid domestic violence attorney Coughlin based solely on such alleged sanction,
25
Elcano refusing to back off such decision upon such Order After Trial being vacated, then
26
Elcano compounding that questionable approach by showing up to testify at Coughlin's
27
11114/12 formal disciplinary hearing and feigning to be unaware such had been vacated.
28
- 13/27-
1204
2
3
Also, as to the alleged criminal trespass conviction, RJC Judge Sferrazza

(presiding over the underlying summary eviction proceeding in RCJ Rev2011-001708, see
61383) did not grant Hill's Motion for Order to Show Cause pursuant to NRS 22.020, so
no such conduct by Coughlin could possibly be criminal trespass, much less an RPC
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
8.4(b) violation, much less support for any SCR 117 disability finding.
The SCR 117 Petition continues:
"7. The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has not
requested to be placed on disability status and refuses to acknowledge
that he has any mental infirmity. illness or addiction.
(A review of Coughlin's correspondence with the SBN disproves this:
http://www.scribd.comldoc/23 33043 77 /2009-to-12-24-12-0204-Emails-to-Nvbar-org925-Pages-Bate-Stamped-Needs-Attachments-With-5-14-and-7-31-RX-PrescriptionHistory
http://www.scribd.comldoc/233304379/5-14-12-Email-to-Dad-and-MelissaApology-and-Zach-Coughlin-Prescription-History
http://www.scribd.comldoc/23330437817-31-12-0204-email-to-nvbar-orgresending-this-FW-Apology-and-Zach-Coughlin-prescription-medications-information
15
16
It is plainly inaccurate for the aBC's King to stand before the NNDB and
17
Panel-and indicate Coughlin failed to acknowledge he had some issues. Worse
18
still is King, during a face to face meeting with Coughlin in July 2012, imploring
19
Coughlin not to provide him with things like his prescription records history,
20
21
which plainly establish a causal correlation between Coughlin's "divorce" from
22
his domestic partner of four years in July 2011 and his being unable to afford two
23
potent medication he has taken for over a decade (Adderall and Wellbuttrin) in
24
August 2011, followed sharply less than two weeks later by the first of what
25
would be a number of arrests on 8/20/11(the iPhone case
26
(https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=hxOg8Z0VmuY
27
28
https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=wiWOvnGv614 ) involving the warrantless
- 14/27-
1205
search of an abandoned smart phone (verboten under the fourth Amendment) the
finder thereof had given to Coughlin in lieu of following through on his threats to
thrown it in the nearby Truckee River if someone did not claim it (where
HilllMerliss initiated the wrongful no cause summary eviction of commercial

5
6
7
8
9
tenant Coughlin on 8/22/11), and the "candy bar and some cough drops" petty
larceny arrest of9/9/11 at issue in 60838 and 62337).
(Why is the NNDB always indicating it "has been informed"? Does not SCR
117(2) have any RPC 3.1 requirement? Need not the NNDB even call up a respondent
10
to say, "Hey, Guy, what's going on here? Tell us why you are not "incapable of
11
12
continuing the practice oflaw because of mental infirmity, illness, or addiction"? Nope,
13
the NNDB just took a vacated sanction it attached as Exhibit 6 (2JDC Judge L. Gardner's
14
4/13/09 Order After Trial), (Coughlin had not even sustained the momentary and void,
15
and subsequently vacated criminal trespass conviction of6/18/12 at the time of the
16
NNDB's 5/30/12 SCR 117 Petition filing here, so ... really,just what was such based on,
17
18
the allegation that Coughlin had been found trespassing at his former home law office
19
during the period in which a stay of such a wrongful summary removal order was entirely
20
likely, or misunderstandings incident thereto entirely plausible? Now that Coughlin has
21
not been found guilty of criminal trespass, does not that mean Richard G. Hill, Esq. and
22
Casey D. Baker, Esq. need to explain their breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and
23
24
invasion of Coughlin and attorney Coughlin's client's privacy rights incident to their
25
multiple ill advised break ins at Coughlin's former home law office and lies incident
26
thereto resulting in Coughlin's wrongful arrest?)
27
28
- 15/27-
1206
Just like SCR 102 requires the NNDB, not the SBN (as was de facto the case here
with King essentially being permitted to stretch out the SCR 111 (6) temporary
suspension for now over two years ... Echeverria thinks three felony convictions equals
4
six months suspension in Whittemore's case, but somehow finds over two years for an
5
alleged conviction of petty larceny of a "candy bar and some cough drops" to be just such
that the SBN and NNDB need not actually file and win on the SCR 102 Petition for a
temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license sufficient to justify this embarrassing
deprivation of Coughlin's protected Fourteenth Amendment property right, his license to
10
practice law? Again, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which
11
12
has been informed of everything involving all these various matters, has yet to suspend
13
Coughlin a single day. Does not say much for what it thinks ofthese patently invalid
14
alleged convictions and "sanctions" (funny how the $42K prevailing party fee award
15
given Merliss receives no mention in the SCR 117 Petition where it became the SBN's
16
cleanup hitter at the 11114/12 formal disciplinary hearing at issue in 62337) (whether they
17
18
were not affirmed on appeal or subsequently vacated or not .. )The NNDB not once
19
contacted Coughlin prior to filing this SCR 117 the SBN spoon fed it from what it itself
20
had been spoon fed by Hill and RMC Judge Nash Holmes. RMC Judge Nash Holmes, in
21
a demonstration of her extreme character, has ameliorated this situation with her two
22
Orders of Dismissal (which vacate anything to do with the alleged criminal contempt
23
24
"conviction" in the traffic citation outside Hill's office trial in 11 TR 26800, as well as
25
vacating the criminal trespass conviction incident to the Criminal Complaint Hill signed
26
shortly after he and Merliss lied to the police to get Coughlin wrongfully arrested on
27
11113/11).
28
- 16/27-
1207
2
3
8. Bar Counsel has reported to the NNDB Chair that the

investigation of the grievances against Respondent show a serious pattern
of misconduct and bizarre behavior.
(NOTE: what is bizarre is getting fIred from legal aid as though it was a summer
job at Hot Dog on A Stick over an alleged "sanction" that was quickly vacated shortly
5
6
after the fIring, but that's Paul, and that's Reno ... and that's me. I get it. I am diffIcult, a
little weird, could stand to take a refresher course at charm school, and just plain do not
always do that which is most likely to result in me getting paid more and more money
and becoming more and more popular in legal circles. How awful. But, please know
10
this. This has been an awful, awful time for me, and I do not have any interest in being
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
this much of a sore thumb ever again.)

" ... 9. Bar Counsel reports that on November 30,2011, Respondent
was found guilty, after a trial, of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation
ofRMC 8.10.040, in the Municipal Court for the City of Reno. Said
conviction was based on an incident occurring on September 9,2011.
Respondent shoplifted a candy bar and cough drops with a value of
approximately fourteen dollars ($14.00) from Wal-Mart. Respondent
appealed the judgment of conviction. The judgment of conviction was
affirmed on appeal.
(NOTE: please see Coughlin's fIlings in 62337 and 65587 of 6/6/14 for
19
explication of why such "conviction" was not "affmned" on appeal). Funny how
20
21
neither the SBN, City of Reno, nor NNDB ever manage to copy and past the
22
actual language of the "Order" they are purporting affIrmed a petty larceny
23
"conviction" where such actually speaks to a "ruling" and could just as well be
24
affIrming the summary contempt "ruling" Coughlin also specifIed as being appeal
25
in his notice of appeal and associated petitions for writ of mandamus to whatever
26
27
28
extent Pengilly limits such to be the only avenue of review availing to a pro se
attorney criminal defendant denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel where
- 17/27-
1208
ADKT 411 was also violated. Regardless, the SBN failed to receive a ruling from
the Panel that such alleged conviction was tantamount to an RPC 8.4(b) criminal
act reflecting adversely on Coughlin's "fitness", as such, there ought be some

4
preclusive effect from the Panel's 12/14/12 FOFCOL and "Recommendation"

5
6
preventing such from being relitigated here). If such alleged behavior is such a
"fitness" issue, rather than one involving "honesty or trustworthiness", than why
no mental health court and how is it that RMC Judge Howard was able to hold a
trial on 11130/11 after deciding not to bring Coughlin in to the courtroom for the
10
original trial date of 11/14/11 where Coughlin was brought to Howard's court in
11
12
custody in the red jail clothing associated with one placed in mental
13
administrative segregation, all without Howard ever ordering a competency
14
evaluation or suspending the proceedings pursuant to NRS 178.405. Oh, wait,
15
that would require paying an evaluator.).
16
17
18
19
20
21
10. On November 30, 2011, Respondent was found to be in

contempt ofthe Reno Municipal. Court, Department 4, for "disorderly,
contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge .... " The Respondent
was found to have disregarded the directives of the judge and of making
demeaning statements such as stating "WOW" when the court made
rulings. The Respondent was also cited for "laughing during testimony"
and questioning the judge's authority. A copy of the contempt citation is
attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference.
22
(NOTE: while note Respondent's finest hour, no doubt, a review of the audio
23
24
recording (better than a written transcript in some ways) reveals Coughlin to be quite
25
professional throughout such trial (if saying "WOW" once is all Judge Howard could
26
think to add as a criticism along with "continuing lines of inquiry after being instructed
27
not to do so, then, really, how bad could Respondent's conduct have been? Complete
28
- 18/27-
1209
audio oftrial purchased from RMC with no changes whatsoever:
https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=J7C 3JzloL4).
4
5
6
7
8
11. On August 20,2011, Respondent was arrested and charged

with Petit Larceny and Possession of Stolen Property, misdemeanor for
stealing a cell phone. Respondent recorded his arrest and has posted the
video on You-Tube. The video was publicly posted by Respondent and
may be viewed at the following internet address:
http://www.Youtube.comlwatch?V=5PR7q4015bO
12. On January 14,2012, Respondent was arrested and charged
with Abusing 911 Emergency Services, a gross misdemeanor. Respondent
recorded his arrest and posted the video on Y ou-Tube. The video is posted
at the following internet address:
http://www.Youtube.Comlwatch?V=CvK6kvJrwFA
10
(NOTE: Respondent is not sure that the links in such as the above
11
12
in the SCR 117 Petition ever worked, but a video of such arrest can be
13
found here: https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=oU3t kRRORA The
14
police department audio of the arrest along with a slideshow of pictures
15
from the events surrounding is available here:
16
https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=w dxbsEXsBY)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13. Concerning the criminal proceedings involving the charge

referenced in paragraph 12, above, Respondent filed a document in the
Reno Justice Court, Case No. RCR2012-065630, entitled, "Notice of
Appearance, Entry of Plea of Not Guilty, Waiver of Right to Arraignment,
Motion to Dismiss.' This document is attached as Exhibit 2 and
incorporated herein by this reference. The document commences with the
following statement: To all those in Reno, Washoe County, and beyond
who want to perpetuate this chicanery: 'Okay, you're A goon, but what's a
goon to a goblin? The document contains a rambling and essentially
incoherent recitation of arguments and alleged facts. It also contains
disparaging remarks about various court officers and officials."
Noting what Judge Schroeder stated to Respondent at the conclusion of the
26
hearing wherein Hill voluntarily dropped his TPO against Coughlin, is hardly
27
"disparaging". Coughlin could have done a bit better at page 5 thereof by pointing out
28
- 19/27-
1210
how DDA Young's criminal complaint ignored Shepp and Staab in failing to specify
which "another" or "other" person it was whom Coughlin allegedly received such
"stolen" property from (ie, the existence, much less the identity of the Finder of such
iPhone whom thereafter threatened to throw it in the river nearby unless someone
5
claimed it) is noticeably not mentioned in any way in such Criminal Complaint criticized
justifiably in such filing by Coughlin attached as Exhibit 2 to the SCR 117 Petition.
14. On November 13, 2011, Respondent was arrested by Reno

Respondent recorded his arrest and has posted the arrest video on YouTube. The Internet address of the video is:
http://www.youtube.comiwatch?v=ssEOFWHFNEY "
10
11
12
(NOTE: for whatever reasons (not sure) that link does not work, but
13
Respondent has gone to great lengths to transcribe and make available to actual
14
videos Hill and Merliss themselves filmed, which show Hill's testimony at
15
Coughlin's 11114/12 formal disciplinary hearing to be fraudulent (wherein Hill
16
departed from what is clearly conveyed on not only these videos, but in his
17
18
testimony during the trespass trial itself, in suddenly alleging that he heard the police
19
communicate to Coughlin not only that they were the police, but also that Coughlin
20
had to leave, upon Hill sensing that trespass requires a failure to leave after being
21
warned to do so and that a summary removal orders (especially one prematurely
22
executed and during the pendency of a stay thereof) is not tantamount to a criminal
23
24
25
26
27
28
trespass warning. See: https://www.youtube.comiwatch?v=V6I3t7tTlPI

https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=Eh2xyc-9cgO
" ... 15. Respondent's trespass arrest arose after an eviction hearing
before Justice of the Peace Peter Sferrazza. Respondent was evicted from
his residence per order of the court effective November 1, 2011. After
being evicted, Respondent was later found living in the basement of the
- 20127-
1211
2
3
residence. The locks on the residence had been broken. (NOTE: this is
not true and has never been supported by any testimony or evidence. Hill
merely testified that the locks were unlocked, not broken. Regardless,
Coughlin had every right to be at his former home law office, it was Hill
and Baker whom, along with the WCSO, did the breaking and entering)
The Reno Police tried to convince Respondent to Leave the premises. but
he would not voluntarily leave.
5
6
(NOTE: add to this language the SBN and Hill's curious use ofthe term "coax",
as in "the police attempted to coax Coughlin out of the basement" and Hill's subsequent
remixing of these events to sound like an actual order/warning by anyone whom had
identified themselves as having the authority to issue such a warning to leave, plays as
10
extremely suspect. The police do not try to convince one they are ordering to leave a
11
12
13
14
15
premises of anything. They issue and if it is not complied with they arrest the suspect.
Regardless, and this is proven by the videos (which NNDB Susich obviously did
not watch, Coughlin is seen and heard in the videos asking the police why they do not
just order him to leave and provide him an opportunity to do so if they feel he is
16
trespassing, whereupon the police fail to do anything of the sort, but rather, take the fraud
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hill and Merliss feed them and run with it (all dissected in excruciating detail in 61901
and 62337).
" ... The owner kicked a door open and Respondent was arrested
thereafter. Respondent filed a 36-page "Notice of Appearance as CoCounsel, and Motion to Dismiss" the trespass charge on March 52012, in
the Second judicial District Court, bearing Case No: 11 CR 26405. A copy
of the "motion" is attached as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by this reference.
The document is incoherent. confused and rambling.
Paragraphs 16 to 17 of the SCR 117 Petition have been addressed by
Judge Nash Holmes vacating such orders referenced therein.
26
27
28
19. On March 22,2012, Respondent arrived at the Reno

Municipal. Court. He spoke with a clerk of the court and with the clerk's
supervisor. His conduct became so disruptive that security had to be
- 21/27-
1212
2
3
called to remove him from the courthouse. The claimant was wearing
smiley face flannel pajama bottoms and a white tee shirt. Underneath the
tee shirt, the claimant was wearing a dress shirt and a tie. See, Affidavit of
Officer Scott Coppa, attached hereto as Exhibit 7."
RMC Filing Office Supervisor Ballard's own attached Affidavit admits that no one
5
6
asked Coughlin to or directed Coughlin to leave prior to Ballard summoning the RMC
Marshals over to ask Coughlin to leave. The entire incident revolved around the RMC
refusing to tum over/allow Coughlin to purchase the audio of the 2127112 and 3/12/12
traffic citation outside Hill's office trial before Judge Holmes.
10
Regardless, all orders from and that entire case has been dismissed.
11
12
Further, NNDB Susich's characterization here is incredibly misleading, as it sounds as
13
though Coughlin had to be physically removed from the court house, perhaps even after
14
refusing to leave ....right ... like that would not have resulting in yet another trespass
15
arrest. This was simply a case of the RMC Marshals walked over to Coughlin out of the
16
blue while Coughlin was asking the filing office counter clerk questions relative to
17
18
obtaining an audio recording of a trial that he hadlhas every right to obtain, and telling
19
Coughlin to leave, whereupon, at which point, Coughlin immediately did without
20
incident. Hardly worthy of sicking the NNDB on some poor solo practitioner. Here is
21
how the RMC's Supervisor Ballard put it herself in her 4/11112 Affidavit that the NNDB
22
conveniently omitted from its Petition: "This type of conversation went on until I could
23
24
no longer help him and felt we had done everything we could at this point. I walked back
25
to my desk and heard him asking Daniel what the docket said. I could see that he was
26
writing down what Daniel told him and at this point I contacted Bill Williams in the
27
security office and told him we have had enough of Mr. Coughlin and he needs to leave.
28
- 22/27-
1213
Marshal Thompson arrived with another Marshal and Mr. Coughlin left." See:
http://www.scribd.comldoc/233318487/4-11-12-0204-62337 -26800-26405-00696-RMC-
Donna-Ballard-Affidavit-to-the-SBN-Bates-1865
Such is typical of the RMC and Ballard. Refuse the public that to which they are
5
6
entitled, then passive aggressively attempt to manufacture some situation allegedly
calling for bringing in armed guards prior to anyone from the RMC or even Ballard
herself communicating anything to Coughlin in the way of a warning or order to leave, or
even any indication that the RMC counter clerks would no further address Coughlin's
10
inquiries. Just skip straight to send over the armed guards commanding the indigent
11
12
defendant seeking a copy of the audio of a trial completely necessary to the defense of his
13
law license to leave without anything in the way of an explanation as to how the RMC
14
can possibly get away with such a thing or justify it.
15
19
20. Respondent has posted on Y ou-Tube and on his Law practice

webpage, Under the moniker: 25TeddyJames, several videos. In the
videos, Respondent is seen driving in his car or sitting in pajamas
discussing both the court and its staff. In the videos, he states that a
named police detective admitted taking bribes from a named local
attorney. He also discusses court staff and states how much income they
make.
20
Respondent has demonstrated, in excruciating detail in 62337, that, not only did
16
17
18
21
the officer or "detective" referenced say, verbatim what Coughlin has repeatedly quoted
22
him as saying as to attorney Hill, but, further, that Respondent has always gone out of his
23
24
way to point out such was likely poorly chosen moment of sarcasm by the officer rather
25
than an actual admission of having taking bribes. Even Hill had to admit in his testimony
26
that such had been so "couched" during Coughlin's invocation of such statements by the
27
officer involved.
28
- 23/27-
1214
1
2
Paragraph 21 of the SCR 117 Petition is irrelevant in light of such 4113/09 Order
After Trial being vacated by the 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce, which did not sanction
Coughlin and which did, actually, award the very alimony Coughlin was previously
criticized for pursuing for his victim of domestic violence legal aid client.
5
7
8
9
DECLARATION
The assertions herein are made, pursuant to NRS 53.045 under penalty of perjury
and based upon my first hand knowledge of these matters, and all the documents linked to
herein are true, correct, and complete copies thereof.
10
11
Dated this 7122/14
12
13
ed electronicall
14
15
16
17
471 E. 9th St.

Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 9496677402
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 24127-
1215
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I do hereby certify that, on this date, I, Zach Coughlin I
placed in the USPS mail a copy hereof to the STATE BAR OF NEVADA
PATRICK O. KING
DAVID CLARKI GLENN MACHADOI PHIL PATTEE
6
7
600 E. Charleston Blvd Las Vegas, NY 89104

Also email to all four OBC attorneys
DATED THIS: Dated this 7122/14
10
11
12
Respondent
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25/27-
1216
Index to Exhibits:
100 pages of relevant materials
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
- 26/27-
1217
Which is/was, apparently, the fate of Coughlins' attempts to appeal or challenge by writ
of mandate RMC Judge Howard's Order For Summary Punishment of Contempt attached
as Exhibit 1 to the SCR 117 Petition (please see debate over Judge Elliott's 3115/12 Order
in the appeal/petition for writ challenging both the candy bar/cough medication petty
larceny conviction (see 60838 as well) in SBN's filings of 6/3/14 in 62337 and Coughlin's
response thereto)
i
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
- 27/27-
1218
Outlookcom Print Message
7/2212014
Request for consideration of stipulated resolution of appeal in

62337
Zllch Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmaiLcom)
Fri 5/02/14226 PM
patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org); je@eloreno.com(je@eloreno.com)
2 attachments
4
Dear Chair Echeverria and Asst. Bar COlIDSel King,

I hope you both are wen and do not mind me writing to you
In Re Beckett case 57763 reveals that the Nevada Supreme Court (SCR 123(3) allows fur citing to such)
views the dismissal of a conviction as a basis for dissolving a temporary suspension under SCR 111 (1 0), as the
4/4/11 Order in such case held: "SCR 111 (1 0) gives us discretion to reinstate an attorney whose underlying
conviction has been reversed. The petition is accompanied by a certified copy of a February 2, 2011, order
from the Pahnnnp Township Justice Court dismissing Case No. 1OCRO 15 87 with prejudice. In light of the mct
that the charge under1ying our order oftemporary suspension has been dismissed with prejudice, and our
previous determination that Beckett's CalifOrnia misdemeanor conviction did not warrant imposition ofa
temporary suspension, we conclude that there is no longer a basis fur Beckett being temporarily suspended
pending the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings. We therefure grant the petition. Attorney Robert S.
Beckett, Bar No. 3383, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law pending the outcome ofhis disciplinary
proceedings. "
Please note that in the appeal of the Recommendation to irrevocably disbar me, on 4/22/14 I attached to my
filing two Orders of Dismissal by RMC Judge Nash Holmes vacating the criminal trespass conviction (11 CR
26405) and the contempt conviction that was characterized by the Panel as "criminal contempt" (11 TR
26800): l.!.i.!4!~~~.ll21l~~~~~~~.l:.&.!~~~~~
Further, both the summary contempt order of 11/30111 and the 11/30/11 conviction fur petty larceny of "a
candy bar and some cough drops" (where such "cough drops" were a potentially lethal dose of
Dextromethorphan, which acts as a halucinogenic as such levels) underpinning the current temporary
suspension ofmy law license in 60838 were remanded back to the RMC ''for an firrther proceedings" via the
3/15/12 Order in CRll-2064, which notes that only in a civil case does NRS 4.410(2)(a) apply, and
https:Ilbay176.mail.li'l9.com'oI/mail.I11I.{;/PrintMessages?rnkt=en-us
1219
1/2
7/2212014
rererences NRS 189.030(1), which required the RMC to file the transcript of the tria~ which the RMC miled to
ever do. NRS 189.035 provides that a remand fur a new trial is required llllder such circumstances. As such,
that conviction has been vacated as well hrtp:J!caseinfb.nvsupremeCOUli.us!publiclcascView.do'?csUD=305 14
I respectfully request that consideration be given to some stipulated resolution of the appeal in 62337. I do
not believe the Panel has technically been divested ofjurisdiction in light of the 12/14/12 FO FCO L not being
titled a 'Decision" as required by SCR 105(3) and the mct that I did file a tolling motion on 1/3/13,
supplemented on 1116/13. I have recently been release from Washoe jail after serving 5.5 months there and
hope it is evident to an that I am a humbled, changed man, and that being reinstated to slowly begin practicing
law in baby steps is in my best interest, and presents no threat ofharm to anyone.
Further, I know that such an approach would greatly assist Washoe Legal Services and its Executive
Director Paul Elcano in their e:lfurts to help me move on with my career and in lifu.
The attorney fee award at issue in furmalhearing exhibit 2 (the NRS 69.050 prevailing party ree award to
Hi1I's client, Merliss, which Judge Flanagan expressly characterized as not a sanction) has been satisfied.
Further, the 4/13/09 "sanction" in formal hearing exhibit 3 that Mr. Elcano testified with regard to in the Joshi
divorce trial in DV08-0 1168 was vacated by way of2JDC Judge L. Gardner's 6/19/09 Final Decree of
Divorce.
Washoe Legal Services assisted me in satisfYing the judgment owed Merliss, and I would like to repay WLS
via working pro bono on its behalf; but I need to be reinstated to do so. If you do not reel a stipulated
resolution of the entire matter in 62337 is appropriate at this jllllcture, I ask that you consider stipulating to
dissolve my current 23 month temporary suspension incident to the referral in 60838 fur a conviction that is no
more, consistent with SCR 111(10) and the approach detailed above from In Re Beckett.
Sincerely and Respectfully Submitted,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel and Fax: 949 667
7402 ~~~~~:L!:L!1!lli!:~.
https://bay176.mail.li-.e.comtol/mail.I11\C/PrintMessages?rnkt=en-us
212
1220
Outlookcorn Print Message
712212014
substitution of counsel
Zach Coughlin (zachcougbJ.in@hotmailcom)
Mon5/12/14 9:02 AM
patrickk@nvbar.org (patrickk@nvbar.org)
Jaurap@nvbar.org (Jaurap@nvbar.org)
https:llbay176.mail.li>e.com'oI/mail.ITfI.{;/PrintMessages?rnkt=en-us
1221
1/2
712212014
OuUookcom Print Message
Dear Mr. King,

I've got new representation. .. my new chihuahua, Lupita. Just kidding. But, she is watching out fur and taking
care of me. I know you are a dog person, so you can appreciate that. I am trying to get an attorney to
represent me in these bar matters as I :feel that I have been so terrible towards you and Ms. Peters that the
most considerate thing to do would be to limit the amolUlt you have to interact with me. I am hoping to get a
remand of the sort Mr. Briggs has benefited from, and am writing to see if you are amenable to such, and, if
not, ifthere is anything I can do or show to get back in your good graces. I met Coe Swobe's replacement,
Mitch Cobeaga, at last Thursday's Lawyers Concerned fur Lawyers meeting. I saw my psychiatrist Dr.
Stepanova last week, and will see my psych010gist Bill Jackson, Ph.D. on May 15th, 2014, both ofN orthern
Nevada Adult Mental Heahh. Please consider this a full release to speak with either of them about anything
you wish to, and I have provided a release to both assenting to as much as well
I've got a home group fur my twelve step program, the 6:45 am Beginner's Are Winners meeting, my sponsor is
Bubba, and Mary K. can keep c10se tabs on me that way.
Respectfully,
Zachary Barker Coughlin 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel 775 338 5334 and Fax: 949667
7402 ~=~~~=~='-'"
https:/1bay176.mail.lil.e.com'oI/mail.rmclPrintMessages?mkt=en-us
212
1222
7/2212014
RE: SC Case 60975

Zach Coughlin (zachcougblin@hotmailcom)
Tue 7/22/14 11 :48 AM
Phillip Pattee (phi1p@nvbar.org)
Dear Mr. Patee,

I am now scheduled to be evaluated on Friday, July 25th, by Dr. Nielsen at his office on Willow St.
Sincerely,
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq. (USPTO) 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel 775 338 5334 Fax: 949667
7402 ZachCougblin@hotmailcom
From: phi1p@nvbar.org
To: zachcoughlin@hotrnailcom
Date: Tue, 22 Jul2014 15:46:40 +0000
your efforts. I shall
preme Court
informed.
https:llbay176.mail.li-.e.comioi/mail.rTl\CIPrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1223
1/3
712212014
OutIookcom Print Message
Phillip J. Pattee

Las Vegas, NV 89104
Office: (702) 382-2200
Fax: (702) 382-8747

Sent: Monday, July 21,20149:30 PM
DearNVBar,
I have been trading voice mails with Dr. Nielsen and finally just asked him to tell
me a date and time and indicated I would be sure to show up for such for the
evaluation, and asked ifhe would let me know of any releases or records he
2J3
https:/1bay176.mail.li\e.com'oI/mail.rTl\dPrintMessages?rri<t=en-us
1224
712212014
Oullookcom Print Message
would like to have in connection with the evaluation. I left him another message
today.
Sincerely,
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq. (USPTO) 1471 E. 9th St. Reno, NV 89512 Tel 775 3385334 Fax: 949 667
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 19:14:31 +0000
Laura Peters
Paralegal
https:llbay176.mail,li-.e.com'oI/mail.rrr..cIPrintMessages?mkt=en-us
1225
313
Apology and Zach Coughlin prescription medications

information
Mon 5/14/12 12:37 PM
tcoughlinmd@hotmail.com; davidc@nvbar.org; patrickk@nvbar.org; glennm@nvbar.org;

1 attachment
(1
rx
Dear Dad, Bar Counsel, Mom and Melissa,

1 am sorry for all the hurtful things 1 have said and done in the last
year. 1 haven't been on my WellbutriniBuproprion antidepressant
quite awhile (I pulled my pharmacy records recently to try to
am from some things). 1 have taken anti-depressants since 1 was
18 years old. 1 wasn't on either my Wellbutrin or Adderall for all of
August 2011 until September 14, 2011. 1 was arrested on August
20th, 2011 and September 9th, 2011. The Walmart arrest involved
chocolate and cough drops. The cough drops have
dextromethorphan in them, which is a dissociative in high enough
doses. Chocolate (sugar) is, of course, an old time palliative. The
banned cough drop (the melt or dissolve very quickly and contain
30 mg in each one ... so rather than powering through a whole bottle
of cough syrup to take 300 mg ofDM, one could eat 10 cough drop
melts rather easily and quickly). These drops were pulled from
shelfs for awhile when they first came out a few years ago, 1 believe
cause of the abuse potential or dangers of being able to ingest
t high a quantity of a powerful dissociative so quickly (the cough
syrup version of dextromethorpan is extremely difficult to just drink
1226
a whole bottle of, whereas the sugary cough melts are pretty much
similar to candy). I went off the Adderall on approximately
August 2, 2011. I went of the Wellbutrin in July 2011, right after
the breakup of a four and half year. Okay, I went and found the
records and am attaching them to this email. I wondered \vhether
the switch from Vyvanse to Adderall coincided with my getting
fired from Washoe Legal Services, but actually, it does not appear
to have. I was suspended on April 20th, 2009 from WLS. Then,
my termination date was May 12th, 2009. I only started taking
Adderall instead ofVyvanse on June 13th, 2009. I was wondering
if I became more irritable upon starting Adderall instead of
Vyvanse and though maybe that cause the problems with the family
court Judge during the March 2009 trial and then with Washoe
Legal Services. I am actually kind of relieved to see their does not
appear to be a causal connection given the chronology. I think I
just felt WLS was a bit of a dead end job for me, was ruining my
work ethic and motivation, and was, perhaps, an environment where
white males had to conform to a certain prototype to fit in, one
which I was not entirely at home with.
You can see I filled one prescription for Campral. See this forum
for evidence that tolerance to Adderall is sometimes thought to be
counteracted by a class of medications that includes Campral,
Dextormethorphan (D M is also being used to treat chronic pain
patients in some experimental studies), etc.:
I recall researching this in an attempt to be ultra cautious in

my use of Adderall.
1227
My chronic pain levels seem to be much, much, more manageable

when I am taking Wellbutrin and AdderalL I believe that the
chronic upper back pain I dealt with for years was due, in part, to
emotional/mental stress related to not appropriately addressing my
ADHD and the spotty use of antidepressants I exhibited during
those years (if my Dad and I were getting along, I would get
Wellbutrin from him for free, if we weren't, I would rarely secure
my own health insurance or payout of pocket for that
antidepressant, but would rather "rough it" to save money). When I
went off the Wellbutrin and Adderall, the chronic pain returned,
plus, I was basically in the early stages of a "divorce" from Melissa
(whom I dated and lived with since April-ish 2007 until May 17th,
011. Melissa and I had been fighting since we moved into the
home/office on River Rock on February 20th, 2010. From probably
June 2010 until she moved out on May 17th, 2011, we fought
almost daily, sometimes in a fairly hostile way (I was never
physically violent with her, but she got a bit with me). I was
existing on $400 a week in unemployment benefits, receiving them
for 99 weeks. I actually worked quite hard the entire time. I
learned a lot about a lot of different things, including some things
related to the business of law, practice management, employment
law, computers, software, hardware, cars, home improvement, I did
focus on music for about 6 months straight (though I always
continued to apply for jobs and send out resumes during this 99
weeks ... Washoe County had 15% unemployment during those 3
ears and jobs were in short supply and starting my own law
practice seemed overly risky), and I was basically Melissa's maid
and helper with proofreading her schoolwork for a couple years (in
1228
my mind at least, of course she may have a vastly different view of

things). She worked a significant amount of hours and was in
school full time and was irritable, extremely emotional, and
stretched pretty thin. I implemented the "I pay for dinner one time,
then you pay for dinner one time" rule for going out to dinner, and,
of course, that took a lot of the romance out of things. I think I
became very insecure about money and my career and getting fired
from WLS was very, very discouraging. But, I worked their for 18
months. Previous to that my longest tenure of employment at any
job whatsoever was literally 4 months at Hale Lane. I am talking
ANY job, my whole life. I realize my father has concerns about
someone in recovery taking a controlled substance like Adderall,
but I have exhibited symptoms consistent with a strong case of
ADHD my entire life, and feel to potential for substance abuse
inherent to untreated AD HD presents a great risk than does taking
Adderall, though, admittedly, it is something that one must watch
and realize that it can effect one's behavior and mood, sometimes in
good ways, sometimes in bad ways. But so can drinking or not
drinking water. So can taking or not taking insulin. Same with
coffee. So, in some ways I consider adding the Adderall to the
Wellbutrin a success and feel that I may have purposefully gotten
fired from WLS because the malaise there and institutional politics
were tough to deal with. Plus, it just occurred to me there that I
could work there forever, it was an incredibly easy job, but their
was not a pension, the pay was like $55K, they didn't give me the
$5K raise after a year they promised (it seems small, but watching
them heat half and empty building for months on end to 84 degrees
round the clock because the office manager couldn't figure out how
to fix the thermostat was just irritating), and that the law just held a
1229
destiny for me than to be a legal aid domestic violence

attorney for years and years, as honorable and admirable as that
may be. Interestingly, a couple of the people I had the most
problems with appear to have been fired from WLS after me.
Previously, the Executive Director basically would not fire anyone
unless they embezzled. It appears I changed his approach and got
him to implement firing people as a management tool. He fired that
office manager, RK, and he also fired ZL (I believe, though she
might have just left, though I cannot imagine that because what
other job would allow her to call in sick, with full pay, 30 Fridays a
year and be accountable to absolutely no one and call herself a
paralegal with no apparent legal training at all? Plus she, allegedly,
had borrowed money from various employees without paying them
,...,"'.&...... so ... ).
Speaking of borrowing money, when we broke up, Melissa stayed
at Mom's for awhile (Mom now says Melissa "uses her tears to her
advantage" and that she "feels a bit used by Melissa"), and Mom
bought her a $500 mattress from Costco (we had two very nice
memory foam beds I build with spare foam from Mills End fabrics
and all bought with my $400 a week and thrift, and I just didn't
want to give Melissa one when I felt she had been so unappreciative
of things just like my building those beds and doing the research,
etc.). We both agreed though that Melissa being an insulin
dependent diabetic undoubtedly presents challenges to her in
regulating her mood and emotions and that Melissa has
onstrated extraordinary courage and resolve in meeting those
challenges. Then, Mom just admitted to me that Carly loaned
Melissa several hundred dollars. Apparently Carly is pissed
1230
because Melissa is in New York City right now and still hasn't paid
Carly or Mom back (she also went in September 2011, and we were
supposed to go in July 2011, bought the tickets and everything
$450, but her Aunt decided to change her travel to Ireland dates, so
I basically lost that $450 due to the change fees Delta and American
charge-Melissa bought the tickets and did not think to utilize
Southwest. .. ). Melissa also made off with at least one and possibly
two months of my rent contribution that I gave her to give the
landlord, plus, she didn't pay the landlord her contribution for May
2011, June 2011, etc. However, as in all 4.5 year relationships,
things get blurry, etc., and she is a wonderful person.

SOMETHING PRETTY INTERESTING:
One thing I note from the prescription history is I filled a
Buproprion (note, I am using the terms Buproprion and
Wellbutrin interchangeably) script on 3/18/09, then did not fill
another one until 5/4/09 ... meaning a period of some 16 days
or so where I was either out of Buproprion or did not take it
or took less than my typical dose. I was suspended from
WLS on 4/20/09. My final termination date was 5/12/09.
That is pretty interesting. I seem to recall sometimes when
my script for Buproprion ran out and there could be some lag
time getting the doctor to fax a renewal to the pharmacy, and
I believe at one point during the past couple years I
complained to the pharmacy and the doctors office about an
extended delay in getting my prescription renewed and filled
and I specifically took them to task about the dangers of
patients suddenly going of there antidepressants and recall
being upset about what I perceived to be the doctor's office's
or pharmacies negligence in so renewing the prescriptions. I
1231
not believe 1 was blame shifting and avoiding my own

responsibilities in that regard, but it is possible 1 should have
done more in advance of running out of my Buproprion to
renew the prescription and or should have followed up more
on the failure to so renew after 1 made the renewal
request. .. .! believe this was during that 5/4/11 to 5/21/11
period, but am not sure at this pOint, but 1 recall being upset
that somethign like 3 weeks went by and my prescription was
not ready ... or 1 may have been late in making the request. 1
seem to undervalue what Bupropion does for my mood and
behavior, 1 recall often thinking they were just "sugar pills"
and it was all in my mind, any benefit. ... But, 1 didn't always
believe that, sometimes finding the efficacy apparent.
ks like 1 went off Buproprion between 5/21/20 and
6/17/10 as well. 1 went off Buproprion again between 8/12/10
and 10/6/10... .! notice that my copays stopped around
7/12/10, which was went 1 stopped getting the reduced Cobra
premiums under the Obama bailout, and had to start paying
out of pocket (though it was essentially a wash, because the
Cobra was $180 a month, plus $20 in co pays, whereas, out of
pocket was probably less overall, though it was $105 ever 3
months for the psychiatrist and the prices of Adderall and
Wellbutrin (I dropped Adderal XR probably because it cost
more) spiked somewhat during that time). Then again from
11/6/10 to 12/2/10, though its possible that 1 used that
10/6/10 prescription, which consisted of 120 of the 75mg
uproprion generic versions to try to effect a discount by
taking less Buproprion per day, ie, stretch one month of a
script out 3 months or so by only taking 150 mg or 75 mg or
1232
something, 1 do remember trying to save money like that. 1

am very startled to see that from 5/4/11 to 5/21/11 1 would
have been out of Wellbutrin/Buproprion. Melissa and 1 broke
up and she moved out on 5/17/11. 1 did have trouble with
the ignition cylinder turning the key to start the car when
trying to go to Melissa's graduation party on 5/15/11, and
was at least 45 minutes late, causing her embarassment and
pain. However, despite the fact that the key would not turn
the cylinder causing me some delay, 1 believe it did not cause
that much of a delay in finding some other way to get to the
graduation party, but rather, my ADHD and depression led
me to trying to do to many other things that day, misjudging
time and the ability to get a reasonable amount of things
done (I was probably trying to finish fixing Melissa's car or
something else that was no where near as important as
showing up to that party on time .... but that is typical of
people with depression and ADHD, the prioritizing and
misjudging time, lateness, etc .... ). 1 do recall saying very
mean things to Melissa during that 3 week stretch in May
2011 ... however, both she and 1 were stressed out preparing
for her graduation and final exams, having a great deal of her
out of town family coming into town, my fighting with my Dad
starting on 4/28/11 and having a bad argument about
something rather small and minor, etc., and my
unemployment benefits stopping right about late April 2011
(99 weeks from May 21, 2009 start date would mean my
unemployment ran out in early April 2011, 1 believe).
1 switched to the cheaper generic version of Adderall from the
perhaps more steady consistent Adderall XR in June 2010.
1233
elissa and I fought constantly from June 2010 until our

breakup in June 2011 .... There were news reports of the price
of Adderall XR skyrocketing out of the blue at about this time
and there was a fair amount of controversy about Shire
retaining the rights to make the generic and the generic
version being essentially, garbage, according to many
patients.
http://www.addforums.com/foru ms/showthread. ph p?
t=112229
It is pretty crappy when you think about it, these drug
companies increasing the copay from $29 on a mental health
medication once month to $180 the next. .. and artificially
rcing people to avoid the generic by retaining the rights to
e generic and purposefully making the generic lack efficacy.
http://www.drugs.com/a nswers/why-has-the-price-ofadderall-generic-30-mg-gone-455000.html
http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/2/16/anatomy-of-thegreat-adderall-drought
http://www.thefix.com/content/pay-attention-adderall-addbig-pharma7004
I then went off my Wellbutrin/Buproprion from 7/25/11 until
4/28/ 12 .. From filling the Buproprion at a cost of $20 in June
f 2011 until recently filling the prescription in late April 2012,
the cost has gone up 300%. That medication has been off
patent for some 20 years now, it should not be rising in price,
1234
especially during a period where the economy has struggled

so mightily. Interestingly, the cost of those cough drop melts
with 30 mg of Dextromethorphan per melt rose form around
$6.50 a box in 2007 or so to $8.88 in September 2011 for the
exact same quantity/dosage. I simply could not afford it
though on at least two occasions I called up Northern Nevada
Adult Mental Health and inquired about the possibility of
getting the cost paid for by the state or subsidized. In
evaluating the time and relinquishment of my privacy rights
(there is a fair amount of shame and worry about one's
professional reputation and how those in recovery or AA will
view one's taking these medications associated with taking
ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder medications) that I felt
it would require to achieve the savings of around $125 a
month for these two prescriptions, I never decided it was
worth it to go to NAMS, but rather just stopped paying for the
Buproprion (again, I sometimes viewed it as a sugar pill,
whereas the Adderall I felt had an effect, both for controlling
ADHD and for the supplemental uses as a treatment resistant
antidepressant and the off label use for the control of OCD.
In that time period I was put in jail 8 times and, essentially
evicted 3 times and fought with and alienated myself from my
entire family, lived a very secluded, reclusive life, etc ...
exhibited poor impulse control, a temper, and symptoms
consistent with untreated Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)
and perhaps some type of hoarding behavior or Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder, including tiling the River Rock home
office, collecting car seats, recarpeting the entire home office
with scraps in a patchwork, and tiling the crumbling front
steps, and putting green carpet on the dirt lawn.
1235
I was arrested on:

8/20/11 for petit larceny (the lost mislaid iPhone thing where
the finder said he would "throw it in the river if someone
doesn't claim it right away"). 7 days in jail.
9/9/11 for petit larceny at Wal-Mart of a chocolate bar and
two boxes of the cough medication drops/melts with
Dextromethorphan 30 mg per melt. 1 day in jail.
11/12/11 for criminal trespass at my former home law office
(i was issued 3 traffic citations days later when I went to the
opposing attorney who signed the criminal trespass
complaints office to retrieve my wallet and driver's license and
was told to leave by the RPD. While driving away the RPD
ulled me over and charged me with a "California RolI"/failure
come to a complete stop and a couple fix it tickets, that
were ultimately fixed). 3 days in jail
11/30/11 for summary contempt during the trial for the WalMart chocolate bar and cough medication drops Trial before
Judge Howard in RMC 11 CR 22176. 1 day in jail.
1/12/12 for jaywalking while filming personal property at my
former home law office being placed in a dump truck for
hauling to the dump. 1 day in jail
1/14/12 for "misuse of 911 where no actual or perceived
emergency exists), a gross misdemeanor incident to the
domestic violence I was victimized by on E. 9th st. by my
housemates. 3 days in jail
2/27/12 for summary contempt during the trial for the
1/15/11 traffic citations "California RolI"/failure to come to a
complete stop at stop sign deal .... s days in jail
4/19/12 for contempt, I believe, for failing to fully participate
1236
(concern for privacy rights, shame, etc) in the ordered

competency evaluation that Judge Elliot ordered I undergo
with the Lake's Crossing doctors. I spent 7 days in jail.
I am feeling better and better since starting to take my
antidepressant, Wellbutrin again, and now realize I need to be

much more diligent in filling that prescription in a timely
manner and making preparations for situations where I might
not be able to afford it. I plan to write many apology letters,
including to judges, bar counsel, opposing counsel, etc. I
always fought and worked hard for my clients though for an
extremely competitive price.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
1237
Page: 1
M E D I CAL
E X PEN S E S
COUGZA1
ient: COUGHLIN, ZACH
RespPty:
DC E ST # 14229TH

195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
,NV 89512
RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976
prescriptions:
Date: 08/28/2007 TO 08/28/2012
LastFill Rx #
Drug Name
11/27/07
12/27/07
01/30/08
02/01/08
03/01/08
03/03/08
03/30/08
04/02/08
05/01/08
05/05/08
06/02/08
06/02/08
06/27/08
07/03/08
08/01/08
OS/04/08
OS/30/08
09/06/08
09/30/08
9/30/08
/30/08
0/30/08
11/30/08
11/30/08
12/19/08
12/28/08
12/28/08
01/24/09
01/24/09
02/17/09
02/18/09
03/18/09
03/18/09
03/18/09
03/20/09
04/17/09
05/04/09
05/18/09
06/05/09
METHYL IN 20MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
RUDEPRION XL 300 MG
METHYLIN 20MG
RUDEPRION XL 300 MG
VYVAi~SE 70 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
RUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
RUPROPION 300 ~G XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 ~~
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
GUP~FACINE 1MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 ~~
BUPROPION 300 ~~ XL
RUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
GUANFACINE IMG
BUPROPION 300 MG y~
VIAGRA 50MG
VYVANSE 70 MG
RUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 ~~ XL
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAIIijINE 30!>1G
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VY~ANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 300 MG XL
VYVANSE 70 MG
BUPROPION 150MG SR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
OMEPRAZOLE 20~~
06/13/0~
07/17/09
07/17/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
09/10/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
11/15/09
11/23/09
12/31/09
01/17/10
2400458
2400714
6405827
2401067
6405827
2401357
2401611
6413703
2401932
6416295
2402229
6416235
2402484
6416295
2402852
6422989
2403149
6422989
2403415
6422989
2403418
6430436
2403419
6430436
6434447
2404354
6434452
2404356
6434452
6430436
2404355
2405234
6441680
6441682
6441898
2405236
6441682
2405237
6441682
2406368
2406369
6452048
2407073
6452048
6456472
2407500
6456472
2407501
6463678
6463678
6468474
Qty Physician Name

60
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
5
30
30
30
30
60
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
60
60
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.R2l..SUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr . Rl>.SUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr. RASlJL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.RASUL
Dr .RASUL
Dr.COUGHLIN
T/P
OPU
CPB
CPB
CPR
CPB
CPB
CPR
CPR
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPR
CPB
CPB
CPR
CPR
CPR
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPR
CPB
CPR
CPR
CPB
CPB
Price
RPh
22.23
JHl
JT3
JWH
25.00
22.23
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
TZ2
JTS
JH2
JH5
JT3
JH3
JT1
JT3
JT3
25.00
JT6
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
K06
JT4
25.00
TZ7
TZ5
JT6
KC2
KC2
JRT
JT1
JT6
JT6
JT3
JT4
JT8
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
25.00
73.41
25.00
25.00
160.48
92.72
TNZ
52.G8
TNZ
52.68
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
JT9
JG6
JG3
TZ5
TZ5
JT5
TZ5
TZ2
JT3
JT3
TZ5
JT8
MVB
JRT
JTl
JT5
JG5
JG5
JG6
JTl
JG5
JT5
1238
Page: 2
MEDICAL
COUGZAl
Patient: COUGHLIN, ZAeH
RespPty:
DC E ST # 14229TH
E X PEN S E S
Pharmacy: SAVE MART PHP~CY #556
195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
RPh: r~JI, MELISSA/MOHAMMAD
,NV 89512
RENO
Birth; 09/27/1976
Prescriptions;
Date: 08/28/2007 TO 08/28/2012
Qty Physician Name
Las tFill RX #
Drug Name
01/22/10
02/02/10
02/19/10
02/24/10
03/18/10
03/19/10
03/20/10
04/19/10
04/21/10
OS/22/10
06/03/10
06/17/10
07/12/10
08/02/10
09/02/10
10/02/10
10/06/10
11/01/10
12/02/10
12/02/10
12/18/10
12/23/10
01/31/11
01/31/11
03/03/11
03/03/11
04/04/11
04/04/11
04/22/11
OS/21/11
06/03/11
06/25/11
06/29/11
09/12/11
10/13/11
11/17/11
12/26/11
01/26/12
02/27/12
04/02/12
04/28/12
05/06/12
OS/24/12
06/06/12
06/23/12
07/22/12
08/28/12
AMPHETAMINE 20MG
90 Dr .RASUL
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr .RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
40 Dr.PAR.~OTT APN
~mTOCLOPRAM 5MG
180 Dr.RASUL
CAMPRAL 333MG
BUPROPION 150Vfl SR
60 Dr .RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
~~DERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
BUPROPION 150MG SR
}\.J)DERALL )::R 30rw"lG
60 Dr. RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.RASUL
ADDERALL XR 30MG
60 Dr.RASUL
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.RASUL
60 Dr.RASUL
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MC
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
120 Dr. Y~.SAR
BUPROPION 75MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30VG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150r-4G SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAl'lINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr ~ YJ... . SAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
AMPHETAMINE 30~~
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPION 150MG SR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30~~
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
AMPHETAMINE 3QMG
60 Dr.YASAR
60 Dr.YASAR
M~HETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr. Y}!.SAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHETAMINE 30VG
60 Dr.YASAR
BUPROPN HCL 150MG X
AMPHETAMINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
AMPHET~-MINE 30MG
60 Dr.YASAR
2409075
6463678
2409405
6471901
6472900
6474257
2409769
6474257
2409770
2409771
6474257
2410853
6484763
2411503
2411881
2411974
6492514
2411973
2412940
6489816
2413141
6489816
2413142
6489316
2413143
6505746
2413144
6505746
2414647
6511008
2414644
6511008
2414645
2416340
2416349
2416350
2416351
2417915
2417919
2417920
6521924
2417921
6521924
2419421
6521924
2419422
2419423
Tip
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
CPB
Price
RPh
34.67
5.00
15.00
4.87
25.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
JG3
JG3
JG6
JG3
JG3
JT5
LE6
J15
15.00
15.00
5.00
15.00
5.00
32.95
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.95
32.46
32.95
32.46
32.95
AAF
32.46
32.95
JT8
ZM6
32.46
26.79
37.39
32.95
37.39
26.79
36.89
20.23
45.46
60.00
60.00
60.00
69.19
69.19
69.19
61.01
69.19
42.00
69.19
42.00
69.19
69.19
Jr-4G
ZM4
JT4
LB1
JG5
JT4
LB4
JG1
JT6
G13
JG1
G13
JG4
JT8
J13
JT6
JT6
JG3
JT5
JT6
ZM2
ZM4
MM8
Z11
MM7
JT5
MM4
JT7
MM7
BB5
MR5
B25
MM1
BRE
JT5
MM9
1239
Page: 3
M E DIe ALE X PEN S E S
COUGZA1
atient: COUGHLIN, ZACH
RespPty:
DC E ST # 14229TH
Pharmacy: SAVE ~RT PHARMACY #556

195 W. PLUMB LANE
RENO
NV 89509
,NV 8351:l
RENO
Birth: 09/27/1976
Prescriptions:
LastFill Rx #
Date: 08/28/2007 TO 08/28/2012

Drug Name
Qty Physician Name
T/P
Price
RPh
Attested To By:
1240
NOTE: this email is reproduced in truncated form here given it is a

res ending of the same email from 5/14/12 to the SBN.
resending this FW: Apology and Zach Coughlin prescription

medications information
Tue 7/31/12 1:39 PM
patrickk@nvbar.org
1 attachment
Dear Mr. King,

I am resending this too you just in case it went into your "junk mail" folder the first time I sent it (given
that it was addressed to numerous people, as sometimes results in an email being declared "junk mail"
by one's email server) .... Its admittedly fairly rambling, but I believe it does demonstrate a willingness to
look within for a cause of the problems I have encountered in the last year.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Apology and Zach Coughlin prescription medications information
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:37:17 -0700
Dear Dad, Bar Counsel, Mom and Melissa,

year. I haven't been on my WellbutriniBuproprion antidepressant
1241

CASSANDRA JACKSON
HON. JAY D. DILWORTH
Court Administrator
Department 1
JUSTIN ROPER
HON. WILLIAM L. GARDNER

Dcputment2
ChicfMIIlIhaJ - Department
of Alternative Sentencing
HON. DOROTHY NASH HOLMES
Department 3
HON. KENNETH R. HOWARD
Department 4
Affidavit
Re: Zach Coughlin

I, Donna Ballard, Senior Court Specialist, of Reno Municipal Court, a court oflaw organized, incorporated
or existing under the laws of the City of RellO,
and with its principal business located at: 1 South Sierra Street, Reno, NY 895Q1.
Being duly sworn, do depose and say:
On 3/22/12 I heard Vanessa Garcia state that Coughlin was coming and he was in his pajamas. She
made a comment about them looking like Christmas pajamas. I looked up but was unable to see him. I
am unsure of the time at this point.
When Mr. Coughlin was called to Daniel Casillas' window IB, Daniel did his best to help Mr. Coughlin
for quite some time and then Daniel came to my desk and asked me to assist Mr. Coughlin. I began
speaking with Mr. Coughlin and noticed that he had on slightly shiny, polyester looking, white long sleeve
tee shirt that to me looked like the same fabric as an athleticjersey. I seem to recall a logo on the right
side. I could clearly see that he had a burgundy dress shirt and a lighter color tie under the white tee shirt.
During my conversation with Mr. Coughlin he was rude and repeated the same questions several times.
As he has asked in the past, "If Judge Howard told you to jump off a bridge would you?" The conversation
continued with Mr. Coughlin asking for records to which I answered that he could fill out a records
request. Mr. Coughlin stated that he would depose me and I would be found negligent.
Mr. Coughlin kept insisting on copies of documents. I advised him to add them to the records request
he was filling out. He argues each time about being treated the same as anyone else that comes to the
court and asked why he can't email a request. After I had advised him several times that he couJd not
email or fax due to Judge Howard's order, I finally said that he was different because he abused it and
sent 1']6 pages.
This type of conversation went on until I could no longer help him and felt we bad done everything we
could at this point. I walked back to my desk and heard hbn asking Daniel what the docket said. I could
see that he was writing down what Daniel told him and at this point I contacted Bill Williams in the
security office and told him we have had enough of Mr. Coughlin and he needs to leave. Marshal
lin 1
"
Thompson arrived with another marshal and~.
_.
S gnature
4-\\-l'L
Date
State of Nevada
SS
County of Washoe
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of---,-,...,....,"",,",,_,
YJ I ?,.,
du ~1O, fJ I 2.012.
01865
1242
FILED
APR 22 2014
1243
;2
"LID
D!PT. NO.3
Case No. 11 TR 26800 21
APR -1 201~
Dept. 3
TIMI!~
~6RorfvNASH HOLM!S, JUDGE
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
......... 1jI .
, ...
CITY OF RENO,
~.
Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Vi.

Defendant.
______________________
~I
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of April. 2014.
.;9Hq~~~
. Dorothy NaslfOfmes'
. .
Municipal Judge
25
26
27
RIHO
28
MUNICIPAl. COURT
1'.0.... 11*
R-.1N8HOI
(702) Uf42SO
1244
'
CeBTIEICA!E OF SERVICE
Reno, Nevada, that I am over the age of 18 yearslnd not a Plrty to the above action, Ind that
on this dlte, served a true and correct copy of the Ittached document to the following as set
forth below:
.L Placing said document In I
,,,led envelope and placed for collecting Ind mailing by
Unites Stites mall in Reno, Nevadl, postage prepaid, following ordinlry business
practices.
Flcsimile (FAX)
.L
Electronic Mlil (E-mail) to City Attomey

Inner-office mail following ordinlry bUliness practices
Perlonal Delivery to City Attorney
Booking # 1317561
Wishoe County Detention Flcllity
911 Parr Blvd
Reno NV 96512
Din Wong
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
DATED: April"', 2014.

...
R.no Municipal Court
P.O. Sox 1100

Reno, NY 89505
(77i) 334-31122
1245
1
2
FILED

OEPT. NO.3
APR -7 2014
~~EsOe::
Dept. 3
6
7

III III
***
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
CITY OF RENO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant.
______________________
~I
151
16 interest ofjustice, that this case be, and hereby is, DISMISSED.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
REI/O
MUNICIPAl. eOUltT
1'.0.... 1...
" ..... tN .....
28
~~
1246
CEBIIEJQAIE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify th,t lam an employee of the Reno Municipal Court,
Reno, Nevada, that I am over the.ge of 18 year. and not a party to the above action, and that
forth below:
-L Placing said document In 'ealed envelope and placed for collecting and mailing by
Unites States mail In Reno, Nevad., postage prepaid, following ordinary business
practices.
Facsimile (FAX)
-L Electronic Mail (E-mail) to City Attorney

Inner-office mall following ordinary bUllne,s practices
Booking # 1317581
911 Parr Blvd
Reno NV 96512
Dan Wong
PO Box 1900
Reno NV 89505
"'.no Munlolpal Court

P.O. lOX 1900
Reno, NV 89106
(776) 334-38n
1247
3.
E\I~t)\~ ~ ~ /111 ~ ,oe.1:I1! il- 0 ~ '\:)t~ V"\ lS SfrJt' I ~ tl2~F''/!I<
~I",*il"~ -ce\V-'\~\ (~tf\k-'\pt(_Ct. 'b.,C)~lJ i~2Q.j_O_O_ _
_~"2:-fc:tQ-'?:S~
r,,?/ii
~ :117(t~ 'OflVr.a..
1/
.....""2 f~o:::.r'
c,,~. fJ,""''"\ e
0 (.:
.?~r-"\5~~~2 l~_t.~_~ _+~~ . . _
c.. t~4t,; ~ 0 ~
.::::;:::.:;:.z~ . ._=_---.-.---~---"_ __
7 ..-
"
17~1.
i
Ii
I
f7
............_... .... -
.-
..~---~------
It .'' ' '
~------'------------.---.-.---------,--
!.'
ll(4 - - - - - - - - - - - -__-
. -..--.----.-..
..........---~
If4----------------------.,.. --,. ------._'*
/_
V
_ _ __ _
2):
2} /
~-----------------------~--------------
1248
NORTBERNNBVADAADU!.T :M:mrrALBEALTH SERVICES

'.
.
. 480 GArLm:TI WAY' . .
'SPARKS, NEVADA 89431
. 715-688-2025
'.
CONFIDENTIAL 1NFORMATIO~
"
'fhi9. intbrmatfon has b~ disclosed ~ you from records ~se confidentiality is

proteaed. by Smte e:uJ, 1i:cieCa1: laws and regulation$, inclueIing the Health In.sw::ance
,
Partability a.nd Accotmtabffity Act (HlPM) ana FederalR.egu1ation. 42 ~ Part 2.
4?r ~Part2 prohibits you fi.um making iIrtb.er disclosure ofthls fu:!Drmation without
tha- ~ written ccinsem ~~the person to whom ~ pertains..
.'I'he:feder.J ~ restrict my use bf tbis ~rma:tion tr, crlm in aIly investigate or
prooorobJ any alrohol or ~ abtIse peot
Destroy ~ intbnna:tion after its stated need has been fuIfilIed.
are not the
Iateaded rec.r.pient, you are hereb-y: aotified tfutt my discIosu.n; capyin& cf:istrit,tItion or
~n f:aIrea. in re!im.ce on the co.nients of~ docr.zm:ents is strly prohibited.. ,IfyoiJ.
rfyou
............
"
ae,-...-:"""'.14.:- :"~~.....
...~.yQ.l. \.IJ.t:I Ul.ti.I~nm.eatn;
a:8dresB' or phone ~6I' abO\fe.
f"":" __ .... ,..+Tf<,.4._.l

:.;........""J:~ af.4.!lJ.Vttliti
...............J ~s.e.ll.Uer.~.1
~ ~
. .
...~-.-.~'., ...
. .
..
'
..
1249


Date Written: 0512312013
Duration: 60
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Thursday, May 23, 2013:
DATA:
Client did not appear and did not call to cancel today's 0800 appointment.
Client telephoned at 0830 to ask his appointment time, then asked for telephone therapy until 0850. I refused.
Client again requested telephone therapy, and asked my grounds for refusing, asked whether I would provide services in
jail, and why not, etc., and quoted my replies slowly back, as though noting them. We reviewed my notes cancelling his
previous appointment. We set an appointment for 6.24.13 11 am. Etc. We hung up at 0850.

Duration: 15
Svc Code: 229 Date of Group Svc: 0510612013
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, May 06,2013:
DATA:
I cancelled this appointment earlier.
Client telephoned at 0823 to confirm that it was cancelled. We set another appointment for 5.23.13 8am.

Duration: 15
Note: I have not received a response from client (because he is presumably in jail). I telephoned client and left a voice mail
message to cancel his appointment of 5.6.13.
Date Written: 04115/2013

Duration: 30
Note: Pt reports feeling more depressed and irritable. Discussed with pt possibility of bipolar d/o. Pt denies any hlo manic SX. He
does become irritable, but is never energetic. His sleep can be disrupted and he is extremely fatigued the next day. He was
very irritable with the RN prior to this visit. Discussed with pt how he is making poor choices in terms of his life and career,
he is having difficulty understanding it.
MSE: labile affect, tearful when talking about his past, speech is RRR, no FOls or LOAs, mood is"depressed", affect is
congruent, labile
Plan: COnt current meds. Discussed possibility of starting Risperdal to address irritability as adjunct to antidepressant. Pt
refused at this time. E.STepanova, MD
1250
COUGHLlN.ZACHARY B
3/11/2013
PATIENT NAME:
PATIO:
282636
CHART NO.:
282636
AOMISSIONDATE:
PROGRAM:
EPISODE NO.:
EVALUATION DATE:
3/11/2013
Status: Final
Generallnfonnation
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
Information was obtained from chart, patient.
Information is deemed to be reliable.

IDENTIFICATION: Pt is a 36 year old man, who lives alone, currently unemployed (worked as a
lawer), not in a relationship, has a hlo ADHD and depression, can not afford an outpt
psychiatrist.
INFORMATION RELIABILITY:
CHIEF COMPLAINT:
Depressed mood, inability to focus

Yes
REQUIRES HOSPITALIZATION:
Patient History
Pt reports he has been off Wellbutrin and Adderall for several days. His
mood worsened, he is more often tearful, especially when thinking about his lost
relationship. He has poor attention and concentration. He can not watch long movies as he
gets distracted. He has a hard time sustaining a conversation, unless he is extremetly
interested in the subject. He pays little attention to details, disorganized, often late for
important appointments (court). He is impulsive, acts quick before thinking (took
somebody's cell phone on the street impulsively). Forgets to pay bills on time. From the
examples he gave about getting in trouble at work, it sounds like he voices his opinion
before thinking of a more appropriate way to phrase it.
He denied sx of anxiety, obsessions or compulsions, psychosis, eating dlo
Pt reports sexual problems: He believes it is due to narcotics he used 7 years ago. He
takes a long time to reach orgasm, which was not the case prior to him starting the
medications
PRESENTING ILLNE;SS:
Pt was seeing Dr. Rasul for "adhd and mdd", who provided him with
medications. He had some counseling back in law school for "emotional problems". He was
seen at NNAMHS on May 2012 for Mental Health Court, but became argumentative to the
point that he could not complete an evaluation.
Past meds: Paxil (made him sweat), Prozac (sexual SE), Effexor,
Vivanse, strattera (both no effect)
Neurontin for chronic pain
PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY:
MEDICAL HISTORY:
Chronic pain, took narcotics 7 years ago. No hlo hospitalizations.
1251
PATID: 282636
PATIENT NAME: COUGHLlN.ZACHARY 8

PROGRAM: NNAMHS Med Clinic Adult
EPISODE NO.: 7
CHART NO.: 282636

EVALUATION DATE: 3/11/2013
Status: Final
SOCIALJFAMILY HISTORY: Pt currently lives alone in a trailor (for 75 dollars a month). He is single,
his ex-GF broke up with him 2 years ago. Since then pt got into trouble with the law. He got
arrested 15 times since 2011 (see legal Hx). Pt is his own lawer and wonders if he is
making the right decisions regarding his own case. He states he is often argumentative,
and stands his ground when he feels he is right. He gave an example of other lawers telling
him that if he complies with what the judge is telling him, he could have been working
already, but he believes that he should do "what's right". Pt has very few friends, although
states that he wants to have friends. He finds it difficult to do small talk with people, but will
talk about law or something of great interest to him. There was a time his family did not
support him after his GF broke up with him. Pt does not understand why people just don't
like him. He states that many judges in Reno do not like him because he "defends his
clients too hard".
EDUCATIONAWoCATIONAL!OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY: Pt went to college and then law school. He did not
get his license rightaway although he passed all tests. He stated the reason was
"interpersonal issues". It took him 3.5 years to get his license. He has not had a steady
employment. His last job was as a domestic violence attorney, he got fired for arguing with
the judge. He believed that the judge wanted him to convince his client of something that
was not of benefit to her. He stood his grounds and got fired.
LEGAL HISTORY: 15 arrests since 2011. The first one was for petty larceny. He saw somebody
screaming they will through out the cell phone, he took it and then PD was called. He
stated he should have given it back rightaway, but got scared that they will have evidence
against him and did not. He was evicted from his apartment several times, has
tresspassing charges, also being late for court. He spend several days in jail because his
family would not bail him out.
Medications and Substances
COMMENTS ON PSYCHOTROPIC MEDS: Wellbutrin 300 mg BID

Adderall 30 mg BID
COMMENTS ON NONPSYCHOTROPIC MEDS: None
COMMENTS ON ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES:
ALLERGIES: NKDA
ADVERSE REACTIONS: denied
Addictive Behavior
SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY: THC, last 7 years ago. Denies EtOH abuse, but attends AA
meetings. He states he told the barr that he is an alcoholic because it would get him out of
trouble. He also attends Alanon meetings
ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS: Denied
1252
COUGHLlN.ZACHARY 8
3/11/2013
PATIENT NAME:
PATIO:
282636
CHART NO.:
282636
ADMISSION DATE:
PROGRAM:
EPISODE NO.:
EVALUATION DATE:
3/11/2013
StatUs: Final
Mental Status Exam
Well dressed (wearing a suit), cooperative, pleasant,

good eye contact. Labile affect, tearful a few times when talking about the breakup with GF
or past stressors that he did not elaborate on. Mood is depressed, affect is congruent,
appropriate
APPEARANCE. BEHAVIOR, AFFECT AND MOOD:
Pt is able to verbalize his thoughts in a coherent manner, however,

he frequently loses the train of thought and asks what he was talking about. No LOAs,
FOls, coherent. Denies AHNH/SI/HI
THOUGHT CONTENTIPROCESS:
LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS/ORIENTATION:
MEMORY FUNCTIQN:
A+Ox3
Fair, forgets some of events of the past
Good. Pt is a lawer, has very good expressive language, which

suggests superior intellectual functioning
INTELLECTUAL FUNCTION:
JUOGEMENTIINSIGHTIIMPULSE CONTROL:
I/J is fair. Impulse control is poor
ASSETS IN DESCRIPTIVE (NOT INTERPRETIVE) FASHION:
Has family in the area, good intellect, realises
the need for treatment.

Diagnosis
Admission
PREDOMINANTLY INATIENTIVE TYPE
TYPE of DIAGNOSIS:
PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSIS:
AXIS I:

PREDOMINANTLY INATIENTIVE TYPE
Primary:
Secondary:
311 DEPRESSIVE DISORDER NOS
AXIS !I:
301.9 PERSONALITY DISORDER NOS
Primary:
AXISI!I:
338.29 OTHER CRONIC PAIN
Primary:
AXISIY:
Educ.
Health
!::!.9.Jrun.g
Occup.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
fu!.DQQrt
Yes
.QQgj
Yes
Q1llitl
No
MI..Y:
Current GAF:
Previous 12-month HIGH:
Previous 12-month LOW:

Comments on Diagnosis:
Initial Treatment Plan
1253
PAnENT NAME: COUGHLlN.ZACHARY

.
PROGRAM:
PATIO:
282636
EPISODE NO.:
CHART NO.:
EVALUAnON DATE:
282636
3/11/2013
Status: Final
Pt reports clear sx of inattention and impulsivity. It's unclear how much better those are
when he is on meds. In addition, he has multiple interpersonal conflicts. It could be due to
impulsivity secondary to ADHD (he blurts out things that are inappropriate or rude). It is
also possible that he has baseline irritability as part of a mood disorder, which makes him
appear arrogant and rude. Another possibility is a personality disorder (borderline vs
narcissistic, vs histrionic, possibly obsessive-compulsive). More info needed. Social
difficulties could be a result of a POD, mild form.
Start pt on Adderall 30 mg BID (gave 2 wks supply) and Wellbutrin SR 300 mg daily. Will
re-evaluate pt in 2 weeks when he is on meds. He already had an evaluation for individual
counseling, would follow up. Will attempt to get collateral info regarding his social
difficulties.
Electronically signed:
Completed by: STEPANOVA,EKATERINA
M.D.
Date: 3/11/2013
Time: 12:22 PM
1254


Epil)ode: 6 - NNAMHS OP Counseling Wait List
Duration: 15
Note: Friday, 3.8.13, I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call.
Client telephoned and left a voice mail message asking me to call. He said that he was out of medication and asked me to
help him get medication before his Medication Clinic appointment set for 3.13.13.
Today I telephoned client and left a verbal message with a woman, asking client to call.
Duration: 90
Note: Mr. Coughlin presented for an initial assessment. He has been seeing an outpt psychiatrist, but can no longer afford office
visits or medications. He has been off medications for several days. He is feeling more depressed, has poor energy, sleep,
feels overwhelmed with stressors. He has poor attention, concentration, can't focus on tasks, forgetful. During the session,
he is tearful when talking about stressors, can't focus on a topic, frequently asking what he was talking about. Making poor
chaises.
Plan: Start Wellbutrin SR 300 mg QAM, Adderall 30 mg BID. See initial eval for details. E.Stepanova, MD

Duration: 15

Written by: NN - JIM DISS at 11: 13 AM
Duration: 15
Note: d: pt attended OP Psych Orientation 2125, and has called, making a request to start treatment. a: Orientation. p: Case will
be assigned at the next weekly staff meeting.

Written by: NN - JIM DISS at 04:02 PM
Duration: 15
Note: d: pt attended OP Psych Orientation Monday, 2125113, and was instructed to call by 5pm this Friday if interested in starting
treatment. a: Orientation. p: will await call.
1255


Duration: 30
Note: Mr. Coughlin reports having a difficult time going through the paperwork for his trial. There is a chance that he will go to jail
for 6 months after his next hearing. He showed his paperwork that he was reading in the waiting room. It's covered in
multiple notes he made on the side and across the writing (shows lack of organization?). Patient gave multiple examples of
making people angry with him. He believes he is making the right choices and standing for what he believes is right,
however, he does not see the pattern of alienating people while dOing that. Today he appeared frustrated, his affect was
labile at times, tearing up when talking about stressful events. In addition, he continued to have trouble concentrating on a
conversation, asking multiple times what he was talking about.
Meds: Adderall 30 mg BID, Wellbutrin SR 150 mg BID
Dx:Mood dlo NOS, ADHD, innattentive type
Plan: Cont current meds. Consider adding another antidepressant or Strattera on next visit. Wrote a note for court stating
that I am questioning pt's fittness to aid in defence or stand a trial. Pt's is impulsive and has trouble focusing on interview
here, unclear how he is able to stand an 8 hr trial. Also, he has a self-destructive behaviors, mainly he makes people dislike
him while he believes that he is standing his grounds. He does not understand how he is hurting his own case by behaving
that way. He has always been pOlite during the sessions with me. RTC in 2 wks. E.Stepanova, MD

Written by: NN - BilL JACKSON at 08:54 AM
Duration: 15
Client telephoned yeaterday evening and left a voice mail message confirming that he had received my voice mail message
setting an appointment for 5.6.13.
He said that he would be there if he were not incarcerated, he facing criminal trial between now and then.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call by 5.1.13 to confirm the appointment, or I would
consider it cancelled secondary to his being incarcerated.

Written by: NN - BilL JACKSON at 05:06 PM
Duration: 15
Episode: 6 - NNAMHS OP Counseling Wait list
Note: Client telephoned and left a voice mail message asking me to call to set an appointment.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message with a tentative appointment of 5.6.13 11 am, asking client to call to confirm
it.

Written by: NN - EKATERINA STEPAN OVA at 01 :43 PM
Duration: 30
Note: Pt reports feeling better. He has been able to defend himself in court, organize his court case. He has not had any
confrontations with authorities since last visit. No new legal problems. He has another court hearing coming up in a week,
where he might be sentenced to 6 months in jail, which he is extremely concerned about. Pt reported feeling lonely, trying to
date, but unsuccessfully. He is reconnecting with his family, spent some time with sisters and nephews. Today he appears
brighter, but mood is still labile. He teared up several times when mentioning his ex GF (he reported similar experience in
court). He denies SIII/P, denies HIIi/P. His TP is more organized, although at times he loses the train of thought and has to
repeat the question.I/J improved
Meds: Adderall 30 mg Bid
Wellbutrin SR 150 mg daily
Ox: Mood dlo NOS, AOHD, inattentive type
Plan: To address mood, increase Wellbutrin to 150 mg BID. ContAdderali at current dose. Pt attended psychological
orientation, encouraged him to attend groups and counseling. Pt would benefit from therapy addressing his social skills,
interpersonal difficulties. Supportive therapy provided today. E.Stepanova, MD
1256


. . Duration: 15
Episode: 8" NNAMHS OP Counseling Adult
Note: Client's mother, Mary Barker (telephone numbers: 747-4346, cell: 722-8772) telephoned and left a voice mail message that
client was in custody for six months, maybe longer, and that he had asked her to cancel his next appointment with me and
with Dr. Stepanova. She also expressed concern that client not receive Adderall while incarcerated.
I forwarded the voice mail message to the Medication Clinic director.
I called Ms. Barker and said that I could neither acknowledge nor deny client was my client. Ms. Barker again expressed her
concerns about her son. I suggested that he could probably sign the relevant Authorization for the Release of Information to
permit the jail to communicate with Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services.

Note: No Show
Duration: 5


Duration: 5
Svc Code: 920 Date of Group Svc: 10/1812013
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Friday, October 18, 2013:
DATA:
Client telephoned earlier and left a voice mail message to cancel today's appointment.
Client telephoned again and we set an appointment for 11.15.13 9am.

Note: No Show
Duration: 5


Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Friday, September 27, 2013:
DATA:
Client telephoned at the time of his apPointment to say that his car would not start. We reset his apPointment to 10.18.13
9am.

Duration: 10
Note: I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call to reset his appointment and suggesting that we meet
9.27.13 at9am.
Client telephoned and we agreed on that appointment.
Bill Jackson, PhD., Psychologis~ 688-2074
1257


Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, September 09,2013:
DATA:
Client telephoned earlier and left a voice mail message to cancel today's appointment secondary to illness.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call and setting a tentative new appointment for 9.26.13
10am.

Duration: 60
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, August 12, 2013:
DATA:
Observed behavior: Talkative; unkempt; wearing an inside-out shirt again.
We began discussion of client's treatment plan, clarifying that the situation is not the problem, and beginning an exploration
of the notion of a "personality disorder".
ASSESSMENT: no significant change.
PLAN: Complete treatment plan. Placement in Monday mindfulness group. Provide introduction to group therapy guidelines.
Next individual therapy session: 9.9.13 1Dam.
1258


Epi~ode: !3 - NNAMHS OP Counseling Adult
Duration: 5
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Thursday, July 11, 2013:
DATA:
Client did not appear and did not call to cancel today's appointment.
I will request that client be sent a letter requesting contact.

Duration: 30
Note: Pt reports spending 2 weeks in jail for past charges. He has several charges pending. He has been continUing to work on
his own case, not having time for anything else. He is still not working, parents pay for his housing. Pt is more inclined to
follow judges orders and not try to fight with the courts. He reports that he is more interested in the process of getting his
law license back than actually having his license. Discussed different options for employment given that he does not have a
good reputation as a lawer after multiple charges against him. He reports feeling fairly well. He has good sleep and appetite.
Mse; Pleasant, cooperative, good grooming and hygiene. Speech is RRR, coherent, linear. Mood is "good', affect is full,
congruent, appropriate. Denies SIIIIP, no psychotic sx. No Hl/lIp. IIJ is fair.
Meds: Adderall30 mg BID
Wellbutrin SR 150 mg BID
Plan: Cont current meds. Cont individual therapy (pt states he is going monthly). Recommended to increase frequency of
visits, if possible. Recommended to start a routine of exercising. Also, pt needs to find a job and start earning money,
discussed several legal possibilities. RTC in 1 month. E.Stepanova, MD

Duration: 60
Note: Regarding individual therapy on Monday, June 24,2013:
DATA:
Observed behavior: talkative, restrained. Client presented a lot of information about his chaotic, conflict-filled life.
We began Outpatient Psychological Evaluation, MR204.
Client reports:
"My life's just kind of been a disaster zone," for t.wo years. "Just not getting along with people&."
was delayed.
I introduced client to mindfulness meditation.
ASSESSMENT: Diagnosis deferred.
PLAN: continued assessment. Complete treatment plan, MR204 etc. Placement in group. Provide introduction to group
therapy guidelines. Next individual therapy session: 7.11.13 11 am.
1259


Duration: 60

1260


Note:
Regarding individual therapy on Friday, July 26,2013:

DATA:
Oos9r'1ed oehaVior: wearing goif shirt inside bUt. Disheveled.
We continued Outpatient Psychological Evaluation, MR204.
Client reports: he had two court dates since we last met. He turned down a plea oargain for one. One arrest is on YouTuoe.
He spent some time with his family, "and that's oeen good."
"My schedule is all messed up. I just woke up&. in this screwed up rush to get things done."
This electronic progress note is suomitted oy William S. Jackson, PhD (telephone 688-2074) in place of the paper form,
Nevada Mental Health Institute Outpatient Psychological Evaluation, MR 204. This information was gathered on Monday,
June 24, and Friday, July 26,2013.
1. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Client descrioed himself as a 36-year-old, single, childless, Caucasian, heterosexual man.
2. REFERRAL SOURCE
Self.
3. PRESENTING PROBLEM
''I've oeen fired a lot in my life." "I've had so much antagonism in my life&. [I think] it's a by-product of' depression and
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, etc., perhaps a form of release from other distress. "But I've oeen a troubled
as an attomey was delayed.
May, 2009: fired from legal position. Client went on unemployment oenefits; he said that he was "&Lashing out at family,"
engaged in heated arguments with girlfriend, almost daily.
May, 2011 unemployment benefits ran out.
May 2011: break-up after four years living together.
June, July, and August, 2011: rent not paid for home and law office, combined in same oUilding. Contention over
landscapers damaging his personal property.
August 2011: "I went off my medications abruptly in August." Client said that he went off medications (used for over a
decade: Adderall and Wellbutrin).
August 20, 2011: was arrested for petty larceny secondary to cell phone possession.
September 9, 2011: "I was convicted of shoplifting," some cough drops with DXM.
November 1,2011: client was evicted from home and law office, comoined in same building. Eviction was started in August
2011.
November 13, 2011: June, 2012: attorney license (since 2005) was suspended.
September, 2011:
April 2012: Back on Adderall.
April, 2013: Back on Doth medications.
May 7-24, 2012: briefly in Mental Health Court. Ejected for being on Adderall.
Relationship of 4 years ended 6 weeks before that, and he couldn't afford his medications. And stole again a few weeks
later. Jailed on petty larceny charge. Was arrested for trespass at his former law office. Since August 2011 client has been
incarcerated 18 times, evicted 10 times, etc.
Client was arrested the day we last talked for not obeying a bailiff. Client has developed antagonism with Reno Justice
Court, conflicts with WCSO re lock-out orders.
"I'm out of money. I'm pretty exhausted." Client has a large negative internet presence.
"I had a protection order hearing this morning."
Medications now? Wellbutrin 300 mg daily, and Adderall, 30 mg bid; this dose has been the same for about three years.
4. HISTORY OF IMPAIRMENT (include medical and substance aouse history)
1261

Entered During the Period: 01101/2011 - 06/17/2014

History of presenting problem:
Medical history: "I think it's pretty good."
Surgery: denied.
Fractures: fingers: bike fall.
Seizures: "I think as a baby I did."
Loss of consciousness: denied.
Substance abuse:
Last use of substances:
Caffeine: yesterday; less than two cups of coffee daily.
Tobacco: over 7 years ago; first use in 20s. smoked less than daily for five years.
Alcohol: over 7 years ago; first use in late teens; denied daily use. Stopped "just to simplify things."
Marijuana: "If I have ever smoked marijuana, it would be over 7 years ago;"
Methamphetamine: denied.
Cocaine: denied.
Opiates: denied.
Hallucinogens: denied. "Never, and/or, over 7 years ago;"
Inhalants:denied.
Steroids: denied.
Prescription Abuse: "I don't think so." He said that he ran out early.
OTC abuse: "They said I shoplifted cough medicine."
Gambling: denied.
5. OTHER IMPORTANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Friday, July 26, 2013: "I've seen this movie before."
Client said that he has been burgled by the Washoe County Sheriff three times.
6. MENTAL STATUS (include attitude, general behavior, affect, stream of mental activity, perception, estimate of
abstraction, orientation, memory, and judgment)
Attitude: "I like what I'm doing sometimes, which is scary." Client described his attitude as trying to make the best of things,
but in the process sometimes making things worse. He said that he is vulnerable to depression if he does not stay busy.
Sleep: disrupted.
Appetite: "it's good."
Client appeared fully oriented.
Memory: "it's pretty good."
Judgment: distorted. "I'm probably still too impulsive." For example filing something without proof-reading it, but "I'm anxious
to get some of this out there before they attest me again&."
Affect: somber to bemused.
7. STRENGTHS (descriptive, not interpretive, strengths such as knowledge, interests, skills, aptitudes, experience,
educational status, which may be useful in developing a meaningful treatment plan)
"I think I can tell when people are saying something by not saying something." "I can get a sense of whether somebody is
engaged in what they do." "I'm not sure I have any strengths. People say I can write, but then my writing just gets me in
trouble," as does client's persistence.
8. HOPE FACTORS (what motivates the person to go on living?)
"Love for my family, probably." "Just an innate appreciation for life&. My nieces and nephew." "& Wanting to have my own
family."
9. QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS (what is missing in the person's life right now that would make the person's life more
1262


enjoyable?)
"Probably love." "Probably more of a place in society."
10. INSIGHT INTO EMOTIONAL DYNAMICS (does person have some understanding of his/her problem?)
"Probably by sensing what people are predisposed to feeling about me or towards me&. And then not going out of my way
to disprove that&. [allowing me to] feel superior to them&. [which] engenders animosity between the two of us."
11. BARRIERS TO TREATMENT
"I'm just too scattered&. Doing a marathon hundred yard dash."
12. DIAGNOSIS
Axis I: 296.90 Mood disorder not otherwise specified.
Axis II: 301.9 Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.
Housing problems
Economic problems
Problems with access to health services
Axis V: Current GAF: 55; 0; O.
DISPOSITION AND PLAN FOR INTERVENTION
Individual and group therapy.
ASSESSMENT: above
PLAN: Complete treatment plan. Placement in group. Provide introduction to group therapy guidelines. Next individual
therapy session: 8.12.13 1Dam

Duration: 15
Note: Client telephoned 7.13.13 and left a voice mail message apologizing for his missed appointment and confirming 7.26.13
10am.

Duration: 15
Note: Client telephoned and left a voice mail message that he could not find his appointment information, and asking me to call.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message that he had missed the appointment yesterday, and tentatively setting
another for 7.26.13 10am, and asking client to call to confirm that.
1263
Progress Notes for CQUGHLlN,ZACHARY 8


Duration: 30

1264


Note:
DPBH MEDICATION CLINIC PRESCRIBER SERVICES

Progress Note/Plan of Care
DATA/DESCRIPTION: 5/8/14/ minutes 30 min Billing Code: 99213
Vitals Reviewed: yes
Current psychotropic/nonpsychotropiclover-the-counter medications:
Adderall 30 mg BID
Adherence to treatment: Yes, per client report
Response to current medications: good
Side Effects:
denies
HISTORY:
Family Member/Other Supporter Involved in Session:no
CC: inability to function
HPI: Pt continues to have significant difficulty functioning. He was in jail for 6 months for past charges, where he did not get
is Adderall. He had a difficult time functioning and was not able to concentrate and work on his case. He stated that he is
now taking responsibility for his behavior and alienating people. He is trying to work on rescuing some of the relationships
that he ruined by his behavior. However, he continues to be involved with several lawsuits and does not understand why
people from these companies would not hire him back.
On 5/13/2014 spoke with Paul Elcano, who is pts prior employer. He reported that Zach has not been stable in a long time.
He would speak nice to Paul one day and would be verbally aggressive the next day. He was verbally aggressive to Paul
last week and Paul would not talk to Zach in person. No information about Zach was related to Paul since he did not sign
release of information form.
Pertinent medical history: denies
ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
Affect: Appropriate
Appearance: Casually dressed,
Approach: Cooperative
Behavior: Engaged
Eye Contact: Appropriate
InSight: Fair
Judgment: fair
Language: Appropriate
Memory: WNL
Mood: good
Orientation: X3
Motor Activity:wnl
EPSlTardive Dyskinesia: none
Speech: WNL
Thought Content: No noted thought disorder
Delusions: denies
Hallucinations: denies
Suicidal Ideations: denies
Homicidal Ideations: denies
Aggressive Ideations: denies
Obsessions: denies
Diagnosis: ADHD
PLAN OF CARE:
Medications: Cont current medications
Risk/Benefits/Side Effects/Alternatives to proposed treatment discussed with client and Medication Consent Form signed.
Provided 30 day supply of current medications with 2 refills.
Potential impact of drug and alcohol use on psychiatric symptoms discussed with client.
Interactions of street drugs and alcohol with prescribed treatment discussed with client.
Safety plan discussed with client and emergency contact numbers provided.
Labs: Ordered
1265
Progress Notes for CQUGHLlN,ZACHARY 8


Done
Results discussed with client Yes
Discussed need to present to clinic/urgent care/ER prior to follow-up appointment if symptoms worsen or side effects
appear.
Referral to/Continue with AAlNA/drug and ETOH rehab/co-occurring disorders program (resources information provided).
Diet and exercise discussed with client.
Sleep hygiene discussed with client.
Avoiding caffeine intake and smoking discussed with client.
Adequate hydration and sunscreen discussed with client.
Follow-up with PCP and/or dental services (resources information provided).
Ekaterina Stepanova, MD, PhD

Duration: 5
Note: Client telephoned and we set an appointment for 5.15.14 11 am.

n by: NN - BILL JACKSON, PHD at 02:05 PM
: 9 - NNAMHS OP Counseling Adult
Duration: 5
I telephoned client and heard only a recorded female voice speaking the message: "Good-Bye."
I telephoned client again and heard only a recorded female voice speaking the message: "Have a nice day!" followed by a
tone, after which I (think I) left a voicemail message asking client to call.

Duration: 5

Duration: 0
Note: April 21, 2014: Client telephoned and left a voice mail message asking me to call. He said that he had been released after 5
months incarceration and was interested in continuing therapy.
I telephoned client and left a voice mail message asking client to call.

Duration: 10
Note: Discharge Note:
According to client's mother, client has been incarcerated and will not return for services for at least six months; he is now
discharged from outpatient Psychological Services.
William S. Jackson, PhD, Psychologist, 688-2074
Written: 11/12/2013
1266


Housing problems
Economic problems
Duration: 60
Note: D. Individual session at NNAMHS. Confidentiality risks and benefits of services were reviewed. Explored previous therapy
and what aspects client would like to continue in current tx. Client talked about propensity to
dominatelmanipulateladversarial position and developed historical hx of same and explored consequences to behavior.
Concepts of Transactional Analysis, CBT and ACT were reviewed.
A. Depressive dlo, ADHD by hx. Stage of life issues.
P. Individual session in 1 week. Monitor mood; increase future orientation and behavioral activation to move toward goals.
Tpittenger psyd

Duration: 5
Note: I telephoned client and left a voice mail message that he had been transferred to the care of Dr. Pittenger.

Duration: 15
Note: D. Additional call to client at alternate number. left additional message to call regarding initiating services @ 775 338
5334. tpittenger psyd

Duration: 30
Note: D. Reviewed file; attempted call to client and left detailed message advising of client transfer and requesting call to set up
initial apt. A. psychotherapy P. transfer client tpittenger, psyd

Written by: NN - BILL JACKSON, PHD at 10:47AM
Duration: 60
Note: I consulted 5.7.14 with colleagues about this client in a general way in light of the fact that I know his mother and stepfather.
I consulted 5.15.14 more particularly with Doctors Diss and Corpue!.
Regarding individual therapy on Thursday, May 15, 2014:
DATA: client was talkative; even-mannered; reflective; and, given enough rein, prone to meandering into legal territory and
self-defense.
We reviewed: client's status as a client; a third-party relationship that raised the prospect of a dual relationship likely to
influence therapy (I know client's mother and stepfather.); and, the prospect of transfer to another therapist. We agreed that
I will seek to transfer client at the next departmental staffing.
Client said that he experiences himself now as more resilient, less drawn to interpersonal conflict. He aims to seek
reinstatement after his two-year suspension. He asked me for a letter of support in that regard, "Or just something saying
I'm getting treatment."
We completed a Suicide Risk Assessment.
ASSESSMENT: client appears more hopeful than when I saw him last in August, 2013.
PLAN: transfer to a colleague for continued assessment and treatment. Next individual therapy session: not set.
1267
2
3
Jun 06 2014 08:54 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
4
5
7
8
INRE:
9
Case 62337
11
12
13
OPPOSITION TO SBN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER OF MAY 16, 2014.
14
15
16
BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby requests permission to file this Opposition to the SBN's
17
6/3114 Response and apprise this court of his Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10) in
18
65587.
19
20
FACTS:
21
22
trespass. FHE 12 and 13 simply were not admitted and King's splatter paint shot gun carpet bombing
23
24
25
26
answer or response, and therefore, the SBN's Complaint could be deemed "evidence". Indeed, the
27
Panel's 12114/12 Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law" points to nothing beyond the Complaint
28
1268
hostilelbiased witness Richard G. Hill, Esq. that there existed any criminal trespass conviction. So
5
6
7
8
9
convictions exist.
evidence at the formal disciplinary hearing of 11114112. And King got 5.5 hours to put on his case
10
Judge Holmes, Richard G. Hill, Esq., etc. in Coughlin's case in chief, and denying Coughlin any
11
12
time, much less the purportedly order "fifteen minutes per side" to conduct a cross-examination of
13
14
Coughlin.
15
So, the SBN's OBC must be held to what it proved, and what it did not prove. As such,
16
17
18
19

It is important to note that Coughlin's protected Fourteenth Amendment property right, his
20
21
temporary suspension pursuant to SCR 111 (6). To be clear, the "disciplinary board" never filed an
22
SCR 102 petition to obtain a temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license, and, necessarily,
23
24
Coughlin never received any pre-deprivation hearing connected thereto. Further, neither the SBN's
25
26
formal disciplinary hearing ever moved to continue Coughlin's temporary suspension (from 60838)
27
28
1269
Well, unless one counts King's writing at page 6: 1-3 of his Complaint: " ... 3. That pursuant
Board against Respondent as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances." Of course, SCR
102 does not allow for a disciplinary board, much less this Panel 1, to enter temporary orders of
5
6
suspension. That's because a law license is important.. .and not just to the attorney .. .it (and the
attorney's possessing them) are important to the public. Making law licenses too easily suspended
10
NNDB Members Hill, Kandaras, and Hahn2/WLS's E1cano, the well paid Reno City Attorney's
11
12
13
own then you get what we have here ... the Reno City Attorney's Office running to the SBN to co-sign
14
15
neglected to even trot out when she viewed Coughlin as opposing counsel. . .interestingly) with
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Coughlin did not steal any "candy bar and some cough drops" from Walmart (though it would
23
24
certainly be easier and more convenient for Coughlin to now lie and assert that he did steal such ... ),
25
26
Attorney's Office keep trying to legislate away NRS 189.030(1) (which can not be done given
27
Nevada's Constitution expressly imbued the Legislature with the exclusive authority to enact
28
1270
procedural rules (or appeals (rom justice and municipal court's of record to the district courts in
Art 6. Sec. 8.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
AMJUR Courts: However, where the <;onflict is irresolvable, a procedural rule

generally prevails over a statute on procedure,[FN21 absent a constitutional provision
decisions. [FN7]
783,875 S.W.2D 492 (1994); Haven Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2D 730
(Miss. 1992); Williams v. Cummings, 191 W. Va. 370,445 S.E.2D 757 (1994). [FN3] Stokes
(Miss. 1992).
843, Providing (or the preparation o(transcripts in criminal cases and their filing with the
statute purported to regulate time (or filing transcripts and securing trial court's ruling on
their effects, the act o(the Legislature prevailed. Supreme Court Rules, rule 48, Code 1940,
Tit. 7Appendix; Code 1940, Tit. 7, 827(1) Et seq., 827(IA), 827(4).
provision respecting time (or filing transcript by adoption ofinconsistent rule. Const.
110; Ky.St. 949; Cr. Code Prac. 336.
Further, even ifNRAP did apply here (it does not), due to the provision N.R.S. Const. Art. 6,
20
8, there is a constitutional provision prohibiting even NRAP from overriding NRS 189.030(1)'s
21
22
requirment that the justice file the transcript with the district court: * 8. Number, qualifications,
23
terms of office and jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace; appeals; Courts of Record ... The
24
25
26
27
28
supreme court cannot contradict the state constitution by court rule. [FN9] The court also
may not promulgate rules in order to diminish constitutional rights,[FNI0] A trial court is
1271
1
2
3
4
5
Constitution or case law. Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4Th 1337,63 Cal. Rptr. 3D 483,
163 P.3D 160 (2007).
836 P.2D 212 (1992).
6
7
Coughlin filed Motions to Dismiss the SBN's Complaint at issue in 62337 based on lack of
Complaint plainly denying. under oath. each and every allegation in King's 26 (sic ... such skips
10
11
Validity and construction ofprocedures to temporarily suspend attorney from practice, or

12
13
14
15
16
A.L.R.4th 136. 3
Further, RMC Judge Howard failed to fmd that Coughlin possessed any intent to commit
17
18
19
20
requisite specific intent was not proven. Further, SCR 111 (6) and Sloan seem to contemplate that the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin filed his Brief on 3/14114. The SBN's Answering Brief was due 4114/14. The SBN has
1272
matter, filed the SBN's Response on 6/3/14, and at many points therein admits he lacks much in the
5
6
7
8
9
For instance, the SBN's 6/3/14 Response reads: "Coughlin's claim that his conviction (as to
10
have known o(its talsity when he filed his notice on April 22, 2014."
11
12
Actually, Coughlin's Notice of Appeal clearly appealed both the 11/30/11 Judgment of
13
Conviction and Court Order as well as the 11130/11 Order Punishing Summary Contempt.4 Such
14
15
client. As such, Pengilly's mandate that any challenge to such a contempt order by a sanctioned
16
17
18
19
20
21
Machado does not even seem to be aware of the fact that Judge Elliott merely affmned "the
ruling" . .. which even RCA Sooudi admitted to Coughlin he was unsure whether such was in
22
23
24
25
judge would remand "for all further proceedings" (plural) if, consistent with Sooudi's contention,
26
27
had no answer for the fact that NRAP I clearly spells out that NRAP only applies to appeals to the
28
1273
Nevada Supreme Court ... which makes rather puzzlingly the district court judges' later 8/27/12 Order
claiming he was divested of jurisdiction to even address Coughlin's NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing.
(The SBN's 6/3/14 Response indicates: "Further. Coughlin moved (or a new trial. but the
5
6
Denying Appellant's Motionfor a New Trial are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.")
Coughlin filed a timely functional equivalent of an NRAP 40 Petition for Rehearing 5 (arguing
court judge then refused to adjudicate, indicating in his 8/27/12 Order6 denying such that: "On March
10
15,2012, this Court entered an Order denying the Appeal and affirming the decision of the Municipal
11
12
Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case and the Appellant's Motion (or New
13
Trial is moot". However, NRAP 40 provides that Coughlin is to have 18 days to file such after any
14
15
time. Judge Elliott, after all, invoked NRAP 28,30, and 32 in affirming the ruling of the RMC. 7
16
"A loose but apt analogy may be found in our criminal practice. A Rule 59(e) motion is the
17
18
19
20
21
functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial or. on appeal. of a petition (or rehearing." Bruce
v. 2. Bruce, 587 So. 2d 898,903 (Miss. 1991.

A case from Utah, Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097 {Utah 2012)8 is instructive here,
especially where Utah's Rules of Appellate Procedure parallel NRAP 1 in specifying the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1274
5
~~~
k. Jurisdiction and proceedings of appellate court after remand.
10

11
12
13
14
15
is not clear which "ruling" it was affmning (The Judgment of Conviction? The Order Punishing
16
Summary Contempt?
17
18
http://www.scribd.comldoc/225900173/2JDC-Judge-Polaha-on-NRS-189-030-1-RM CMust-File-Transcript-Prior-to-Payment-by-Defendant-s
19
Further, compare Judge Elliott's "Order Affirming the Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court
20
21
in Coughlin's case in CRll-2064 (where Elliott's Order is not clear as to whether it is affmning the
22
23
some other ruling), to Judge Elliott's standard phraseology in the following, where the term
24
"conviction" is specified and where there is no remand "for all further proceedings" as there is in
25
his 3/15/12 Order in Coughlin's case, where the RMC failed to file the transcript as required by NRS
26
189.030(1), which requires a remand pursuant to NRS 189.035"

27
28
1275
http://www.scribd.comldoc/225900174/2JDC-Judge-Elliott-Order-Affirming-Appellants-Conviction-Compare-to-CRll-2064-0rder-Affirming-Ruling-of-the-RMC
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
It is real clear from the plain text ofNRS 189.030(1) that the justice (or municipal court judge
for such up front:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22590 1665ILegislative-history-NRS-189-030-1-189-050-SB2671979-2064-22176-60838-ocr
http://www.scribd.com/doc1225900 171INRS-189-030-1-2JDC-Judge-Flanagan-ApplyingCivil-Rules-of-Procedure-to-Excuse-RMC-s-Failure-to-File-Transcript
Its pretty, uh, interesting to consider that Judge Elliott failed to recuse himself (much less
even divulge his being the President ofWLS's co-defendant CAAW's Executive BoardlO) where
presiding over Coughlin's wrongful termination suit in CVll-O 1955 (see 60317), when considering
the view of Elliott's 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC the Reno City Attorney and
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900 172/2JDC-Judge-Elliott-Order-Granting-Motion-toDismiss-Without-Prejudice-NRS-189-030-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225900 176lRCA-Hazlett-Stevens-RPC-3-1-Violation-Re-NRS189-030-1-Transcript-Reguirement-Citing-Mitchell-and-NRAP-9
The OBC's Machado also writes: "The court order relied upon by Coughlin is titled "Order
Affirming Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court. " See Exhibit 1. The district court, on page 3 of this
for all fUrther proceedings. "
Actually, that is not true. Far from it. Nothing "specific" to the "finding" of one being "guilty
of Petit Larceny" compared to the "ruling" found in the municipal court judge's "Order Punishing
Summary Contempt". Here is what page 3 (emphasis added) of such order actually reads in its
entirety (nothing specific to a "Judgment of Conviction and Court Order" compared to an "Order
Punishing Summary Contempt" about it ... ):
"his burden in providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affIrm
the ruling ofthe Reno Municipal Court. fill NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
proceedings. Dated this 15th day of March, 2012 Is/ Steven P. Elliott District Judge
appellate record is incomplete. )"
Interestingly, the OBC's Machado then slips up and adopts the "dismissed" terminology
himself: "In summary, Coughlin's criminal conviction for theft which formed the basis for the SCR
1276
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
mislead this Court bv claiming otherwise ... " whilst elsewhere claiming ineffectual the 4/8/14 Order
of Dismissal by Judge Holmes in the "criminal contempt" case (11 TR 26800 from which Machado
attaches the 3/12/12 Order as an exhibit to his 6/3/14 Response) forming the heart of the SBN's SCR
105 Complaint (or, at least, certainly, the heart ofth~Panel's "RecoIlllIlendation", which find~ at
most one actual RPC violation (RPC 3.3(a)(I) at R1362:18-23, and, perhaps, a quasi RPC 8.4(c)
violation at R1367:11-12 stemming from the exact same alleged conduct). "The entire case was
dismissed on March 29. 2013. as reflected in the Order of Dismissal dated April 7. 2014. See
Exhibit 7."
Machado continues: "As noted above, Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 2680021,
which concerned (rafflc violations, was dismissed. The matter was also considered b the hearin
panel. However, the panel's findings reflected a concern over Coughlin's behavio at the trial (or
the matter. not the underlying charges themselves. See Exhibit 10 at 3-5. These concerns included
Coughlin being (ound in contempt of court and being incarcerated (or five (5) dayS. See id. at 3-4 TT 78; see also Exhibit 11. Order. tiled March 12. 2012. The hearing panel also noted that Coughlin filed
bizarre, dishonest, irrational and disruptive .... " See Exhibit 10 at 4-5 TT 10-11.
The dismissal oUhe charges in Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 26800 21 did not
Municipal Court Case No. 1126800 21.
1Z
The OBC's prosecutor appears to want nothing to do with explaining how the "dismissal " of
14
15
the case/conviction at issue in its fellow prosecutor Beckett's case is any different than the dismissal
16
of the case/"convictions" at issue in the two 4/8/14 Orders of Dismissal entered by Judge Holmes
17
attached to Coughlin's 4/22/13 Notice (which resulted in this Court's 5/16/14 Order requiring the
18
19
rules for themselves (such as RCA Sooudi et al being permitted to constantly violate RPC 3,1 what
20
21
22
23
of the City of Reno's judges on the Reno Municipal Court bench to obey NRS 189.030(1) with
24
respect to the requirement that "the justice" "shall" file the transcripts within 10 days of the filing of a
25
notice of appeal.
26
27
28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. Mr. Beckett's case/conviction
10
1277
was dismissed on 11211 11. On 2114111 Beckett filed Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR
111 (l 0). Mr. Beckett's law license was reinstated six weeks later by an Order Granting Petition for
5
under SCR 111 (l0), as the 4/4/11 Order in such case held:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ItSCR 111(10) gives us discretion to reinstate an attorney whose underlying conviction has
Bar No. 3383, is hereby reinstated to the practice oflaw pending the outcome of his
disciplinary proceedings. It
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(The RMC Judges rather consistently ignore notices of appeal too ... which goes against, at least, that
13
1979 Atty Gen. Adv. Op ... :
RCA Sooudi tried to sell to Coughlin (ie, that the case in which Holmes issued a "criminal contempt
conviction" against Coughlin was dismissed on 3/29/13). A close look at that one sentence Order of
Dismissal of 4/8/14 reveals absolutely no mention of such "case" having been "dismissed" on
"March 29,2013". Additionally, a simple look at the "docket" from such case reveals nothing about
a "dismissal" on 3/29/13, but, rather, merely notates that the "active bond" that was the $100.00
Coughlin's mother testified t0 14 the RMC having taken but then having failed to release Coughlin a
day early, as having been "exonerated".
Further, not that it has any real relevance here, but the SBN ought be made to have WLS's
Elcano and the Reno City Attorney's Office's Sooudi sign affidavits rather than attach emails that the
Respectfully submitted DATED this 6/6114
28
11
1278

Nevada Bar No 9473
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NY 89512
Tel and Fax: 9496677402
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CERTIFICATEIDECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN PURSUANT TO

SCR 111(10)
STATE OF NEVADA)
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHOE)
and says under penalty of peIjury and certifies the following is true and correct:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
1279
3
4
5
lsi Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 . and you get those whom are contracted to provide access to legal tools to those whom are
much ... and you get the SherifflWCDAlRCAlRJC/RMC ignoring the fact that the Legislature
requires the passing of "24 hours" per NRS 40.253 from the tenant's receipt of a summary eviction
removal order prior to the Sheriff conducting a lockout, and you get judges like the RMC's Howard
willfully violating ADKT 411 in denying indigent defendant's counsel, ruling on such applications
whilst being the presiding judge, refusing to obey the requirement ofNRS 189.030(1) that "the
justice" file the transcript with the district court within 10 days of a notice of appeal being filed ... and
you get judges like the RMC's Howard and W. Gardner violating NRS 178.415's mandatory stay
(which the SBN laughably interprets to somehow support its contention that the trespass "conviction"
unclear how Judge W. Gardner could know such was a "clerical error"? Certainly, the municipal and
justice court judges step in for one another from time to time on each other's cases (see RJC Judge
Clifton's having RCR2012-065630 transferred to him from Judge Lynch on 2/27/12, or RMC 12 CR
Final Decree of Divorce) "sanction" against Coughlin by his sister without telling Judge Holmes that
http://www.scribd.comldoc/228404516/6-19-09-0204-6233 7-Ocrd-O 1955-0 1168-FOFCOLDODFinal-Order-or-Decree-of-Divorce-in-Joshi-O 1168-0verrides-FHE3-4-13-09-0rd
Proposed Final Decree of Divorce that included the attorney fee "sanction":
http://www.scribd.comldoc/228404700/5-21-09-0204-0 1168-Springgate-s-Reg-for-Submission-andProposed-Order-That-Was-Entered-Vitiating-the-Order-of-4-1 0-09
13
1280
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
alimony Coughlin was allegedly vexatious in pursuing in the fIrst place.

More likely, Judge Holmes was moved by Coughlin's taking responsibility in his fIlings (a
few weeks prior to Judge Holmes entering the two 4/8114 Orders vacating the criminal trespass
conviction the Panel was "apparently" referencing at page 20 of its "Recommendation") andJill
orders stemming from the traffic citation case that begat a criminal contempt "conviction" (and,
despite Asst. Bar Counsel Machado's contentions (however uninformed and recklessly made), the
Panel refused to admit any evidence with respect to Coughlin's conduct at such 2127112 trial (which
begat the two orders the SBN's references in its Response), as the Panel applied SCR 111 (5) to "in
essence, a conviction" while insisting that Coughlin would not be permitted to "relitigate" such
issues in both the traffic case from which the two orders the SBN's 6/3/14 Response references and
thus Asst. Bar Counsel Machado's "apparently" caveat).
The price for the SBN's scattershot approach at such formal disciplinary hearing and the Panel's
and 13 were not even admitted. The SBN's 6/3/14 Response was forced to
"SCR Rule 102. Types of discipline. Misconduct is grounds for: 4. Temporary suspension by the
supreme court.... (4)(a) On the petition of a disciplinary board, signed by its chair or vice chair,
may order, with notice as the court may prescribe, the attorney's immediate temporary suspension or
may impose other conditions upon the attorney's practice.
Esq. 's fIve page unsigned, unsworn emailed "grievance" to the SBN to even put such into evidence as
together ... ) http://www.scribd.com/doc/22839628011-14-12-623 37-is-This-NNDB-MemberRichard-G-Hill-Esq-s-Grievance-Unsigned-Unsworn-the-SBN-Was-Too-Embarassed-by-to-Put-inEvidence? Who knows?
disciplinary hea.ring, nor with any respect to 62337. Nonetheless, the Panel's "Recommendation"
(which is not titled a "Recommendation" and, as such, fails to vest this Court with jurisdiction under
SCR 105(3) even more than the fact that the SBN's Clerk of Court Laura Peters has admitted that she
refused to and failed to "fIle in" Coughlin's "tolling" motions, which were timely submitted to the
SBN).
Regardless of the fact that SCR 102 requires the "disciplinary board" to fIle a "petition" and obtain
an order for such from "the supreme court', the Panel was undeterred by such due process
annoyances, and in its "Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law" (which, again, is not titled a
"Recommendation") at page 22 recommends "(2) That his temporary suspension be continued
pending final resolution ofthis matter."
ruling that the SCR 111 (8) hearing mandated by such rule and this Court's 6/7/12 Order referring
"this matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for the institution of a formal hearing before a
14
1281
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
imposed" was to be "consolidated" and or "combined" with the "formal disciplinary proceedings"
went so far as to "order" SBN Clerk of Court to vacate the already scheduled, noticed, and "on
calendar" 9/25/12 formal hearing to be held in response to this Court's 6/7/12 SCR 111(8) mandate in
60838.
The combining of such "formal hearing" (and, necessarily, the adjudication to follow therefrom)
required by SCR 111 (8) in connection with the temporary suspension of Coughlin's law license and
Coughlin's protected Fourteenth Amendment property right (license to practice law) with no predeprivation hearing.
Simply put, this alleged conviction of petty larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" has been given
2
10/08/2013
Notice/Incoming
Filed Notice of Unimaginable Impropriety ofWCDA.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13-30110
506 F.2D 527 (8th Cir. 1974). Ind.-Matter of Murray, 266 Ind. 221, 362 N.E.2D 128 (1977). Va.Maddy v. First Dist. Committee of Virginia State Bar, 205 Va. 652, 139 S.E.2D 56 (1964). Kan.Knutson Mortg. Corp. V Coleman, 24 Kan. App. 2D 650, 951 P.2D 548 (1997).
Criminal activity-Temporary suspension not appropriate
15
1282
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
violation of the regul(;ltioll. Noting that no intent of any kind was required in order to be convicted
components ofthe definition ofa serious crime relevant to this case all involved intentional acts,
such as fraud and deceit, and intent was not a necessary element ofthe crime (or which the
attorney was convicted, his offense could not be deemed a serious crime. [8]
involvement.
Failure to provide presuspension notice and opportunity to be heard-Rights of
attorney violated-generally
not based upon any judgment or finding ofthe court, and was without trial or notice to the
accused.
ofjustice. that no man could be condemned or divested of his rights until he had the opportunity of
Failure to provide presuspension notice and opportunity to be heard-As applied
16
1283
Laughlin v Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190,95 F2d 101.

2
Failure to guarantee prompt fmal disposition of charges-Rights of attorney violated
Gershenfeld v Justices of Supreme Court (1986, ED Pa) 641 F Supp 1419, ... Finding what
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
Coughlin's "Notice of Appeal, Motion to Vacate and or Set Aside, JCRCP 59, JCRCP 60,
Expense, Petition for In Forma Pauperis Status" at pages 109-114 clearly indicates he is appealing
both the 11130111 Judgment of Conviction and Court Order and the 11130111 Order for Summary
Punishment of Contempt. http://www.scribd.comJdocl2254900 10112-13-11- Final-0204-6083 8-RMC11-CR-2217 6-Notice-of-Appeal-Motion-to-Vacate-Motion-for-Reconsid-and-Motion-for-RecusalStamped-With-Exhbit-and-Pic-o See, also, page 571: "The notice of appeal does and should apply
to the Summary Contempt Order as well," http://www.scribd.comJdoc/225316199112-23-11-to-9-813-0204-62337-all-filings-except-RMCROA-from-22176-in-2064-60838-ocr
5 http://www.scribd.comJdoc/225574773/3-26-12-NRAP-40-Functional-Eguivalent-CR11-20642790430 At pages 916 to 993 of combined record.
6 That Judge Elliott 8/27112 Order reads:
"ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Presently
Amend filed by Appellant ZACH COUGHLIN ("Appellant") on March 26,2012.
Subsequently, on March 27,2012, Respondent CITY OF RENO ("Respondent") filed a
Motion to Strike Appellant's Motion for New TriaL
Following, on July 25,2012, Appellant filed a Motion to Set Aside or Vacate
Supplemental Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Conviction and or Order AfflI1lling it. On that
the decision ofthe Municipal Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case
and the Appellant's Motion (or New Trial is moot.
Trial is DENIED. DATED this 27th day of August, 2012. lSI Steven P. Elliott District Judge"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
1284
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
app~lll, case~ that had "fallen off the docket," and failure to produce transcripts fOr appellate review
judicial office into disrepute. LSA-Const. Art. 5, 25(C); Code of Jud.Conduct, Canon 3, subd. B(l),
8 LSA-R.S. In re Hunter, 2002-1975 (La. 8/19/02),823 So. 2d 325
Judge Howard willfully refuses to comply with NRS 189.030(I)'s requirement that he file the
to district court.
copy of the docket.
8 Falkner v. Lindberg, 288 P. 3d 1097 (Utah 2012): "Having analyzed supreme court
sufficient to resolve appropriate postjudgment 1 motions. Because the district court in this
or guilty plea." Bernat v. Allphin, 2005 UT 1, 8, 106 P.3d 707. The hybrid nature ofthis
appeal, it is still considered an appellate proceeding,2 see id. 25,30-32, and we therefore
"While not applicable to appeals from justice court convictions, rule 23A's criteria justifying
18
1285
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
petition.")
S However, additional case law from our supreme court suggests that there are at least
Co., 942 P.2d 305,306-07 (Utah 1996) (per curiam) (determining that a remittitur issued
certiorari" and to stay the remittitur if such a petition is filed. See Utah RApp. P. 36(a)(2).
The rules similarly instruct the su-preme court to issue remittitur" 15 days after the entry of
order disposing of the petition." Id. R 36(a)(I). See generally id. R 35(a) ("A petition for
court, unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order. "). If a case is remitted before the time
court).
jurisdiction, despite the low-er court having regained jurisdiction as a result of a re-mand .... 11
19
1286
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
on ? jurili!iiction" shO\lldnot be overinflated. Id. 9. "[T]he appellate court retains [at least]
which "override? whatever jurisdictional significance might reside within? jurisprudence
the authority to exercise jurisdiction over an appel-Iant's claim that he had not knowingly and
remitted).
the district court.
following a remand for abandonment. Although section 7SA-7 -11S(S) of the Utah Code
Utah Code Ann. 7SA-7-l1S(S) (Supp.2012), the provision in the Utah Rules of Criminal
loses jurisdiction.
within 30 days after the entry of the fmal decision by the Court of Ap-peals," id. R. 4S(a).
Thus, jurisdiction may be appropriate-Iy returned to the district court following appeal thirtyone days after the court of appeals makes its final deci-sion. Judge Lindberg asserts that,
decision is made."
20
1287
204 P.3d 189 (suggesting that rule 23A ofthe Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure might serve
the supreme court is directed to remit a case a mere fifteen days after a fmal decision,
IV. The District Court Exceeded Its Discretion When It Denied the Motion to Reinstate
Rule 23Aprovides that "[a]n appeal dismissed for failure to take a step other than the timely
(2012).
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
http://www.scribd.comldoc/228407213/Judge-Steven-Elliott-Bio-0204-0376-Caaw-cvll-0195560317-cr12-1262-cr11-2064-cr12-0376-ie
10

06102/2014 Motion Permission to File Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release Under
Seal.
14-17671
Also, Judge Elliott dismissed Coughlin's suit on the grounds that Coughlin failed to effect
WLS et al tolling the rurming of such time period. Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 614 F.
Supp. 87, 92 (S.D. Ohio 1985).
See Geiger v. Allen, 850 F.2d 330,333 (7th Cir. 1988) ("Of course, the 120-day period was
21
1288
141767
2
3
4
5
any number of filings, including WLS's Motion to Quash from 9/2011, as such, Elliott's 12/8/11 and
various 1/13/12 orders are void for lack of jurisdiction: 62B Am. JUI. 2D Process 111 The 120-day
court has taken action on the motion. Brown v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 614 F. Supp. 87
allowed as a matter of course. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2D 1509, 11 Fed. R. Servo 3D 1505 (5th Cir.
1988).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 (NOTE: actually, no, the Panel did not consider such conduct, but, rather, applied an offensive
drawn from such since vacated 2/28/12 summary contempt order (allegedly a "criminal contempt
conviction" sufficient to invoke SCR 111 (5) despite no SCR 111 Petition ever being filed) ... and
despite Coughlin s notices of appeal of such going stricken and or ignored) and such since vacated
Holmes (and the allegedly troubling filings submitted via facsimile) into evidence at the 11114/12
(despite the fact the SBN never made such an argument itself. .. see Transcript of 11114/12 formal
going to entertain an inquiry into the conduct ofthe trial on your trafflc citation itself. That issue
has been litigated...."
Page 225:2 to 225:9: "MR. COUGHLIN: ... this idea that a conviction is completely dispositive, he
here is the nature and extent of the punishment ... "
Pages 225:20 to 226:16): "MR. ECHEVERRIA: The supreme court, as I read its order, tells
22
1289
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
ECHEVERRIA: I'm sustaining the objection ... "
COUGHLIN: What's all this living in the basement stuffhave to do with that? Jesus. This is Richard
say that. It is relevant. Your conviction is relevant. You're trying to relitigate _-... "
Pages 180: 13 to 181:9) MR. ECHEVERRIA: Mr. King, you cited in one of your pleadings a
Page 71: 10 to 71: 18) MR. ECHEVERRIA: I believe the issue that this panel has to determine
this panel should focus on ... "
23
1290
3
4
5
6
7
that ... "
8
9
10
11
12
13
(Pages 230: 13 to 231 :5) Q Did my dad say the State Bar of Nevada's Coe Swobe kept
Stanford together, 1966? MR. KING: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: Your father told me-MR. ECHEVERRIA: Sustained. THE WITNESS: -- yes, they wanted you to settle. MR.
sustaining the objection. It's also argumentative."
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12 Rice v. Rivera, 617 FJd 802 (C.A.4.S.C.,201O) Under the statute providing the district courts of
general grant of jurisdiction over "all offenses against the laws of the United States," to entertain the
and following denial of post-conviction relief. See, also, State v. Avelar, 979 P.2d 648 Idaho, 1999.
prosecutor. People v. Morrow, 214 Mich. App. 158,542 N.W.2d 324 (1995). Judge Nash Holmes
3.3(a)(I)/8.4(c) violations) that the State Bar largely basis its attempt to irrevocably disbar Coughlin
upon.
a nolle prosequi without prejudice to a new indictment or information. Ala.-Anthony v. City of
Birmingham, 240 Ala. 167, 198 So. 449 (1940). N.H.-State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212, 72 A.2d 778
(1950). W.Va.-State v. Burke, 130 W. Va. 64,42 S.E.2d 544 (1947).
24
1291
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
jail. Similar is In Re Beckett (where an attorney (Pahrump DA) convicted ofNRS 199.280 was
deemed to have committed a "serious crime") (former Pahrump DA failed to turn over receipts to the
Treasuser.... such conviction was ultimately dismissed, resulting in Beckett's temporary suspension
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt. us/public/caseView. do ?csIID=2591 0
22[aJ Mental illness or capacity-Dismissal warranted: In the following cases, the
34[aJ Prior administrative or noncriminal adjudication of conduct
charged-Dismissal granted:
now file an SCR 111 (6) Petition should this conviction remain (resulting in another temporary
criminal charge in the interest of justice. In People v. Trucchio, 159 Misc. 2d 523,605 N.Y.S.2d 649
(Sup. Ct. 1993).
E. Merits ofthe State's Case 41[aJ Strength of prima facie case-Dismissal warranted.
338 (1974)in Nevada as "a thief cannot receive the fruit of his own larceny from himself' .
justice. In People v. Bonds, 70 Cal. App. 4th 732,83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10 (1st Dist. 1999).
42[aJ Absence of culpable mental state-Dismissal granted
N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995).
25
1292
43[a] Affirmative defenses to charge-Dismissal granted Coughlin really has quite a

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finder threatened to throw the phone in the river if it still went unclaimed. Once Finder off~red
N.Y.S.2d 354 (Sup. Ct. 1995),
25(a] De minimis harm-Dismissal warranted
on the ground that the offense caused little or no harm. The court in People v. Sales, 169 A.D .2d 411,
Ann. 2C:20-11 by concealing three pieces of bubble gum in his pocket at a grocery store. At the
time of the offense, he was a full-time college student pursuing a degree in electrical
discretion granted the assignment judge than one for the theft ofthree pieces of bubble gum.
Similarly, here, this bizarre scenario (confIrmed by hostile witnesses) of the Finder
26
1293
2
3
4
5
6
7
contributory negligencelFourth Amendment law.
The court in State v. Nevens, 197 N.J. Super. 531,485 A.2d 345 (Law Div. 1984), applied
New Jersey's de minimis statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:2-11, to overturn the defendant's conviction for
stealing fruit from a restaurant buffet. The defendant was convicted of stealing two bananas, an
orange, an apple, and a pear from a hotel restaurant. ... judge could dismiss a prosecution ifthe
person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defming the offense;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin's filings in the two matters in which the two Orders of Dismissal attached to his
void anyways. The RCA may go pursue a Writ of Mandamus against Judge Holmes, perhaps ... but
6/3/14 Response.
It would be highly inappropriate for one, Elcano to tell Coughlin's father (a Duke trained
Dayton, Ohio (1965-1968) both on the telephone and then again during a visit to Dr. Coughlin's
violence attorney at WLS, and how "lawyers are very forgiving people" and do all it could (a la In Re
1116/13 to 4/18/14 and in every one of the matters underlying such he was denied counsel in plain
temporarily suspended, and had been ruled indigent by the judges involved, so ... ) only for
Elcano/WLS to back out of such the minute itlhe got what he wanted. Whatever. Two, it would be
similarly inappropriate for the 4/8/14 Orders of Dismissal entered to all the sudden be "rescinded"
once such had the desired effect of getting Coughlin to dismiss Coughlin's appeal in
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt. us/public/caseView. do ?csIID=33044 in which Coughlin appealed
HilllMerliss being permitted to substitute in for Coughlin via Judge Stiglich's 1/7/14 Order
(apparently HilllMerliss, whom committed fraud (apparently WLS had to give them thousands of
dollars though, and HilllMerliss ought be stuck with any shortfall realized with respect to the $42,000
"prevailing party attorney fee award" the SBN tried to characterize as a "sanction" at the disciplinary
27
1294
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hearing (see FHE2) as HillJMerliss certainly would keep any windfall realized, and further, Coughlin
with Coughlin had "expired" when, plainly, by its terms ("n()t les~ than 12 months" is not the same as
"12 months" ... and the lease does not provide the landlord a no cause termination right anyways ... ),
NRS 40.253 was obeyed by they ... and an eviction order is not a criminal trespass warning,
regardless) ... see 61383 and 61901, and Hill's lying testimony at issue in 62337 with respect to
criminal trespass conviction considering the rampant violations ofNRS 178.415 committed by W.
13
OPINION NO. 79-4 Criminal Appeals From Municipal Court-NRS 189.010 and 189.020
" ... However, regardless of the nontimeliness of filing an appeal, NRS 189.030 Provides that, "The
all papers relating to the case and a certified copy of his docket." This action is not tied to the
in time. But subparagraph 2 ofNRS 189.060 Provides: If the appeal is dismissed, a copy of the order
timeliness. The district court could then reach its decision pursuant to NRS 189.060."
14
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COUGHLIN: Q Mom, did you have to buy an audio ofthe trial
with that Judge Nash Holmes? A Did I have to buy an audio? Q Yeah. Did you buy a copy ofthe
switcheroo, right?"
28
1295
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1296
eFlex
7/1412014
Horne
Notifications
Notifications for Zachary Barker Coughlin

. Delete . , Mark As Read'
Mark As Unread
[J
I.J G ..!1!;tCeLy.tHLRetYJ:rmd MillLDoc.urrl~n!.retum!~JLruli
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
64855
Jun 20 2014
Q(ger fi!ed 6116/14 affi:lre~.&JQ Zachi!IY
Q.Q.\19hUIl...",.,.
Documents:
Recei\f.)d Retumed Mail. Documents retumed per order filed 6/16114 addressed to Zachary Coughlin. Per USPS,
"retum to sender, not here". Remailed to correct address on file.
II G FiI(,lsLOrd~l' De!!yLIJ.9 Mo!i9JJkEHe CQ.r:llig.1lJ.!~ial
64855
Jun
65587
Jun 06 2014
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Jun 06 2014
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Jun 04 2014
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
162014
.!LtthUIl!lO!A9[(l.\lJ!l!1nt .!.Dfl . .RSlJ\l i'!~_I.J!!ge rSa l!h
'!'i?>--,,,,
Documents:
[J
J'!I_QtiQ.!l.Jt(i!!??!'!~mm~LfQLmll}g.Ri.f.b?!<i:L'!.ryJ!.~.r!s~J: IN RE: REINSTATEMENT

G9yg.!lUn
OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
Documents:
tJ 0
R\l$P9Jl9. t9M!Jti9!l Y!!l..$Upmitt\lf!!9Lfi!lngJl)l

Z?j;hi!ry.I2<!["~[~QlJgh!ill
Documents:
GJS~ceived.R\l.t'lmed~1liLQrd\lLfiJJHj 5/1.l14
!lddJ:!t~dJo Z',gchaaG9YJl.nlilh Or..deU!lai!ecjJ.9
inor."
Documents:
Received Returned Mail, Order flied 5/16/14 addressed to Zachary Coughlin. Order mailed to incorrect address.
Remailed to corrected address on file.
G1BJtSQ.QnseJo _Q[gJtLy!g~Ybrn!!ted for fjl i l1.9..RY

QJ.~nn.11l1lb9 do
ZACHARY COUGHLIN
62337
Jun 042014
COUGHLIN VS. LOPEZ
64855
Jun 022014
OF ZACHARY COUGHLIN
65587
May 22 2014
Documents:
G1
.REl.QQIl~JQ.MQ.t!9Jl.Jt(~$UbmitteJ;tforfjlingJ:n~
~cha!y
Barker Ctl1!9.!Jlin
Documents:
[l
Dl
J:~~j!tiQn_'tL<!s submit1;.!l~Lf9.J:JillIl9.J)LZachary
.a r~9 r CoggbJin
Documents:
https:l/eftle.msupremecourt.us/notify
1297
1/2
EXHIBIT 21
EXHIBIT 21
*
EXHIBIT
1298
2 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
)
)
)
)
OF BAR COUNSEL,
3 IN RE: ZACHARY COUGHLIN
BARNO. 9473
4
I
Case No. 60975
2 9 2014
---------------------------)
l.
In April 2014, this Court entered its Order of Referral For

8 matter, which originated with a Petition of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary
9 Board requesting that attorney Zachary Coughlin ("Coughlin"), Bar No. 9473, be
10 transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117
11 (Proceedings when an attorney is declared to be incompetent or is alleged to be
12 incapacitated).
13
2.
The Office of Bar Counsel ("OBC"), in prior status reports, informed
14 this Court that a Reno psychologist, Earl Nielsen, Ph.D. ("Dr. Nielsen"), had
15 agreed to perform a psychological evaluation upon Coughlin and provide a written
16 report to the State Bar of Nevada.

17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
~C E I V ~"(j
~
.
SEP Z9 2014
TRACIE K, LINDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME CouRT
DEPUTY _C~.~R~
1299
3.
Dr. Nielsen's report was received this week by the OBC, which is
2 attached hereto and hereby submitted to this Court for its consideration.
3
4
DATED this 25 th day of September, 2014.
5
6
7
8
9
10
STATE BAR OF NEVADA


BarNo.402i
Reno,NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
1300
2
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF BAR COUNSEL was deposited in the United State's Mail
at Reno, Nevada, postage fully pre-paid thereon for first class mail, to the following:
5
6
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E, 9th Street
Reno, NV 89505
DATED this 25 th day of September, 2014
~~e-o-f----the State Bar of Nevada
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1301
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ EARL S. NIELSEN, PHD.

September 22, 2014
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
NAME:
DATE OF BIRTH:
9/27/1976
CASE NAME:
In the Matter of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Nevada Bar #9473,

Respondent
Supreme Court of the State of Nevada
60975
COURT:
CASE NUMBER:
AGE:
37
DATES OF EVALUATION: 7/25/2014; 8/1612014; 9/20/2014

METHODS:
1. Review of records supplied by the Nevada State Bar Association and

Mr. Coughlin
2. Interview (seven hours)
3. Mental Status Examination
4. Wechsler Abbreviated Scales ofIntelligence - II
5. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - II
6. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory - III
7. Hare PCL-R (2nd Ed.)
PROBLEM HISTORY: In April, 2012 the Nevada State Bar Association designated a Screening
Panel to review complaints against Mr. Coughlin. The panel issued findings including, " ... the
Screening Panel believes that the Respondent is incapable of continuing the practice of law
because of mental infirmity, illness, or addiction." The issue was reviewed by the Nevada
Supreme Court, and a Psychological Evaluation was ordered for the purpose of determining the
mental fitness of Mr. Coughlin and his competency to practice law.
SOCIAL HISTORY: Mr. Coughlin was born in Bellevue, Washington on September 27, 1976.
His birth was normal but he was jaundiced. He met developmental milestones within normal
limits. He had seizures during infancy, but no other serious illnesses, high fevers, or head trauma
during early childhood.
Mr. Coughlin's parents divorced when he was age two. His mother is age 66, a college graduate
who taught English in high school. She was a "great mother" with whom he has maintained a
good relationship. She was not abusive or hostile, but was hurt by his decision to live with his
father at age 10. She remains in good health and remains supportive and in close contact. She
did not use alcohol or drugs, and did not suffer mental or emotional difficulties.
834 WILLOW ST.

RENO, NV 89502
(775) 323-6766
FAX (775) 323-2716
esnphd@sbcglobaLnet
_ _ _- - J
1302
September 27,2014
His father is age 67, a Reno physician who graduated from Tulane University. Mr. Coughlin was
clearly proud of his father, but also conflicted. He likes and respects his father, but is largely
estranged. His father was dependable and their relationship was good in many ways. He also
describes his father as emotionally detached, conceited, arrogant, and says he saddled Mr.
Coughlin with high expectations. He was also hypercritical ofMr. Coughlin's mother. He
developed problems with alcohol but has been sober and active in Alcoholics Anonymous for 35
years. He was an athlete in college, modeled for an ad in Seventeen Magazine, and remains in
good health. He does not use alcohol or drugs.
Mr. Coughlin's parents divorced in Texas. Mr. Coughlin began kindergarten in Gardnerville,
Nevada while living with his mother, and remained there through fourth grade. He was a good
student, not a behavior problem, and had no difficulty adjusting socially. His mother remarried
when Mr. Coughlin was to begin fifth grade, and moved with him to Dayton, Ohio. His
stepfather was a high school graduate, an alcoholic who worked for the county. Mr. Coughlin
was enrolled in gifted and talented programs but his grades slipped to C's. He wore his hair in an
odd fashion and was heavily teased. He played Little League and Babe Ruth Baseball where he
pitched and played second base.
For sixth grade, Mr. Coughlin returned to Reno and lived with his father and stepmother in
Caughlin Ranch. He attended Swope Middle School. His grades and achievement improved, he
participated in athletics and music, and played competitive tennis. Socially, however, he
floundered and had few friends. He attended Reno High School. He maintained a 4.0 grade
point average through high school and was named a National Merit Scholar. He played
basketball where he was named to the All-State roster twice. He says he likes the intensity and
"rush" of competition. He was disciplined once for talking back to an English teacher, but had
no suspensions or juvenile arrests. He did not use drugs or alcohol during high school. He
graduated with honors in 1995.
He then went to the University of Washington for three semesters, then transferred to UNR. He
did well in school, although began using alcohol and some marijuana with friends. He didn't
have problems at UNR and graduated without difficulty.
He enrolled at Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas. He liked school, but had conflicts with some
teachers. He got into a conflict with an adjunct professor who accused him of academic fraud,
but it was cleared by investigation. He was confronted in a movie theater for entering without
paying, ran, and was arrested for Resisting a Public Officer. He used some alcohol and was
sarcastic when drinking. He took the Nevada State Bar examination in May, 2001 and was
informed of his passing score in August. He graduated from law school in December, 2001.
1303
September 27,2014
After graduation, he sold suits at Macy's. He moved to Sacramento and worked for a law firm
while waiting for his licensure, but was dismissed when his license was delayed. He was arrested
for DUI in California and returned to Reno.
In December, 2002 the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order deferring Mr. Coughlin's
admission to the Nevada State Bar, "partially based upon a condition that Mr. Coughlin receive
psychological counseling."
In 2003 Mr. Coughlin was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed Adderall. He was also
diagnosed with major depression and was prescribed Welbutrin by Dr. Stepinova at Northern
Nevada Mental Health Services. He attended counseling once per month and said it helped. He
did not taking Adderall and discontinued. He was admitted to the Nevada State Bar Association
on October 1,2004, but was not iormally notified untii May, 2005 according to Mr. Coughlin.
He did some piecework for Barber and Klearman and Associates, then went to work for the Hale
Lane Law Firm where he stayed five months. He left there due to severe gastroenteritis which
left him unable to work and lead to an addiction to Oxycontin and opioid medications. When he
recovered, he went to work for Nevada Legal Aid.
He lived with a woman from 2007 to 2011, but she left him following her college graduation. He
resented the fact that he had helped put her through college and felt used, but his family sided
with her.
In 2009 Mr. Coughlin accepted a divorce case in Family Court, the 2nd Judicial District Court,
Department 11, with Judge Linda Gardner presiding. In her order after trial, Judge Gardner
described Mr. Coughlin's behavior as "rude, sarcastic, and disrespectful at trial". She also cited
his failure to conduct discovery, difficulties understanding a balance sheet, and lack of
knowledge with respect to rules of evidence and trail procedure. According to Mr. Coughlin, she
later rescinded her complaint.
In August, 2011 Mr. Coughlin was arrested for the theft of an iPhone. He served seven days in
jail. Nine days later he was arrested for shoplifting at Walmart for consuming a candy bar and
throat lozenges.
In November, 2011 Mr. Coughlin was evicted from his home/office in Reno and was locked out.
He was arrested for trespassing and spent three days in jail. On November 30 his trial for the
candy bar theft came before the Reno Justice Court in front of Judge Howard. The trial was
delayed, but Mr. Coughlin was held in Contempt of Court and served three days in jail. Judge
Howard issued the order for "Refusing to obey the directives of the Judge, continuing lines of
inquiry after being advised by the Court to refrain form doing so, demeaning the Court with
1304
September 27,2014
statements such as 'Wow' in response to Court rulings, laughing during testimony and further
questioning the Court and its authority."
On December 20,2011 a six-hour hearing was conducted for a contested lien on his property.
He was ordered to pay $400.00 for 17 days storage, then was given December 22 and 23 to
remove his final belongings. He was unable to remove all of his possessions during the alloted
time.
On January 12,2012 Mr. Coughlin saw his belongings were being loaded into a truck belonging
to a contractor for his landlord. He confronted, then followed the truck to the trash dump. He
believed that having filed for a Summary Judgement would have preserved his property until a
ruling was made, but when he filed for a Temporary Restraining Order, he was denied. He
returned to his home/office and filmed the removal of his property. He was confronted by a
police officer who told him to stop. When Mr. Coughlin resisted, he was arrested for jay
walking, then posted bail and was released.
After his eviction, Mr. Coughlin had rented a room in essentially a "flop house". He agreed to
pay $200.00 per month, but when he had moved in the landlord then demanded $50.00 for
utilities. The tenants threatened him and slashed the tires on his car. He called 911 for police
assistance. The same officer who arrested him two days before arrested him for Misuse of91l.
He was convicted in April, 2013 and was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended.
In February, 2012 Mr. Coughlin filed a "Notice of Appearance, Entry a Plea of Not Guilt, Waiver
of Right to Arraignment, and Motion to Dismiss" in the Reno Municipal Court case. On
February 28, 2012 he was in Reno Municipal Court to contest traffic citations. He was found in
Contempt of Court by Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes, and served five days in jail. The traffic
citations were dismissed. On March 5,2012 he filed a "Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel
and Motion to Dismiss" in a case in Department 11 of the 2nd Judicial District Court. On March
12,2012 Judge Holmes issued an order prohibiting Mr. Coughlin's contact with the Reno
Municipal Court, continued the criminal case, and referred Mr. Coughlin to the Nevada State
Bar.
On March 15,2012 Mr. Coughlin was late for an eviction hearing and the landlord was granted
the eviction by default. He went to the apartment, gathered personal items and then attended a
hearing in the Bankruptcy Court of Judge Beasley. He wore a tie and jacket, but had only a tee
shirt wldemeath. Judge Beasley continued the hearing, but complained. Mr. Coughlin was
homeless, and his possessions had again been placed in storage.
A friend assisted Mr. Coughlin and allowed him the use of a fifth-wheel trailer for storage in
1305
September 27,2014
trade for legal service. He was sleeping in the office but was asked to leave and was again
homeless, living in his car.
In April, 2012 a petition was filed in District Court for a competency hearing of Mr. Coughlin.
He was sent to Lakes Crossing Center where he was interviewed by Dr. Farmer and Dr. Davis,
but they determined that he was uncooperative and did not complete the evaluation. Judge Elliott
then held Mr. Coughlin in contempt, placed him in jail for eight days, and two other doctors from
Lakes Crossing completed the evaluation. Both Dr. Bisset and Dr. Veith found him to be
competent to stand trial.
On May 7, 2012 Mr. Coughlin went to trial for the iPhone left. Judge Sferraza sent Mr. Coughlin
to Mental Health Court, but Judge Breen refused to permit his continued use of psychotropic
medication and rejected him from Mental Heaith Court participatiun. Although that may seem
strange, it is the policy of the Mental Health Court and the Drug Court to insist that participants
be drug free in spite of the fact that the medications are prescribed by physicians specifically to
treat the mental health issues. That hearing was actually before Judge Elliott had found him to be
competent to stand trial in an order on May 9, 2012.
On June 12,2012 Mr. Coughlin received notice from Bar Counsel, Mr. King, of Mr. Coughlin's
suspension while the Disciplinary Board considered the ramifications of his candy bar conviction
(a theft). On the same day he went before Judge Gardner and was convicted on the trespass
charge for which he was fined $300.00.
Another friend offered him the use of three storage units attached to an apartment complex. He
was back on his medications, working out, and getting healthy. The apartment manager
detem1ined he was living there and filed for eviction. When a sheriffs deputy came and banged
on the door, Mr. Coughlin at first refused to respond. The lock was cut away, and Mr. Coughlin
was arrested for Resisting Arrest. His mother bailed him out. He was again homeless.
On July 3, 2012 Mr. Coughlin had returned to the site where his property was being held. He
was rearrested for Disturbing the Peace. He served 18 days in jail. He was then hired by a friend
to hand out visitor guides and was able to rent an apartment.
On August 23,2012 the Nevada State Bar filed a complaint against Mr. Coughlin. When he
arrived for the scheduled hearing, he was informed by Bar Counsel that the hearing had been
cancelled without notice.
In November, 2012 Mr. Coughlin was convicted on the iPhone offense. In December, 2012 the
Nevada State Bar recommended permanent disbarment.
1306
September 27,2014
In May, 2013 Mr. Coughlin was arrested for Resisting a Public Officer. He served two weeks in
jail, then met bail conditions and was released. He was convicted in October, 2013 and was
sentenced to six months in j ail. His suspended sentence for the use of "911 " was revoked, and he
was ordered to serve the sentences consecutively. He was in jail from November, 2013 until
April, 2014 when he was released.
In June, 2014 Justice Pickering rejected the Nevada State Bar's recommendation for permanent
disbarment and ordered a Psychological Evaluation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING: Mr. Coughlin was on time for appointments and cooperative
with all requests and inquiries. He understood directions and materials. Results are valid for
interpretation.
On Mental Status Examination, Mr. Coughlin is alert, responsive, and well-oriented to all
perceptual spheres. His memory is intact for recent and long-past events. He denies
hallucinations and delusions, and does not describe beliefs or perceptions consistent with thought
disorder. He does tend to ramble, is interesting but difficult to interview, but generally recalls
dates, times, and incidents. He reports some depressive symptoms by history and has
intermittently received psychotropic medications and psychological counseling. He is
embarrassed and remorseful about his behavior, and remains mildly depressed. He denies
problems with anxiety, but was diagnosed with ADHD quite late, and may have experienced
some manic agitation rather than hyperactive display. He does not describe significant problems
with substance abuse. He denies significant aggression or violence, and has not been suicidal or
prone to self mutilation.
Cognitively, Mr. Coughlin obtains a Full Scale IQ score of 131, within the gifted range. His
vocabulary and verbal reasoning abilities are very strong. He has good capacity for abstract
reasoning, but impulsivity and inattention to detail interfere with problem solving, practical
solutions, and perceptual reasoning. He does not show evidence of impaired thinking or signs of
brain impairment.
thinking may be judged as odd by some, but he is not bizarre or fully out of touch.
He does acknowledge struggles with chronic depression throughout his adulthood, and has been
medicated, primarily with Welbutrin for most of that time. He has not had major depressive
episodes but rather chronic and insidious symptoms of low self esteem, disinterest in people or
1307
September 27,2014
activities, low motivation, and some social avoidance. The condition has persisted for 20 years,
with intermittent relief from prescribed medications. He has low frustration tolerance and some
self defeating patterns. He has never planned or attempted suicide, but has experienced suicidal
thoughts. He is not violent or aggressive, and does not present a danger to others.
Mr. Coughlin has also been diagnosed with ADHD for the past 10 years and medicated with
Adderall. He can describe benefits, including improved concentration, better personal
organization, and better sustained effort, but he doesn't like the perceived side effects.
Psychological test results do not confirm the full array of ADHD symptoms, and instead suggest
underlying anxiety symptoms which may be interpreted as ADHD. Although ADHD is often
missed during childhood and identified only later in early adulthood, Mr. Coughlin does not
report having had the serious attention or concentration problems during school, and was not
described as hyperactive by observing adults.
While some anxiety symptoms are noted in test results, these may be artifacts of his chronic
depression. He is restless and on edge, had difficulty maintaining concentration, can be irritable,
and often worries. The chronic aspect of his anxiety drives him to be somewhat cynical,
expecting disappointment, and to make "mountains out of molehills" (his phrase). He seems to
enjoy argument for argument's sake, and as seen in his own legal responses, tends to ramble and
drift from the point by over-developed but irrelevant details. He doesn't report actual panic
attacks or somatic complaints. He does not openly express manic agitation, hyperactivity, or
hypomanic display. He does not endorse racing thoughts, tremors, or excessive fears. He does
admit to some hoarding behavior, but test results are not elevated on measures for
obsessive/compulsive disorder. He does experience some dysfunctional negative emotions in the
form of negative attitudes in addition to other depressive symptoms.
Mr. Coughlin was raised in a home where alcohol was just not prohibited, but disdained. During
his early adulthood he drank to excess out of spite, and by age 25 described himself as an
alcoholic. He attended AA, but was uncomfortable. Around age 30 he developed an addiction to
opiates prescribed for pain, but stopped using pain pills at least five years ago. Psychological test
results do not reveal an addictive personality, and while substance abuse is possible, addiction is
unlikely.
Broader personality measures suggest a diagnostic profile of Dependent Personality Disorder
with Depressive Features. Mr. Coughlin is a man of very low self esteem and, despite his early
accolades and successes, an inept self image. He is impulsive, moody, and resentful, and can be
rigid, argumentative, suspicious, and brooding. He is largely passive-aggressive, but expresses
hostility as righteous indignation, blames others for his troubles, and resents authority. He is
often bored, feels empty, and is unable to profit form his own experience. He doubts his own
1308
September 27,2014
jUdgement but mistrusts that of others, and rarely takes advice. He feels lonely and alienated
from others, but tends to isolate himself form social opportunity, remaining guarded and
superficial in his relationships. His approaches to self understanding and social awareness are
unconventional and immature. He is overwhelmed at times by his perception of personal faults,
feeling socially awkward, out of place, useless, and rejected. He can be quick-tempered and
impatient, but does not experience actual rage attacks or intense overt hostility. His self esteem
problems lead to some masochistic (not sexual) feelings, and he even questions whether he
provokes the rejection he perceives. Much of his character is supported by paradox and
inconsistency: He feels entitled and unworthy at the same time; he wants understanding,
recognition, and support, but will not reciprocate; he can acknowledge many interpersonal errors
and slights but remains too grounded to apologize.
While Mr. Coughlin has a criminal record of increasingly serious infractions, he is not a
sociopath and does not have an antisocial personality disorder. He can be superficially charming,
but he is not pathologically manipulative or conning. He has some conscience development,
including capacities for guilt, remorse, and sympathy. His capacity for empathy is less welldeveloped. He is sufficiently defensive to mask his capacity for taking responsibility for personal
actions and behavior. He also knows others find him sarcastic, disrespectful, and annoying, but
lacks the personal insight to change without coercion.
CONCLUSIONS: Zach Coughlin is a 38-year old attorney in Reno who was evaluated at the
request of the Nevada Bar Association at the direction of the Nevada Supreme Court to identify
mental illness or emotional problems which might underlie his erratic behavior which lead to a
petition to disbar him.
Mr. Coughlin was raised in Reno by divorced parents. His father is a well-respected physician in
Reno, a recovering alcoholic from whom Mr. Coughlin feels largely estranged. His mother was
more supportive emotionally, but has set limits regarding financial support.
Mr. Coughlin was a capable student and fine athlete who went on to complete college, then
obtained his law degree at Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas. Although he passed the Nevada
Bar examination before graduation in 2002, his application was delayed until 2004.
In 2011 Mr. Coughlin stole a cell phone, then later a candy bar, both of which lead to criminal
convictions. In 2012 a screening panel was appointed to review and investigate his infractions.
During 2012, he had several more conflicts with law enforcement, but also received complaints
from sitting judges. In 2013 he was convicted of Resisting a Public Officer and was sentenced to
six months in jail. A previously suspended sentence was also revoked. He was injail from
November, 2013 to April, 2014.
1309
September 27,2014
The Nevada Bar Association decided Mr. Coughlin should be disbarred, but the Nevada Supreme
Court returned the case to the Nevada Bar Association for further review.
Mr. Coughlin is not thought-disordered, psychotic, or schizophrenic. He has been diagnosed
with mild to moderate depression for 20 years, and has been responsive to medications.
He continues to suffer the symptoms of Persistent Depressive Disorder, mild to moderate, and
continued consultation with his physician is recommended. He was diagnosed with ADHD 10
years ago, but I cannot find diagnostic evidence to support it. The fact that he benefits from the
medication is not surprising, but is more likely treating an anxiety symptoms rather than actual
attention deficit. Diagnostic measures clearly identify symptoms consistent with an anxiety state,
although sorting that out from his depression is complicated.
Additional measures used to identify personality disorders confirm the diagnosis of Dependent
Personality Disorder associated with traits of Depressive and Masochistic Personality Styles.
The combination of social alienation, low self esteem, passive aggressive hostility, and conflict
with authority figures not only supports the behavioral components of depression and anxious
emotion, but also supp0l1s the consistently self defeating and cynical nature of an otherwise
capable young man. From a layman's (non-attorney) point of view, his violations seem petty and
innocuous, but he does demonstrate an inability to learn from his mistakes and a consistent
impulse to shoot himself in the foot.
DSM 5 DIAGNOSTIC SUMMARY:
300.4
Persistent Depressive Disorder, moderate
304.00
Opioid Use Disorder, in full remission
305.00
Alcohol Use Dirorder, mild, in full remission
301.6
Dependent Personality Disorder, with Depressive and Masochistic Traits
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Mr. Coughlin is not formally mentally ill, but does suffer emotional disturbance with an
underlying personality disorder. My recommendation for Mr. Coughlin is that he seek
subsistence employment outside the legal profession while he engages in a rehabilitative course
to address his disrupted emotional state and his longer-term deficiencies in personality
functioning.
The greatest weakness in that recommendation is that Mr. Coughlin is nearly homeless, has few
resources, and needs intensive out-patient intervention. While he is eligible for services through
the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, I cannot recommend that facility as a
sufficient resource for Mr. Coughlin'S needs. He needs ongoing access to a quality psychiatrist
1310
10
September 27,2014
for medication management, and opportunity to build a trusting, confidential relationship with an
experienced therapist two or three times per week for 60 days, then one time per week after that.
He would not benefit from group therapy or substance abuse treatment at this time.
2. My recommendation to the Nevada State Bar is not intended to usurp or superceded anyone's
authority. Based upon existing rule and law, the Bar may very well have grounds to pursue
disbarment. On the other hand, if a suspension was effected with a prescribed course for
rehabilitation, Mr. Coughlin most certainly has the potential to serve the Bar and the community.
In my opinion, Mr. Coughlin is not competent to serve as an attorney today due to his
disregulated emotional state and continuing mental health issues, but with adequate treatment
may very well be returned to competence in the future.
Respectfully submitted,

Clinical Psychologist
ESN/pjn
1311
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

In Re: Zachary Coughlin, Esq.
Case No. R115-0804
Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 8:30 a.m.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT
PAGE NOS.
Supreme Court Rule 117 ..................................................................................... 1-2

Disciplinary Rules of Procedure ............................................................................ 3-5
SCR 117 Petition filed May 2012 ...........................................................................6-14
Motion for Leave to File this Opposition to
SCR 117 Petition filed June 18, 2012 ................................................................ 15-121
Order of Referral for Examination by a
Qualified Medical Expert filed April 23, 2014 .... , ................................................ 122-124
Order filed June 30, 2014 ................................................................................... 125
Status Report by Bar Counsel filed July 11,2014 .............................................. 126-136
Status Report by Bar Counsel filed July 22, 2014 .............................................. 137-140
Order Transferring Attorney to Disability
Inactive Status filed June 18, 2015 .................................................................. 141-142
Petition for Reinstatement, filed June 23, 2015 ................................................. 143-145
Order Appointing Panel Chair filed July 2, 2015 ................................................ 146-147
Order Appointing Reinstatement Hearing Panel filed August 13, 2015 .................... 148-149
Notice of Reinstatement Hearing filed August 14, 2015 ....................................... 150-152
PANEL
Keegan Low, Esq.
Craig Denney, Esq.
George Furman, Laymember

Attorney for State Bar
EXHIBIT
Ii

Petitioner
1312
Rule 117. Proceedings when an attorney is declared to be incompetent or is alleged to be incapacitated.

1. Judicial declaration of incompetency or commitment. Upon proof that an attorney has been judicially
declared incompetent or involuntarily committed on the grounds of incompetency or disability, the supreme court
shall enter an order transferring the attorney to disability inactive status until the further order of the court. A copy of
the order shall be served on the attorney, his guardian, and/or the director of the institution to which he has been
committed in such manner as the court may direct.
2. Petition to determine competency; notice. Whenever a disciplinary board or a hearing panel believes that
an attorney is incapable of continuing the practice of law because of mental infirmity, illness, or addiction, it may file
a petition with the supreme court seeking a determination of the attorneys competency. Such a petition may also be
filed by joint stipulation of the parties. A petition to determine an attorneys competency should be filed separately
from any discipline matter that may be pending and should be marked confidential in accordance with Rule 121. Upon
the filing of such a petition, the court may take or direct such action as it deems necessary to determine whether the
attorney is incapacitated, including referral of the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for hearing and
recommendation by a hearing panel or the examination of the attorney by qualified medical experts. If, upon due
consideration, the court concludes that the attorney is incapacitated for the purpose of practicing law, it shall enter an
order transferring him or her to disability inactive status. Any pending disciplinary proceeding or investigation against
the attorney shall be suspended.
The court shall provide for notice to the attorney as it deems necessary and may appoint counsel to represent the
attorney if he or she is without adequate representation.
3. Transfer to disability inactive status prior to determination of competency. If, during the course of a
disciplinary proceeding or investigation, the attorney contends in a petition or joint petition filed with the supreme
court that he or she is suffering from a disability due to mental or physical infirmity, illness, or addiction, which makes
it impossible for the attorney to adequately defend the disciplinary proceeding, the supreme court shall enter an order
transferring the attorney to disability inactive status until a determination is made of the attorneys capacity to continue
to practice law in a proceeding instituted in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2 above.
If the court determines that the attorney is not incapacitated from practicing law, it shall take such action as it
deems necessary, including a direction for the resumption of the disciplinary proceeding against the attorney.
4. Resumption of practice by disabled attorney. An attorney transferred to disability inactive status under
the provisions of this rule may not resume active status until reinstated by order of the supreme court. An attorney
transferred to disability inactive status under the provisions of this rule shall be entitled to petition for reinstatement
to active status once a year, or at such shorter intervals as the court may direct in the order transferring the attorney to
disability inactive status. The petition shall be filed with bar counsels office and shall be set for hearing before a fivemember hearing panel, which shall consider whether the attorney has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence
that the attorneys disability has been removed and that he or she is fit to resume the practice of law. The panel may
direct that the attorney establish competence and learning in law, including certification by the bar examiners that the
attorney successfully completed an examination for admission to practice subsequent to being transferred to disability
inactive status. The panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the hearings conclusion, which shall be
filed with bar counsels office and served pursuant to Rule 109(1).
decisions entry. Receipt of the record shall be acknowledged in writing by the supreme court clerk. The parties shall
have 30 days from the date the supreme court acknowledges receipt of the record within which to file any objection
to the panels recommendation. If none is filed, then the matter shall be submitted for decision. If the supreme court
concludes that the attorneys disability has been removed and that the attorney is fit to practice law, then the supreme
court may reinstate the attorney to active status, with any conditions that may be appropriate to protect the attorneys
clients or the public. If any disciplinary proceeding against the attorney was suspended by the attorneys transfer to
disability inactive status, then the supreme court may direct the state bar to resume the disciplinary proceeding. If the
supreme court is not satisfied that the attorneys disability has been removed, then it may take such action as it deems
appropriate, including denying the petition.
When an attorney who has been transferred to disability inactive status is later judicially declared to be competent,
the attorney may file a petition for reinstatement with the supreme court, attaching a copy of the judicial declaration
of competency. The petition shall state whether any disciplinary proceedings were pending against the attorney at the
time he or she was transferred to disability inactive status. Upon the filing of such a petition, the supreme court may
dispense with further evidence that the attorneys disability has been removed and may direct the attorneys
reinstatement to active status upon such terms as are deemed appropriate, or may direct the state bar to resume any
disciplinary proceedings that were suspended by the attorneys transfer to disability inactive status.
1313
5. Burden of proof. In a proceeding for transfer to disability inactive status or for reinstatement under this
rule, the burden of proof rests with the petitioner.
6. Waiver of privilege and disclosure by filing petition for reinstatement. The filing of a petition for
reinstatement under this rule waives any doctor-patient privilege with respect to any treatment, diagnosis, or prognosis
of the attorney during disability. The attorney shall be required to disclose the name of every treatment provider by
whom or in which the attorney has been examined or treated since being transferred to disability inactive status, and
the attorney shall furnish every treatment provider the attorneys written consent to divulge such information and
records as requested by the supreme court, its appointed medical experts, the office of bar counsel, or any hearing
panel.
7. Notice. An attorney who is transferred to inactive status must comply with Rule 115, if he or she is able to
do so. If the attorneys disability precludes compliance with Rule 115, or if the attorney fails to comply, then bar
counsel shall proceed under Rule 118. Bar counsel shall also comply with Rule 121.1.
[Added; effective February 15, 1979; amended effective March 1, 2007.]
1314
DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROCEDURE

As adopted by the Board of Governors
July 9, 2014
1315
VII. REINSTATEMENT-DISABILITY.
Rule 51. Reinstatement. Pursuant to SCR 117, an attorney that has been transferred to disability
inactive status may not resume active status until reinstated by order of the Supreme Court. The
burden of proof in a disability reinstatement hearing is on the petitioner to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that the attorneys disability has been removed and they are fit to resume
the practice of law. Attorney shall be entitled to petition for reinstatement once a year or at such
shorter intervals as the court may direct in the order transferring the attorney to disability
inactive status.
Rule 52. Receipt of petition. Petitioner shall file with office of bar counsel a petition for
reinstatement.
Rule 53. Petition referred to disciplinary board chair and hearing panel chair appointed. Bar
counsel shall promptly refer the petition to the disciplinary board chair. Within ten (10) days of
receipt of the referral, the disciplinary board chair or vice chair shall appoint a hearing panel chair
to preside over the hearing. Within ten (10) days of the appointment of the hearing panel chair,
the hearing panel chair shall hold a conference with the parties, in person or by telephone, to
discuss all matters needing attention and to schedule the hearing date.
The hearing panel chair shall hear and decide all motions or stipulations. Further, the hearing
panel chair may hold a prehearing conference no later than ten (10) days prior to the hearing to
discuss all matters pertaining to the hearing, including exhibits.
Rule 54. Waiver of Privilege and Disclosure. The filing of the petition waives any doctor-patient
privilege. The attorney shall be required to disclose the name of every treatment provider by
whom or in which the attorney has been examined or treated since being transferred to disability
inactive status, and the attorney shall furnish every treatment providers written consent to
divulge such information and records as requested by the Supreme Court, appointed medical
experts, office of bar counsel or hearing panel.
Bar counsel may also conduct an investigation on the initial disability, contact CSF to determine
if payments have been made to any victims while petitioner was placed on disability inactive
status, and if any petitioner made any restitution payment to CSF.
Rule 55. Assignment of the remaining panel members. Once a hearing date is chosen by bar
counsel, petitioner and the hearing panel chair, the remaining panel shall be appointed by the
disciplinary board chair or vice chair.
Rule 56. Notice of Reinstatement Hearing. Bar counsel shall serve a notice of reinstatement
hearing on petitioner thirty (30) days before the hearing, if possible.
Rule 57. Reinstatement hearing packets. Bar counsel shall prepare and serve in electronic
format a reinstatement packet that consists of petitioner's Petition, accompanying exhibits, and
1316
other relevant pleadings (i.e. prior Findings and Order of Discipline, criminal conviction) at least
five (5) days prior to the hearing.
Rule 58. Decision. The Panel shall make a finding whether petitioner met their burden. If the
panel finds that the petitioner did not meet their burden, the petition shall be dismissed. If the
panel finds that petitioner did meet their burden, the panel may direct that the attorney establish
competence and learning in law, including certification by the bar examiners that they attorney
successfully completed an examination for admission to practice subsequent being transferred
to disability inactive status. The Panels findings and decision shall be filed thirty (30) days after
the hearings conclusion.
1317
3
4
5
6
In the Matter of
)
)
ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 9473,
Respondent.
9
10
)
)
)
)
Case No.
CONFIDEN-T-~--L~P~U-R-S-U-AN--T-T-O---
SCR 121.
)
PETITION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY'S
COMPETENCY PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 117(2)
11
12
(THIS PETITION SHOULD BE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO

SCR 117(2) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITII SCR 121)
13
The State Bar of Nevada (State Bar), by and through J. Thomas
14
Susich, Esq., Chair of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board (NNDB), petitions
15
this Honorable Court, as follows:
16
1.
The NNDB Chair has been informed that the State Bar of
17
Nevada has received numerous complaints and/or grievances regarding the
18
behavior of Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Bar #9473 (Respondent).
19
20
2.
The State Bar designated a Screening Panel to revIew the
complaints and grievances concerning Respondent Coughlin. The Screening Panel
21
1318
met on or about April 16,2012, and made various findings and recommendations,
2
including the following:
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 117(2) the

Screening Panel believes that Respondent is incapable of
continuing the praclice of law because of mental
infmuilY, illness or addiction. The Panel recommends
the filing of a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a
determination of the attorney's competency. Respondent
has been asked if he wishes to stipulate to the filing of a
joint petition and he does not.
4
5
6
7
3.
8
9
10
The NNDB Chair has reviewed various materials to evaluate
the recommendation of the Screening Panel to file a petition with the Supreme
4.
11
The State Bar Office has informed the NNDB Chair that the
12
Respondent may have a history of mental illness. The NNDB Chair has been
13
informed that the Supreme COLlrt issued an order on December 18, 2002, deferring
14
the admission of Zachary B. Coughlin as an attorney at law in this state. The
15
NNDB Chair has been informed that said deferral was at least partially based upon
16
a condition that Mr. Coughlin receive psychological counseling. The NNDB Chair
17
has been informed that Zachary B. Coughlin was finally admitted to practice law
18
on October 1, 2004.
19
II /
20
///
21
II /
2
1319
5.
The NNDB Chair has received and reviewed the multiple
6.
The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has been
notified of the grievances and complaints; but, Respondent has refused to
cooperate wi th Bar Counsel regarding the investigation and resolution of same.
7.
The NNDB Chair has been informed that Respondent has not
requested to be placed on disability status and refuses to acknowledge that he has
any mental infirmity, illness or addiction.
8.
Bar Counsel has reported to the NNDB Chair that the
10
investigation of the grievances against Respondent show a serious pattern of
11
misconduct and bizarre behavior.
12
9.
Bar COlmsel reports that on November 30, 20 II, Respondent
13
was found guilty, after a trial, of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation ofRMC
14
8.10.040, in the Municipal Court for the City of Reno. Said conviction was based
15
on an incident occurring on September 9, 20 II. Respondent shoplifted a candy bar
J6
and cough drops with a value of approximately fourteen dollars ($14.00) from
17
Wal-Mart. Respondent appealed the judgment of conviction. The judgment of
18
conviction was affirmed on appeaJ.
19
10.
On November 30, 2011 , Respondent was found to be in
20
contempt of the Reno Municipal Court, Department 4, for "disorderly,
21
contemptuolls or insolent behavior toward the judge ... "

J
The Respondent was
1320
found to have disregarded the directives of the judge and of making demeaning
statements such as stating "WOW" when the court made rulings. The Respondent
was also cited for "laughing during testimony" and questioning the judge's
authority.
A copy of the contempt citation is attached as Exhibit I and
II.
On August 20, 20 II, Respondent was arrested and charged with
Petit Larceny and Possession of Stolen Property, misdemeanors, for stealing a cell
phone. Respondent recorded his arrest and has posted the video on You-Tube.
The video was publicly posted by Respondent and may be viewed at the following
10
II
internet address: http://www. youtube.com!watch?vc=SPR7g40ISbO

12.
On January 14, 2012, Respondent was arrested and charged
12
with Abusing 911 Emergency Services, a gross misdemeanor.
13
recorded his arrest and posted the video on You-Tube.
14
following internet address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvK6kvJrwFA
15
13.
Respondent
The video is posted at the
Concerning the criminal proceedings involving the charge
16
referenced in paragraph 12, above, Respondent filed a document in the Reno
17
Justice Court, Case No. RCR20 12-065630, entitled, "Notice of Appearance, Entry
18
of Plea of Not Guilty, Waiver of Right to Arraigrunent; Motion to Dismiss. " This
19
document is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference. The
20
document commences with the following statement:
2l
Washoe County, and beyond who want to perpetuate this chicanery: 'Okay, you're
4
"To all those in Reno,
1321
a goon, but what's a goon to a goblin? '" The document contains a rambling and
essentially incoherent recitation of arguments and alleged facts. It also contains

14.
On November 13, 2011, Respondent was arrested by Reno
recorded his arrest and has posted the arrest video on You-Tube. The internet
address of the video is:

15.
Respondent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v~ssEOFWHFNEY
Respondent's trespass arrest arose after an eviction hearing
before Justice of the Peace Peter Sferrazza. Respondent was evicted from his
10
residence per order of the court effective November 1,2011. After being evicted,
II
Respondent was later found living in the basement of the residence. The locks on
12
the residence had been broken. The Reno Police tried to convince Respondent to
13
leave the premises; but he would not voluntarily leave. The owner kicked a door
14
open and Respondent was arrested thereafter.
IS
Respondent filed a 36-page "Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel and
16
Motion to Dismiss" the trespass charge on March 5, 2012, in the Second Judicial
17
District Court, bearing Case No. 11 CR 26405. A copy of the "motion" is attached
18
as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by this reference.
19
20
III
21
III
5
1322
16.
On February 27,2012, in the case of City of Reno vs. Zachary
Barker Coughlin, Reno Municipal Court Case No. 11 TR 26800 21, a trial was
held on a traffic citation issued to Respondent Coughlin. The matter was called at
approximately 3 :00 p.m. and concluded without a verdict at about 4:30 p.m. after
the Court held Respondent in criminal contempt of court for his behavior and
activities committed in the direct presence ofthe Court during trial. Respondent's
behavior is chronicled in the court's contempt order which is attached as Exhibit 4
and incorporated by this reference.
17.
On March 12, 2012, The Honorable Dorothy Nash Holmes
10
found by "clear and convincing evidence" that Respondent Coughlin committed
11
numerous acts of attorney misconduct. Judge Holmes explains in her Order that
12
Respondent served a five-day Contempt of Court Sanction imposed by the Court
13
on February 27, 2012. Thereafter, Respondent fax-filed to the Reno Municipal
14
Court a 224-page document. Judge Holmes found that the document contained
15
rambling references to his personal life and was incoherent.
16
Holmes' Order is attached as Exhibit 5 and is incorporated herein by this reference.
17
18.
A copy of Judge
On December 14, 2011, Respondent filed an Affidavit of
18
19
Respondent alleges that he has almost no income and refers to himself as being
20
employed as a "Jack of All Trades."
21

6
See, Exhibit 6 attached hereto and
1323
19.
On March 22, 2012, Respondent arrived at the Reno Municipal
Court. He spoke with a clerk of the court and with the clerk's supervisor. His
conduct became so disruptive that security had to be called to remove him from the
courthouse. The claimant was wearing smiley face flannel pajama bottoms and a
white tee shirt.
and a tie. See, Affidavit of Officer Scott Coppa, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
20.
Underneath the tee shirt, the claimant was wearing a dress shirt
Respondent has posted on You-Tube and on his law practice
webpage, under the moniker, 25TeddyJames, several videos.
Respondent is seen driving in his car or sitting in pajamas discussing both the court
10
and its staff. In the videos, he states that a named police detective admitted taking
II
bribes from a named local attorney. He also discusses court staff and states how
12
much income they make.

21.
13
In the videos,
Respondent exhibited disturbing behavior in a prior case where
14
he was representing a client. On April 10,2009, District Judge Linda Gardner of
15
the Second Judicial District Court executed an "Order After Trial," in Case No.
16
DV08-0 1168. Judge Gardner stated in her order that the most troubling aspect of
17
the case was Respondent's rude, sarcastic and disrespectful presentation at trial;
18
Respondent's inability to understand a balance sheet; his failure to conduct
19
discovery; and his lack of knowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial
20
procedure.
All of this was compounded with a continuously antagonistic
21
7
1324
presentation of the case that resulted in a shift from a fairly simple divorce case to
a contentious divorce trial lasting an excessive amount of time.
22.
During the course of the Respondent's vanous criminal
proceedings before the lower courts, a case was referred to District Judge Steven P.
Elliott ofthe Second Judicial District Court for evaluation regarding Respondent's
mental competency to stand trial.
completed by two doctors, Judge Elliott entered an order finding that the
Respondent was competent to stand trial under NRS 178.425. A copy of Judge
Elliott's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
10
23.
After examination of the Respondent was
Judge Elliott's decision is not dispositive of the issue of
11
whether the Respondent is "competent" to practice law. The issue before Judge
12
Elliott focused only on the ability ofthe Respondent to stand trial.
13
Bar Counsel has provided the NNDB Chair with numerous additional
14
documents regarding the Respondent's behavior and conduct. In order to avoid
15
overburdening this Court with repetitive documents, those additional items have
16
not been attached to this Petition. If, however, the Court deems all evidence to be
17
necessary for the Court to make a decision, the additional documentation will be
18
immediately provided.
19
Based upon the above information received by the Chair of the
20
Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board, the Chair hereby asserts pursuant to Supreme
21
Conrt Rule 117(2) that he believes the Respondent is incapable of continuing the
8
1325
practice of law at this time due to mental infirmity, illness ar addiction; and the
2
NNDB Chair hereby seeks a determination by this Honorable Court of the
Respondent' s competency and an order transferring the Respondent to disability
inactive status, thereby preventing the Respondent from practicing law in the State
of Nevada until such time as this Honorable Court detennines that the Respondent,
Zachary B. Caughlin, may resume his practice of law under SCR 117(4).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23"' day afMay, 2012.
M S SUSIC , Chair
rthem Nevada Disciplinary Board
evada State Bar No. 898
1675 East Prater Way, Suite 103
Sparks, NY 89434
(775) 284-9533
(775) 284-9513 - Fax
10
11
12
13
14
Respectfully prepared by:
15
16
17
18
PATRICK O. KING
Reno, NY 89521
19
20
21
9
1326
Filed
Jun 18
182012
09:25 a.m
a.m
2012 09:25
Tracie K. Lindeman
Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Cour
C_ou
4
5
Matter of:
of:
n Re Matter
ACHARY BARKER
BARKER COUGHLIN,
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
ESQ.
10
Bar No: 9473

9473
evada Bar
11
))
))
))
SupremeCourt
CourtNo:
No: 60838
60838
) Supreme
)~
)
aaid
()d
;Vo.
No. 100975'
6'097
12
13
14
15
16
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117

117 PETITION
17
18
COMES NOW, ZACHARY

ZACHARY BARKER
BARKER COUGHLIN,
COUGHLIN, ESQ.,
ESQ., and
andfiles
files the
theabove
abovenamed
named
19
furtherbased
basedupon
uponthe
the
document and moves this Court for the relief
relief requested herein. This
Thisfiling
filingisisfurther
20
on file
file herein
herein and
and in
in the
the case
casein
inthe
thetrail
trailcourt
courtand
andthe
theappeal
appealininthe
theDistrict
District
papers and pleadings on
21
of Points
Points and
and Authorities
Authorities submitted
submittedherewith
herewithand
andany
anyoral
oralargument
argumentthis
this
Court and the Memorandum of
22
Court may desire. Alternatively,

Alternatively, Coughlin
Coughlin requests
requests that
thatthe
the Court
Courtset
setaside
aside his
histemporary
temporarysuspension
suspension
23
24
111 (7) and

and refuse
refuse to
to countenance
countenancethe
theSCR
SCR117
117Petition
Petitionasaswell.
well.By
Byway
wayofofthe
the
SCR 111(7)
pursuant to SCR
25
Beyondany
anymitigating
mitigatingfactors,
factors, the
the
showing of good cause Coughlin attempts to set forth herein. Beyond
26
law to
to work,
work, there
there needs
needs to
to be
be environment
environmentwhere
wherebullying
bullyingopposing
opposing
good cause is this: for the law
27
counsel still have to earn

earn their
their victories,
victories, rather
rather than
than leverage
leveragecommittees,
committees,clubs,
clubs,forces,
forces,and
andenforcers
enforcers
28
- 1/94
1194--
117 PETITION
1327
Docket 008.
6685&
Document 2012489632012-1"69633.8. Document
/9/5e1
1
6d97S
'd975
19
5t/
to put points on the board for them through innuendo, nanny-stating, abuse of
of process, etc., etc. This
This
case is a lot more important than me.
know II am
am an
an insignificant
insignificant cog
cog in
in this
this sphere,
sphere, but
butwhat
what isis at
at
me. II know
stake here is the perception and the

the reality
reality as
as to
to whether
whether aa cliquish
cliquish tyranny
tyrannyoverrides
overridesthe
theprinciples
principles
4
4
the black
blackink
inkin
inthis
thisCourt's
Court'sopinions
opinions flow.
flow.
upon which the
5
6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The undersigned (Coughlin) submitted

submitted to
to the
the Supreme
Supreme Court
Courtof
ofNevada's
Nevada'selectronic
electronicfiling
filingsystem
system
8
9
an Opposition to Bar
Bar Counsel's
Counsel's petition
petitionon
onororabout
aboutMay
May24th,
24th, 2012,
2012, as
as an
an original
originalmatter
mattergiven
giventhe
the
10
The Clerk's
Clerk's Office
Office refused
refused to
to file,
file,
online system would not allow filings
filings in the case itself (60838).
(60838). The
11
mark as received, or, apparently, in

in any
any way
way make
make the
the Justices
Justices of
ofthis
this Court
Courtaway
awayof
ofthe
theOpposition.
Opposition.
12
Only after the undersigned reputation has

has been
been sullied
sullied by
by news
news outlets
outlets far
far and
andwide
wide(an
(anarticle
article
13
appeared in papers in at least

least three different
different cities,
cities, separated
separated by
by the
the vast
vastexpanse
expanseof
ofour
ourstate)
state)did
didthe
the
14
15
Clerk's Office allow Coughlin to file

file something
something in
in an
an attempt
attempt to
to tell
tell his
his side
sideof
ofthe
thestory
storyhere
hereand
and
16
avoid the prejudice that would be

be done
done his
his child
child custody,
custody, foreclosure
foreclosure defense,
defense,bankruptcy,
bankruptcy,and
andother
other
l7
17
law license
license be
be suspended,
suspended, even
even temporarily.
temporarily.
other clients should Coughlin's law
18
NRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER

OTHERPAPERS
....NRCP
PAPERS....NRCP
19
20
5(e), Filing With the Court Defined: "The

"The filing
filing of
ofpleadings
pleadings and
and other
otherpapers
paperswith
withthe
thecourt
courtasas
21
required by these rules shall

shall be
be made
made by
by filing
filing them
them with
with the
the clerk
clerkof
ofthe
thecourt,
court,except
exceptthat
thatthe
thejudge
judge
22
may permit the papers to be

be filed
filed with
with the
the judge,
judge, in
in which
which event
eventthe
the judge
judgeshall
shallnote
notethereon
thereonthe
thefiling
filing
23
date and forthwith transmit them

them to
to the
the office
office of
ofthe
the clerk.
clerk. A
A court
courtmay
mayby
bylocal
localrule
rulepermit
permitpapers
paperstoto
24
be filed, signed or verified by

by electronic
electronic means
means that
that are
are consistent
consistentwith
withtechnical
technicalstandards,
standards,ififany,
any,
25
26
that the Judicial Conference of

ofthe
United States
States establishes.
establishes. AApaper
papersigned
signedby
byelectronic
electronicmeans
meansinin
the United
27
compliance with the local rule constitutes

constitutes aa written
written paper
paperpresented
presented for
forthe
thepurpose
purposeofofapplying
applyingthese
these
28
rules. The clerk shall not refuse to

to accept
accept for
for filing
filing any
any paper
paperpresented
presentedfor
forthat
thatpurpose
purposesolely
solely
-- 2/94
2/94--
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1328
because it is not presented in proper

proper form
form as
as required
required by
by these
these rules
rules or
or any
anylocal
localrules
rulesor
orpractices."
practices."
NRCP 5(e).
Further, NRCP 5(e) holds that: "(e)..

"(e) .. The clerk
clerk shall
shall not
not refuse
refuse to
to accept
acceptfor
forfiling
filingany
any
paper presented for that purpose

purpose solely
solely because
because itit isis not
not presented
presentedininproper
properform
formasasrequired
requiredby
bythese
these
rules or any local rules or practices."

practices. II
With regard to the WDC filing office/ eFlex staff

staffrefusing
refusing to
to file
file papers
papers submitted
submittedfor
forfiling,
filing,
8
9
please consider:
10
11
12
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and

and For
For County
County of
ofClark,
Clark, 904
904 P.2d
P.2d1039,
1039,111
111 Nev.
Nev.
1367
for aa writ
writ of
ofmandamus
mandamus seeks
seeks an
anorder
orderfrom
fromthis
this
1367 (Nev.,
(Nev., 1995): "This proper person petition for
13
court directing the Eighth Judicial District

District Court
Court to
to file
file petitioner's
petitioner's application
applicationto
toproceed
proceedininforma
forma
14
15
pauperis and
and his
his civil
civil complaint.
complaint. 11On
On July
July 25,
25, 1995,
1995, we
weordered
orderedthe
thestate
statetotofile
filean
ananswer
answertotothis
this
16
petition. The state's

state's answer
answer was
was filed
filed on
on August
August 11,
11, 1995.
1995.2
Documentationsubmitted
submittedby
bypetitioner
petitionertoto
2 Documentation
17
establishes that
that petitioner
petitioner submitted
submitted to
to the
the clerk
clerkof
ofthe
thedistrict
districtcourt
courtfor
forfiling
filingan
anapplication
application
this court establishes
18
to proceed in forma pauperis

pauperis and
and aa civil
civil complaint
complaint on
onMay
May15,
15,1995.
1995.Although
Althoughthe
theapplication
applicationfor
for
19
pauperis was
was in
in proper
proper form
form and
and was
was sworn
swornto
tounder
underpenalty
penaltyofofperjury,
perjury,the
the
leave to proceed in forma pauperis
20
21
of the district court

court did
did not
not file
file that
that application.
application. 33The
The failure
failure to
tofile
filethe
theapplication
applicationwas
wasinin
clerk of
22
of the clear
clear statutory
statutory mandate
mandate that
thatsuch
such an
an application
applicationbe
befiled.
filed.NRS
NRS12.015(1)
12.015(1)provides
providesthat
that
violation of
23
[a]ny person ... may file an affidavit

affidavit [seeking
[seeking leave
leave to
to proceed
proceed without
withoutpayment
paymentof
offees]."
fees]. Further,
Further,
"[a]ny
24
instructed the
the clerk
clerkof
ofthe
the Eighth
EighthJudicial
JudicialDistrict
DistrictCourt
Courtthat
thatsuch
suchdocuments
documentsmust
must
we have repeatedly instructed
25
II
II
See Bowman
Bowman v.
v. District
District Court,
Court, 102
102Nev.
Nev. 474,
474, 728
728P.2d
P.2d433
433(1986)
(1986)(clerk
(clerkhas
hasaaministerial
ministerial
be filed. See
26
27
28
and file
file documents
documents ififthose
those documents
documents are
areininproper
properform;
form;clerk
clerkmust
mustnot
notexercise
exerciseany
any
duty to accept and
judicial discretion);
discretion); Barnes
Barnes v.
v. District
District Court,
Court, 103
103 Nev.
Nev. 679,
679, 748
748 P.2d
P.2d 483
483 (1987)
(1987) (prisoner's
(prisoner's right
right of
of
judicial
- 3/94
3/94--
117 PETITION
1329
court cannot
cannot be
be denied
denied on
on basis
basis of
ofindigency);
indigency); Huebner
Huebnerv.v.State,
State,107
107Nev.
Nev.328,
328,810
810P.2d
P.2d
access to court
record of
ofall
all pleadings
pleadings submitted
submitted for
forfiling,
filing, whether
whetheror
ornot
not
1209 (1991) (clerk must create an accurate record
are actually
actually filed);
filed); Whitman
Whitman v.
v. Whitman,
Whitman, 108
108Nev.
Nev.949,
949,840
840P.2d
P.2d1232
1232(1992)
(1992)(clerk
(clerk
the documents are
4
5
to return
return documents
documents submitted
submitted for
for filing;
filing; instead,
instead, clerk
clerkmust
muststamp
stampdocuments
documentsthat
that
has no authority to
filed "received,"
"received," and
and must
must maintain
maintainsuch
suchdocuments
documentsininthe
therecord
recordofofthe
thecase);
case);
cannot be immediately filed
District Court,
Court, 108
108 Nev.
Nev. 1027,
1027,842
P.2d 731
731 (1992)
(1992)(the
(theclerk
clerkofofthe
thedistrict
districtcourt
courthas
hasaa
Donoho v. District
842 P.2d
and to
to keep
keep an
an accurate
accurate record
record of
ofthe
the proceedings
proceedingsbefore
beforethe
thecourt);
court);Grey
Greyv.v.
duty to file documents and
892 P.2d
P~2d 595
595 (1995)
(1995) (clerk
(clerk of
ofdistrict
district court
courtadmonished
admonishedfor
forfailure
failuretotokeep
keep
Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 892
10
of documents submitted
submitted for
for filing).
filing).
accurate record of
11
12
that the district

district court
court has
has refused
refused to
to file
file his
his application
applicationand
andhas
hasreturned
returneditit
Petitioner alleges that
13
provide more
more information
information regarding
regarding employment.
employment. Indeed,
Indeed,petitioner
petitionerhas
hasattached
attachedtoto
with directions to provide
14
his petition for a writ in

in this court
court his
his original
original application
application as
as itit was
was returned
returnedto
tohim.
him.Attached
Attachedtotothe
the
15
top of
of the document is
is aa "post-it"
"post-it" note
note with
with the
the handwritten
handwritten notation:
notation: "application
"applicationdenied
deniedincomplete
incomplete
16
info-employment currently." 4 The state

state informs
informs us
us that
that the
the note
note was
was written
written by
by"the
"thechief
chiefjudge."
judge."In
In
17
18
addition, petitioner alleges, and

and the
the allegation
allegation is
is apparently
apparently true,
true, that
thatalong
alongwith
withhis
his"denied"
"denied"
19
application for leave to proceed in

in forma
forma pauperis,
pauperis, his
his civil
civil complaint
complaintwas
wasreturned
returnedtotohim
himunfiled.
unfiled.
20
Finally,
attached documentation
documentation to
to support
supportthe
the allegation,
allegation,that
thatjudges'
judges'law
law
Finally, petitioner alleges, and has attached
21
clerks often return to prisoners unfiled motions

motions along
along with
with letters
letters purporting
purportingto
to rule
ruleon
onthe
thelegal
legal
22
sufficiency of those
The state
state argues
argues in
in its
its answer
answer to
to this
this petition
petition that
that "petitioner's
"petitioner's
those motions.
motions. The
23
24
application ... was denied on the basis that

that the
the address
address of
ofthe
the Petitioner
Petitionerwhich
whichwas
waslater
latergiven
giventotothe
the
25
Court by Petitioner ... did not appear to be aa jail and

and that
that such
such information
information was
wascontrary
contraryto
tothe
the
26
information shown in the application which stated

stated that
that the
the Petitioner
Petitioner was
was in
inprison.
prison.The
The'out
'outofofjail'
jail'
27
address suggested an ability of

of the Petitioner
Petitioner to
to be
be employed."
employed." This
This vague
vague reference
referenceto
toan
an"out
"outof
ofjail"
jail"
28
-- 4/94
4/94--
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS

THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
PETITION
1330
address is not explained in

in the documents before
before this
this court.
court. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, the
thestate's
state'sassertion
assertionthat
that
application was
was denied
denied is
is incorrect.
incorrect. The
The handwritten
handwritten notation
notationon
onpetitioner's
petitioner'sunfiled
unfiled
application clearly does not constitute aa proper

proper judicial
judicial disposition
disposition of
ofthat
thatapplication.
application. Further,
Further,the
the
44
action of the clerk of

of the district court in
in returning
returning petitioner's
application and
andcivil
civilcomplaint
complainttotohim
him
5
6
6
unfiled is in direct violation of

of this court's
court's instructions
instructions to
to the
the clerk
clerkof
ofthe
the district
districtcourt
courtininWhitman
Whitmanv.v.
Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840

840 P.2d 1232
1232 (1992).
(1992). This
This court
court has
has several
several times
times confirmed
confirmedthe
theabsolute
absolute
obligation of
of the district courts to file
file documents
documents submitted
submitted to
to them
them and
and to
to preserve
preservethe
theright
rightofof
citizens to access to the courts, whether

whether indigent
indigent or
or not.
not. Barnes
Barnes v.
v. District
DistrictCourt,
Court,103
103Nev.
Nev.679,
679,748
748
10
P.2d 483 (1987); Huebner v. State,

State, 107
107 Nev. 328,
328, 810
810 P.2d
P.2d 1209
1209 (1991).
(1991).
11
12
Indeed, in Donoho v. District Court, 108

108 Nev. 1027,
1027, 842
842 P.2d
P.2d 731
731 (1992),
(1992), aacase
casedirectly
directly
13
analogous to this case, we held

held that the clerk
clerk of
ofthe
the district
district court
court violated
violated the
therights
rightsof
ofan
anindigent
indigent
14
party when she neglected to file

file aa motion
motion for
for leave
leave to
to proceed
proceedin
in forma
forma pauperis
pauperisand
andaamotion
motionfor
for
15
relief from a default judgment. Specifically,

Specifically, we
we stated:
stated: "[T]he
"[T]he clerk
clerk[of
[ofthe
thedistrict
districtcourt]
court]had
hadan
an
16
absolute duty to file the motion for leave

leave to proceed
proceed in
in forma
forma pauperis
pauperis and
and to
to clearly
clearlystamp
stampthe
thedate
dateof0
17
18
receipt of
of the other documents on
on the documents.
documents. Further,
Further, the
the clerk
clerkhad
hadaaduty
dutyto
tokeep
keepan
anaccurate
accurate
19
record of
of the case pending before
before the
the district
district court."
court." Id.
Id. at
at 1029,
1029, 842
842 P.2d
P.2datat733
733(citation
(citationomitted;
omitted;
20
emphasis added). Thus, petitioner's application

application for
for leave
leave to
to proceed
proceed in
in forma
formapauperis
pauperismust
mustbe
befiled.
filed.
21
If, on subsequent review of

of the application, the
the district
district court
court determines
determines that
thatpetitioner
petitionerhas
hasnot
notshown
shown
22
he is indigent, the district court

court may
may order
order petitioner
petitioner to
to provide
provide further
further information
informationor
ormay
maydeny
denythe
the
23
24
application in an appropriately filed written

written order.
order. If,
If, on
on the
the other
other hand,
hand, the
thedistrict
districtcourt
courtgrants
grantsthe
the
25
application, the district court

court must then
then proceed
proceed to
to require
require the
the filing
filing of
ofpetitioner's
petitioner'sother
otherdocuments
documents
26
and to consider them in due course.

course. Donoho, 108
108 Nev.
Nev. at
at 1030,
1030, 842
842 P.2d
P.2datat733.
733.Of
Ofcourse,
course,for
forstatute
statute
27
of limitations purposes, the complaint

complaint would
would have
have to
to be
be considered
considered filed
filed on
onthe
thedate
dateof
ofactual
actualreceipt
receipt
28
-- 5/94
5/94--
1331
of the district
district court.
court. To
To continue
continue the
the analysis,
analysis, with
withrespect
respecttotopetitioner's
petitioner'scivil
civilcomplaint
complaint
by the clerk of
which he is attempting to
to file
file concurrently,
concurrently, the
the district
districtcourt
courtclerk
clerkhad
hadan
anabsolute
absoluteobligation
obligationtotostamp
stamp
"received" and
and to
to record
record the
the date
date on
onwhich
whichthe
thedocument
documentwas
wasininfact
factreceived
receivedatatthe
the document "received"
the
4
4
courthouse. See Huebner

Huebner v.
v. State,
State, 107
107 Nev.
Nev. 328,
328, 810
810 P.2d
P.2d1209
1209(1991).
(1991).This
Thisthe
theclerk
clerkofofthe
thedistrict
district
5
court did. However, the clerk

clerk then
then had
had aa duty
duty to
to maintain
maintain aacopy
copyof
ofthe
thereceived
receiveddocument
documentininthe
the
ofthe
whether or
or not
not the
the document
document isis ever
everfiled.
filed. Whitman
Whitmanv.v.Whitman,
Whitman,108
108Nev.
Nev.949,
949,
record of
the case, whether
840 P.2d 1232 (1992).

(1992).
This, the clerk neglected to do.

do. While
While Huebner
Huebner dealt
dealt with
with the
the timeliness
timelinessof
ofaanotice
noticeofofappeal,
appeal,
10
this court's
court's ruling
ruling in
in Huebner,
Huebner, that
thatall
alldocuments
documentsmust
mustbe
bemarked
markedreceived
received
the rationale compelling this
11
12
and dated, applies with equal force

force to aa party's
party's submission
submission of
ofaacomplaint.
complaint. "The
"Thelegal
legalrights
rightsofofthe
the
13
whether acting
acting in
in proper
proper person
personor
orthrough
throughcounsel,
counsel,often
oftenturn
tumon
onthe
thedate
dateofof
parties to litigation, whether
14
receipt by the clerk of

of the district
district court
court of
ofdocuments
documents and
andpleadings."
pleadings."Huebner,
Huebner,107
107Nev.
Nev.atat330,
330,810
810
15
Althoughthe
theclerk
clerkofofthe
thedistrict
districtcourt
courtstamped
stampedthe
thenotice
noticeofofappeal
appeal"received"
"received"on
on
P.2d at 1211. Although
16
December 30, 1991,

1991, the clerk
clerk did
did not
not file
file the
the notice
notice of
ofappeal.
appeal. Instead,
Instead,the
theclerk
clerkofofthe
thedistrict
districtcourt
court
17
18
returned appellant's notice

notice of
ofappeal
appeal to
to appellant
appellant because
because ititwas
wasnot
notaccompanied
accompaniedby
byaafiling
filingfee
feeand,
and,.
19
although the notice was accompanied

accompanied by
by aa motion
motion for
for leave
leave to
to proceed
proceedon
onappeal
appealininforma
formapauperis,
pauperis,
20
appellant's affidavit in
in support
support of
ofthat
motion was
was apparently
apparentlynot
notsigned.
signed.Consequently,
Consequently,there
thereisisno
no
that motion
21
of the submission
submission of
ofappellant's
appellant's timely
timely notice
notice of
ofappeal.
appeal. We
Wenote
notethat
thatthe
theclerk
clerkofofthe
thedistrict
district
record of
22
court filed appellant's motion for

for leave
leave to
to proceed
proceed on
on appeal
appeal in
informa
formapauperis
pauperison
onthe
thedate
dateofofreceipt,
receipt,
23
24
December 30, 1991,

1991, and
and that
that the
the district
district court
courteventually
eventuallygranted
grantedthat
thatmotion.
motion.We
Wehave
havepreviously
previously
25
stated that "it is extremely important

important that
that the
the clerk
clerk of
ofthe
the district
districtcourt
courtkeep
keepan
anaccurate
accuraterecord
recordofofthe
the
26
of receipt of
of every
every document
document submitted
submitted to
to the
the clerk,
clerk, regardless
regardlessof
ofwhether
whetherthe
thedocument
documentisisininthe
the
date of
27
appropriate form. Indeed, itit is

is aa gross
gross dereliction
dereliction of
ofduty
duty for
forthe
theclerk
clerkof
ofthe
thedistrict
districtcourt
courttotoneglect
neglect
28
-- 6/94
6/94-

117 PETITION
1332
this ministerial duty." Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 330, 810 P.2d 1209,
1209,1211
(1991)(footnote
(footnote
1211(1991)
omitted). In this case, the clerk

clerk of
ofthe
the district
district court
court has
has failed
failed to
to keep
keep any
anyrecord
recordof
ofthe
thedate
dateofofreceipt
receipt
of
of appeal;
appeal; instead,
instead, the
the clerk
clerkstamped
stampedthe
the document
document"received"
"received"and
andreturned
returneditittoto
of appellant's notice of
4
appellant. The clerk of

of the district
district court
court had
had no
no authority
authority to
to take
take such
suchaction.
action.
5
6
Although the clerk of

of the district
district court
court had
had no
no duty
duty to
to file
file appellant's
appellant'snotice
noticeof
ofappeal
appealbefore
before
appellant paid the requisite filing

filing fee
fee or
or was
was relieved
relieved of
ofthe
the duty
duty to
to pay
paythe
thefiling
filingfee
feeby
byorder
orderofofthe
the
district court, see NRS 19.013(2),

19.013(2), the
the clerk
clerk had
had aa duty
duty to
to receive
receive the
thedocument
documentand
andtotokeep
keepan
an
accurate record of
of the case pending
pending before
before the
the district
district court.
court. Particularly
Particularlyininthis
thiscase
caseititwas
wasessential
essential
10
that the notice of

of appeal be
be retained
retained in
in the
the record,
record, because
because we
we have
haveheld
heldthat
thataanotice
noticeofofappeal
appealisis
11
12
effective on the date of

of receipt
receipt by
by the
the district
district court
court clerk.
clerk. See
See Huebner
Huebnerv.v.State,
State,[108
[108Nev.
Nev:952]
952]107
107
13
810 P.2d
P.2d 1209
1209 (1991).
(1991). Rather
Rather than
thanreturning
returningthe
thenotice
noticeof
ofappeal
appealtotoappellant,
appellant,the
theclerk
clerkofof
Nev. 328, 810
14
the district court should

should have
have retained
retained the
the notice
notice of
ofappeal
appeal in
inthe
the record,
record,and
andshould
shouldhave
haveinformed
informed
15
appellant by letter of
of any perceived
perceived deficiencies
deficiencies in
in the
the document.
document. 44Appellant
Appellantcould
couldthen
thenhave
havetaken
taken
16
whatever action was appropriate

appropriate to
to pursue
pursue his
his appeal.
appeal. In
Inlight
lightof
ofthe
theforegoing,
foregoing,we
weconclude
concludethat
that
17
18
appellant timely submitted

submitted to the
the clerk
clerk of
ofthe
the district
district court
courtaa notice
noticeof
ofappeal
appealfrom
froman
anappealable
appealableorder
orde
19
of
appellant's timely
timely notice
notice of
ofappeal
appeal isisnot
notcontained
containedininthe
therecord
recorddue
duetoto
of the district court, and that appellant's
20
the inappropriate action

action of
ofthe
the district
district court
court clerk.
clerk. Accordingly,
Accordingly,we
wegrant
grantappellant's
appellant'spetition
petitionfor
for
21
rehearing, and we proceed

proceed to
to address
address the
the merits
merits of
ofthis
this appeal."
appeal."Id.
Id.At
At1232-1234.
1232-1234.See,
See,also,
also,Barnes
Barnesv.v.
22
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

Court of
ofState
State of
ofNev.,
Nev., In
In and
and For
ForClark
ClarkCounty,
County,748
748P.2d
P.2d483,
483,103
Nev.679
679
103 Nev.
23
24
(Nev., 1987)." Footnote

Footnote33in
inIn
InRe
ReNoel
NoelGage
Gageseems
seemsto
tosuggest
suggest(and
(andthat
thatisisan
anunpublished
unpublishedopinion,
opinion,
25
and so,
so"hopefully
violation to
to mention
mention itit hear,
hear, rather
ratherthan
than"cite"
"cite"totoititunder
underSCR
SCR123...)
123 ... )anan
hopefully itit is not aa violation
26
Opposition may be allowable. ItItwould

wouldbe
be nice
nice to
to get
getaachance
chance to
to give
give my
myside
sidebefore
before10
10different
different
27
news outlets tell the tawdry

tawdry tale
tale of
ofthe
the attorney
attorney who
who allegedly shoplifted a candy bar and some cough
28
- 7/94
7/94--

117 PETITION
1333
drops. None
None of
ofthem
them called
called me
mefor
for aaquote.
quote. Newspapers
Newspapersand
andtelevision
televisionoutlets
outletsaren't
aren'tthe
theonly
onlyones
ones
with a voice anymore, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGChf813eKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGChf813eKo
2. In the trial court matter in

in Reno Municpal
Municpal Court,
Court, Wal-Mart
Wal-Martassociate,
associate,Thomas
ThomasFrontino,
Frontino,
4
5
testified that the accused ate

ate the
the chocolate
chocolate bar
bar(and
(and that
thatpersonally
personallyeyewitnessed
eyewitnessedCoughlin
Coughlintake
takeititoff
off
the shelf
shelf in the candy isle) while the accused was shopping for and paid for $83.82
$83.82of
ofother
othersundries.
sundries.
However, the UPC of

of the chocolate
chocolate bar
bar from
from the
the receipt
receipt in
inquestion
questionshows
showsititwas
wasan
anice
icecream
creambar,
bar,
Thus,
meaning it wouldn't have been in the candy isle, but rather the refrigerated/frozen food isle. Thus,
9
10
the beyond a reasonable doubt

doubt standard
standard applicable
applicable to
to that
thatcriminal
criminalcase
caseappears
appearsnot
nottotohave
havebeen
beenmet
met
11
where, amazingly, the multimillion dollar establishment, Wal-Mart, with literally hundreds of
of
12
cameras placed strategically

strategically throughout
throughout the
the store,
store, claimed
claimed in
inthe
thetrial
trialcourt
courtthat
thatno
novideo
videofootage
footage
13
exists or ever existed of

of any of
ofthe
the events
events testified
testified to
to at
at trial
trial beyond
beyondthe
the22videos
videospropounded
propoundedofofthe
the
14
interactions between the accused

accused and
and Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart loss
loss prevention
preventionstaff
staffand
andReno
RenoSparks
SparksIndian
IndianColony
Colony
15
police in a 5 by 8 by 12 interrogation room utilized by Wal-Mart. Oddly,

Oddly, the
thevideo
videofrom
fromthe
the
16
17
interrogation room show the RSIC

RSIC Officers
Officers being
being handed
handed aaCD
CD or
orDVD
DVDby
bythe
theWal-Mart
Wal-Martloss
loss
18
prevention associate upon their exiting the interrogation room. So,

So,the
theonly
onlyevidence
evidencebeing
beingthe
the
19
alleged eye witness testimony of

ofthe
the Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart loss
loss prevention
preventionassociate,
associate,his
hiscredibility
credibilityundermined
undermined
20
by the fact that he testified, under

under oath,
oath, that
that he
he personally
personallysaw
sawthe
theaccused
accusedselect
selectthe
thechocolate
chocolatebar
bar
21
from the candy isle, then consume it while walking throughout the store shopping. Again,
Again,the
theUPC
UPC
22
23
from the wrapper of

of the chocolate
chocolate bar
bar item
item allegedly
allegedly stolen
stolenclearly
clearlyreveals
revealsthat
thatthe
theUPC
UPCbelongs
belongstotoaa
24
refrigerated item, an ice

ice cream
cream bar,
bar, therefore
therefore undermining
underminingthe
theWal-Mart
Wal-Martassociates
associatesclaim
claimtotohave
have
25
witnessed the accused select it from the shelf

shelf in the candy isle, which is not refrigerated. See
SeeExhibit
Exhibit
26
1.
27
28
- 8/94
8/94-
117 PETITION
1334
2
3
3. Further, the only other piece of

of allegedly
allegedly incriminating
incriminating evidence
evidencewas
wasthe
thefruit
fruitof
ofan
an
impermissible
RSICOfficer
OfficerKameron
KameronCrawford
Crawfordtestified
testifiedthat
thatheheonly
onlymade
madean
anarrest,
arrest,and
and
impermissible search.
search. RSIC
therefore conducted
conducted aa search
search incident
incident to
to arrest
arrestin
in light
lightof
ofthe
theaccused's
accused'salleged
allegedrefusal
refusaltotoprovide
providehis
his
driver's license. However,

However, the
the two
two videos
videos of
ofthe
the detention
detentionand
andsearch
searchin
in the
the Wal-Mart
Wal-Martinterrogation
interrogation
5
6
room clearly reveal the accused

accused providing
providing that
that same
same RSIC
RSIC officer
officerhis
hisdriver's
driver'slicense
licenseand
andthe
theOfficer
Officer
radioing in the driver's license

license number
number to
to run
run aa routine
routine check,
check, and
andthe
thearrest
arrestreport
reportclearly
clearlycontains
containsthe
the
driver's license number of

of the accused
accused and
and other
other information
information culled
culledfrom
from the
theRSIC
RSICofficer's
officer'sreview
reviewofof
the driver's license. Further,

Further,the
thepartial
partialcontents
contentsofofa acough
coughmelt
meltpackage
packagewas
wasfound
foundininthe
theaccused
accused
10
However, the
thereceipt
receiptfor
forthe
the$83.82
$83.82worth
worthof
ofgroceries
groceriesand
andsundries
sundriesthe
theaccused
accusedpurchased
purchased
pockets. However,
11
12
13
14
immediately prior to the arrest

arrest bares
bares andentry
andentry with
with the
the exact
exactsame
sameUPC
UPCof
ofthe
thecough
coughmelts
meltsfound
foundinin
the accused's pocket.
pocket.
4. Then, the Wal-Mart witness admitted, under oath while testifying, that he
hecould
couldnot
nothear
hearwhether
whether
15
16
or not the accused told the cashier

cashier ringing
ringing up
up the
the some
some $83.82
$83.82 worth
worthof
ofitems
itemspurchased
purchasedwhether
whetherthe
the
l7
The
accused had or had consumed a certain a quantity of the Duract Cough Melts while shopping. The
18
Wal-Mart loss prevention associate

associate further
further testified
testified that
thatititwas
was aacommon
commonand
andaccepted
acceptedpractice
practiceatat
19
Wal-Mart for shoppers to inform

inform cashiers
cashiers of
ofthe
the number
number or
orquantity
quantity of
ofaacertain
certainitem
itemthey
theywere
were
20
purchasing rather than have the cashier ring up each of

of the duplicative items one by one. Further,
Further,the
the
21
Wal-Mart and Indian Colony Officer

Officer testified
testified that
that on
on the
the receipt
receiptfor
forthe
theitems
itemsthe
theaccused
accuseddid
didpay
payfor,
for,
22
23
the UPC of
of the type of
of cough
cough medication
medication melts
melts they
they say
saythe
theaccused
accusedstole
stoledid
didnot
notappear,
appear,however,
however,a a
24
review of
ofthat
clearly shows
shows that
that that
that UPC
UPC for
for cough
coughmelts
meltsisisan
anentry
entryon
onthat
thatreceipt.
receipt.Also,
Also,
that receipt clearly
25
Wal-Mart loss
loss prevention
prevention associate
associate testified
testifiedthat
thathe
hecould
couldglean,
glean,from
from30
30yards
yardsaway,
away,
amazingly, the Wal-Mart
26
each and every item the cashier

cashier rung
rung up
up for
for me
me and
and that
thatthose
thoseitems
itemsdid
didnot
notinclude
includesuch
suchaabox
boxofofthe
the
27
cough medication melts. However,

However, the
the accused
accused showed
showedin
incourt
courtand
andininexhibits
exhibitsthat
thatthe
thereceipt
receiptfor
forthe
the
28
- 9/94
9/94--

117 PETITION
1335
items the accused purchased did have one

one item
item with
with the
the same
same UPC
UPC as
as the
the exact
exacttype
typeof
ofcough
cough
medication melts. So
Sothe
theWal-Mart
Wal-Martloss
lossprevention
preventionassociate
associateadmitted
admittedneither
neitherhehenor
noranyone
anyoneatatWalWal-
Mart could say that they could hear

hear whether
whether the
the accused
accused told
told the
the cashier
cashieraaquantity
quantitytotoring
ringup
upfor
forthe
the
4
5
cough medication melt box with the same

same UPC
UPC as
as the
the ones
ones Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart alleges
alleges were
werestolen
stolenor
or
consumed while shopping....

shopping .... Further, the
the Indian
Indian Colony
Colony Officer
Officer testified
testified that
thathe
heonly
onlyarrested
arrestedthe
the
incident to
to arrest
arrest because
because the
the accused
accused didn't
didn'tprovide
providethe
theaccused's
accused's
accused and conducted a search incident
driver's license to him. However, the video

video of
ofthe
Wal-Mart interrogation
interrogationroom
roominterview
interviewclearly
clearly
the Wal-Mart
shows the accused giving the officer

officer the accused's
accused's driver's
driver's license
license and
and him
him radioing
radioingititininto
tohis
his
10
dispatch and him taking down the driver's

driver's license
license number
number and
and other
otherinformation
informationoff
offof
ofit.it.
11
12
13
14
5. Lastly, the undersigned reported

5.
reported the
the conviction
conviction in
in the
the trial
trial court,
court, while
whilean
anappeal
appealwas
was
The undersigned
undersigned reported
reported the
the conviction
conviction to
to Bar
BarCounsel
Counsel on
on
pending in District Court to Bar Counsel. The
as the undersigned
undersigned knew
knew at
at the
the time,
time, prior
priorto
to Bar
BarCounsel
Counselbeing
beingaware
awareof
ofthe
the
his own and, as far as
15
16
Further, depending
depending upon
upon how
howthe
the length
length of
oftime
time between
between the
the rendition
rendition or
ornotice
notice of
ofentry
entry
conviction. Further,
17
of the conviction and when the undersigned

undersigned reported
reported the
the conviction
conviction to
to Bar
BarCounsel
Counselisismeasure,
measure,the
the
18
complied with
with the
the "within
"within30
30days"
days"dictate
dictateofofSCR
SCR111
111(only
(onlyintroduced
introduced
undersigned arguably timely complied
19
in 2007, and perhaps somewhat difficult

difficult to
to find
find given
given that
that the
the Rules
Rules of
ofProfessional
ProfessionalConduct
Conductmight
might
20
seem a more apt place to look for such

such aa reporting
reporting requirement...),
requirement...), and
and ififnot,
not, then
thenthe
theundersigned
undersigned
21
the "within
"within 30
30 days"
days" requirement,
requirement,all
allwhile
whilefiling
filingan
anappeal
appealand
andlitigating
litigating
was only a few days beyond the
22
23
24
25
a contentious summary eviction from the

the undersigned
undersigned former
former home
home law
lawoffice.
office.
6. At Trial, at 2:52:25 pm, in

6.
in the audio
audio transcript
transcript submitted
submitted into
into evidence
evidenceby
byCoughlin
Coughlinininthe
the
Record on Appeal (ROA) in
in the form
form of
ofaa cd
cd of
ofthe
the audio
audio recording,
recording, Frontino
Frontinotestified
testifiedunder
underoath
oathasas
26
he and
and Coughlin
Coughlin discussed
discussed upon
upon Frontino
Frontino instructing
instructingCoughlin
Coughlintotogo
gowith
with
follows with regard to what he
27
28
asset protection
protection interrogation
interrogation room:
room:
him back to the asset
-- 10/94
10/94--
1336
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
City
specific information
information did
did you
you ask
ask of
ofMr.
Mr. Coughlin?
Coughlin?
City Attorney
Attorney Pam Roberts: What specific
Thomas
social security
security number.
number.
Thomas Frontino: Identification, his name birth date, social
City
of that information
information to
to you?
you?
City Attorney
Attorney Pam Roberts: And did he provide any of
Thomas Frontino: No, he did not.
Thomas
City
unwillingness to
to provide
provide that
that information
informationdid
didyou
youtake
take
City Attorney Pam Roberts: Based upon his unwillingness
any further action?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, we called the police, the
the Reno
Reno Sparks
Sparks Indian
Indian Colony
Colony Tribal
TribalPolice
Police
Department.
They
usually
arrive
within
ten
minutes,
I
believe
my
statement
reflects
was less
less than
than
Department. They usually arrive within ten minutes. I believe my statement reflects itit was
that.
However, it was not long before Frontino contradicted
contradicted that
that testimony,
testimony, becoming
becoming
of questioning.
questioning.
uncomfortable with Coughlin's line
line of
7.
Here isis an
an attempt
attempt at
at making
making aa transcript,
transcript, since
since the
the RMC
RMC chose
chose not
not to
to prepare
prepare one
one and
and forward
forward itit
7. Here
10
(CRII-2064) as
as required
required under
under Nevada
Nevadalaw,
law,within
within10
10days
daysofof
on to the District Court in the Appeal (CR11-2064)
11
12
the filing
Judge Elliot
Elliotmanaged
managed to
to excuse
excuse that
that by
by citing
citing to
to aa civil
civil statute,
statute, but
but he
he
filing of a notice of appeal. Judge
13
6(e) for the computation

computation of
of time
time in
in aa criminal
criminal appeal
appeal for
forthe
the purposes
purposesof
of
also applied NRCP 6(e)
14
ofappeal,
appeal, so
so itit was
was kind
kind of
ofaa wash.
wash.
calculating the deadline to file aa notice of
15
16
LEGAL ARGUMENT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Arrestby
by officer
officeror
oragent
agentof
ofBureau
Bureau of
oflndian
Affairs or
or police
police officer
officer
NRS 171.1255 Arrest
Indian Affairs
employed by Indian tribe.
1.
Except as
as otherwise
otherwise provided
providedininsubsection
subsection2,2,an
anofficer
officerororagent
agentofofthe
theBureau
BureauofofIndian
Indian
1. Except
employed as
as aa police
police officer
officer by
by an
an Indian
Indiantribe
tribemay
maymake
makean
anarrest
arrestininobedience
obedience
Affairs or a person employed
to him
him or
or her,
her, or
or may,
may, without
without aa warrant,
warrant, arrest
arrestaaperson:
person:
to a warrant delivered to
committed or
or attempted
attempted in
in the
the officer
officeror
oragent's
agent'spresence.
presence.
(a) For a public offense committed
(b) When a person arrested has committed
committed aa felony
felony or
or gross
gross misdemeanor,
misdemeanor, although
althoughnot
notininthe
the
agent's presence.
presence.
officer or agent's
(c) When a felony or gross misdemeanor
misdemeanor has
has in
in fact
fact been
been committed,
committed, and
andthe
theofficer
officerororagent
agenthas
has
reasonable cause
cause for
for believing
believing the
the person
person arrested
arrested to
to have
have committed
committedit.it.
reasonable cause,
cause, of
ofthe
the commission
commissionof
ofa
felonyor
orgross
gross
(d) On a charge made, upon aa reasonable
a felony
misdemeanor
by
the
person
arrested.
misdemeanor by
person arrested.
in fact
fact been
been issued
issued in
in this
this State
State for
for the
the arrest
arrestof
ofaanamed
namedor
ordescribed
described
(e) When a warrant has in
for aa public offense,
offense, and
and the
the officer
officeror
orcagent
hasreasonable
reasonablecause
causetotobelieve
believethat
thatthe
theperson
person
person for
agent has
so named
named or
or described.
described.
arrested is the person so
- 1 11/941 /94 -

117 PETITION
1337
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(t)
officer has probable
probable cause
cause to
to believe
believe that
thatthe
the person
personto
tobe
bearrested
arrestedhas
has
(f) When the peace officer
committed a battery upon that
that person's
person'sspouse
spouseand
andthe
thepeace
peaceofficer
officerfinds
findsevidence
evidenceofofbodily
bodilyharm
harm
to the spouse.
2. Such
Suchan
an officer
officeror
oragent
agentmay
may make
make an
anarrest
arrestpursuant
pursuantto
to subsection
subsection11only:
only:
(a) Within the boundaries of
of an
an Indian
Indian reservation
reservation or
or Indian
Indian colony
colonyfor
f~ran
anoffense
offensecommitted
committedon
on
or colony;
colony; or
or
that reservation or
(b) Outside the boundaries of
of an Indian
Indian reservation
reservation or
or Indian
Indian colony
colony ififthe
theofficer
officeror
oragent
agentisisinin
fresh pursuit of
of a person who
who is
is reasonably
reasonably believed
believed by
by the
the officer
officeror
oragent
agentto
tohave
havecommitted
committedaa
felony within the boundaries of
of the reservation
reservation or
or colony
colony or
orhas
has committed,
committed,or
orattempted
attemptedtotocommit,
commit,
boundaries in
in the
the presence
presence of
ofthe
the officer
officeror
oragent.
agent.
any criminal offense within those boundaries
EFor the purposes of

of this subsection,
subsection, "fresh
"freshpursuit"
pursuit"has
hasthe
themeaning
meaningascribed
ascribedtotoititininNRS
NRS
171.156.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
171.136 When
Whenarrest
arrestmay
maybe
bemade:...
made: ...
NRS 171.136
misdemeanor, the
the arrest
arrestcannot
cannotbe
be made
made between
between the
the hours
hours of
of77p.m.
p.m. and
and77a.m.,
a.m.,
2. IfIfititisis aamisdemeanor,
except:
ofthe
the arresting
arrestingofficer;
officer;
is committed
committed in
in the
the presence
presence of
(b) When the offense is
-((c)
c) When the person is found and
and the arrest
arrest is
is made
made in
in aa public
public place
place or
oraaplace
placethat
thatisisopen
opentotothe
the
public and:
of arrest against
against the
the person;
person; and
and
(1) There is a warrant of
(2) The misdemeanor is discovered
discovered because
because there
there was
was probable
probable cause
causefor
forthe
thearresting
arrestingofficer
officer
arrest the
the person
person for
for another
another alleged
allegedviolation
violationor
oroffense;
offense;
to stop, detain or arrest
(d) When the offense is committed
committed in
in the
the presence
presence of
ofaa private
private person
personand
andthe
theperson
personmakes
makesan
an
immediately after
after the
the offense
offenseisiscommitted;
committed;
arrest immediately
Sec. 8.10.040. - Petit
Petit larceny.
larceny.
"It is unlawful for

for any
any person
person to
to take
take or
or carry
carry away
away the
theproperty
propertyof
ofanother
anotherwith
withthe
theintent
intenttoto
deprive the owner of
of his property
property therein,
therein, in
in any
any value
value less
less than
than$250.00,
$250.00,and
andfor
forhis
hisconviction
conviction
be fined
fined in
in an
an amount
amount not
not more
more than
than $1,000.00
$1,000.00and/or
and/orbe
beincarcerated
incarceratednot
notmore
more
therefor, he shall be
addition to
to any
any other
other penalty,
penalty, the
the court
courtshall
shallorder
orderthe
theperson
persontotopay
payrestitution."
restitution."
than six months. In addition
The arrest in this matter fails on every element of
ofNRS
Further,while
whileitit
NRS 171.126(2)(b)-(d). Further,
infer evidence
evidence of
ofguilt
guilt based
based upon
upon the
the fruit
fruitof
ofan
animpermissilble
impermissilblesearch
searchofof
is quite questionable to infer
24
Coughlin's pockets (which allegedly revealed one

one half
halfof
ofthe
the contents
contents of
ofone
one package
packageof
ofDuract
Duract
25
26
Cough Melts (6 melts in aa foil

foil sheet),
sheet), especially
especially where
where Coughlin
Coughlinhad
hadjust
justpaid
paidfor
for(and
(andthe
thereceipt
receipt
27
ofthe
the exact
exact product
productallegedly
allegedlyconsumed,
consumed,the
theDuract
DuractCough
Cough
package of
for $83.82 confirms this) aa package
28
Melts (UPC 073221630093). This

This isis particularly
particularlytrue
truewhere
wherethere
therewas
was not
notevidence
evidenceininthe
therecord
recordor
or
- 12/94
12/94117 PETITION
1338
2
3
testimony offered that

that the contents
contents of
ofCoughlin's
Coughlin's shopping
shoppingbag
bagfrom
fromthe
the$83.82
$83.82worth
worthofofitems
itemspaid
paid
for, did or did not include an
an opened
opened and
and or
or half
halffull
full package
package of
ofthose
thosevery
veryDuract
DuractCough
CoughMelts).
Melts).
To the extent that RMC Judge Howard
Howard refused
refused to
to let
let Coughlin
Coughlintestify
testifyon
onhis
hisown
ownbehalf
behalfatattrial,
trial,
of evidence to support
support the
the allegations,
allegations, combined
combinedwith
withthe
themyriad
myriadinstances
instances
such an utter paucity of
5
where the testimony of

ofWal-Mart's
Frontino and
and that
that of
ofRSIC
PoliceOfficers
OfficersCrawford
Crawfordand
and
Wal-Mart's Frontino
RSIC Police
Braunworth, is particularly troubling,

troubling, especially
especially to
to the
the extent
extentthat
thatthe
theCity
Cityof
ofReno
Renoand
andthe
theReno
Reno
Municipal Court arguably have

have aa vested
vested interest
interest in
in limiting
limiting the
the costs
costsassociated
associatedwith
withproviding
providing
defense counsel to indigent parties (Coughlin

(Coughlin was
was denied
denied his
his Sixth
SixthAmendment
AmendmentRight
RighttotoCounsel
Counsel
10
under Argersinger, where, as

as here,
here, even the possibility
possibility of
Coughlin served
served 33
of jail time exists- and Coughlin
11
12
days in jail in connection

connection with
with this
this trial
trialcourt
courtmatter
matterCity
CityAttorney
AttorneyPam
PamRoberts:
Roberts:Argersin_ger
Argersingerv.
v.
13
Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)) and collecting the fines associated with convictions. This
Thisfirst
firstoffense
offense
14
allegation of
of shoplifting, for
for some
some $14.00
$14.00 of
ofmerchandise,
merchandise, resulted
resultedin
inaa$400
$400fine
fineand
and33days
daysininjail,
jail,
15
all with no Sixth Amendment defense

defense counsel
counsel costs
costs attendant
attendantto
to the
theprosecution.
prosecution.
16
17
It would be false to say the Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart loss
loss prevention
prevention associate
associate Thomas
ThomasFrontino
Frontinomade
madean
an
18
arrest himself, and especially dubious to assert that Frontio met the requirement of.
Therewas
wasnono
of. There
19
allegation of
of that at the trial. The
TheRSIC
RSICOfficers
OfficersCrawford
Crawfordand
andBraunsworth
Braunsworthmade
madethe
thearrest,
arrest,asas
20
such, NRS
Even ififit
were applicable,
applicable, Wal-Mart's
Wal-Mart's Frontino's
Frontino's testimony
testimony was
was
NRS 171.126 is inapplicable.
inapplicable. Even
it were
21
so rife with unsupported, contradictory,

as to
to vitiate
vitiate any
any support
supportfor
for
contradictory, and disengenous statements as
22
23
any allegation that Frontino was

was entitled
entitled to
to arrest
arrest Coughlin,
Coughlin, under
underNRS
NRS171.126(1)
171.126(1)for
for"a"apublic
public
24
offense committed or attempted

attempted in
in the
the person's
person's presence".(he
presence" .(he"personally
"personallywitnessed"
witnessed"Coughlin
Coughlintake
take
25
a refrigerated ice
shelf in the candy isle
isle and
and consume
consume itit was
was shopping
shoppingfor
forother
other
ice cream
cream bar
bar off
off the shelf
26
items? Frontino
Frontino could
couldsee
see (he
(he admitted
admittedhe
he could
couldnot
not hear
hearwhat
whatwas
was said
saidbetween
betweenCoughlin
Coughlinand
andthe
the
27
Wal-Mart cashier, whom Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart feigned
feigned an
an inability
inability to
to locate
locateor
ordetermine
determinethe
theidentify
identifyof)
of) every
every
28
- 13/94
13/94-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
1339
2
3
item rung up by the cashier and

and off
offthe
the top
top of
ofhis
his head
headknow
know that
thatnone
noneof
ofthose
thoseitems
itemsbore
boreaaUPC
UPC
with the same number
number as
as the
the Duract
Duract Cough
Cough Melts
Melts Frontino
Frontino alleged
allegedCoughlin
Coughlinconsumed
consumedwhile
while
shopping?...
shopping? .. Further, Frontino's testimony about
about how
how he
he "personally
"personallywitnessed
witnessedCoughlin
Coughlinconsume
consume
4
5
inconsistentwith
withhis
histestimony
testimonythat
thatWal-Mart
Wal-Martpolicy
policydid
didnot
not
the cough drops while shopping"
shopping" isis inconsistent
follow Coughlin
Coughlin into
into the
the restroom
restroom atatWal-Mart
Wal-Martand
andthat,
that,therefore,
therefore,Frontino
Frontinolack
lack
permit Frontino to follow
attempts to
to investigate
investigate any
any suspicion
suspicionhe
hehad
hadwith
withrespect
respecttotothe
theDuract
Duract
a basis for making further attempts
Cough Melts, therefore leaving Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart and
and Frontino
Frontino to
to hinge
hinge their
theirhopes
hopesof
ofleveraging
theRSIC
RSIC
leveraging the
of Coughlin. To
Tothe
theextent
extentthat
thatFrontino
Frontinoadmitted
admittedneither
neitherhe
he
Police to conduct an unlawful search of
10
or anyone Wal-Mart may have sought to testify at trial could hear

hear what
whatwas
was said
saidbetween
betweenCoughlin
Coughlin
11
12
vantage point
point does
does not
not meet
meet the
the "in
"inthe
theperson's
person'spresence"
presence"standard
standard
and the cashier, Frontino's vantage
13
required by NRS 171.126(1),

171.126(1), though
though Frontino
Frontino still
still signed
signedthe
theCriminal
CriminalComplaint
Complaintswearing
swearingthat
thathe
he
14
had such a basis for making

making his
his allegations.
allegations.
15
16
171.126( 1) :: "Arrest
" Arrestby
byprivate
privateperson.
person.AAprivate
privateperson
personmay
mayarrest
arrestanotheCity
anotheCityAttorney
AttorneyPam
Pam
NRS 171.126(1)
Foraapublic
publicoffense
offensecommitted
committedor
orattempted
attemptedin
inthe
the person's
person'spresence."
presence."
Roberts: 1. For
17
18
19
20
ofappreciation
appreciationfor
forthe
the
RSIC Officer Crawford's
Crawford's written
written report
report demonstrates
demonstrates aaprofound
profoundlack
lackof
requirement, while
while at
at the
the same
same time,
time, displaying
displayingaacunning,
cunning,and
andcrafty
craftyapproach
approachtoto
probable cause requirement,
spinning the nexus between probable
probable cause,
cause, detaining
detaining aa suspects,
suspects, citizen's
citizen's arrest,
arrest,fourth
fourthamendment
amendment
21
exceptions,
hiswritten
writtenreport
report(included
(includedininthe
theattached
attachedExhibit
Exhibit2,2,aa
exceptions, and NRS
NRS 171.123.
171.123. InInhis
22
23
of the discovery propounded

propounded by
by the
the City
City of
ofReno,
Reno, finally,
finally, well
wellover
overone
onemonth
monthafter
afterthe
the
collection of
24
ofsuch
suchmaterials,
materials,from,
from,and
andinin
made numerous
numerous attempts
attempts to
to get
getaacopy
copyof
arrest and after Coughlin had made
25
the RSIC
RSIC Police
Police force
force (meeting
(meetingwith
withSargent
SargentAvansino
Avansinoand
andbeing
beingrefused
refused
person and by writing, the
26
ofReno
Reno City
CityAttorney's
Attorney'sOffice-on
Office-on
such documentation), the Reno Municipal
Municipal Court,
Court, the
the City
City of
27
approximately September
15thh,, 2011
Deputy City
City Attorney
Attorney Christopher
Christopher
September 15t
2011 Coughlin spoke with Deputy
28
- 14/94
14/94--
117 PETITION
1340
Hazlett-Stevens and inquired as

as to the
the availability
availability of
ofsuch
such witness
witness statements,
statements, police
policereports,
reports,ororany
any
other materials from Wal-Mart, the RSIC, or

or anyone
anyone else
else and
and was
was told
told by
by Hazlett-Stevens
Hazlett-Stevensthat
thatthe
the
City Attorney's Office had not and would

would not
not receive
receive such
such materials
materials until
until after
afterthe
thearraignment
arraignmentinin
4
5
this matter, which

which was
wasset
setfor
forsome
some30
30days
daysafter
afterthe
thearrest
arrest(September
(September
9th,2011
2011totoOctober
October
10th ,
9th,
10th,
20
12) ... Coughlin pleaded with Hazlett-Stevens
Hazlett-Stevens to
to just
just "double
"doublecheck"
check"and
andask
askeveryone
everyoneelse
elseininthe
the
2012)...Coughlin
office if any such discovery or

or documentation
documentation had
had been
been provided
provided to
to the
the City
CityAttorney's
Attorney'sOffice
Officeand
and
Hazlett-Stevens indicated he would, and

and thereafter
thereafter confirmed
confirmed to
to Coughlin
Coughlinthat
thatno
nosuch
suchitems
itemshad
had
been received, and further, that Coughlin

Coughlin had
had not
not right
right to
to them
them prior
priorto
to the
thearraignment,
arraignment,ininany
any
10
event, either from the City Attorney's Office,

Office, the
the RMC,
RMC, or
or the
the RSIC
RSIC Police
Police Department.
Department.However,
However,
11
12
the fax headers and dates on

on the
the discovery
discovery later
later provided
provided by
by the
the City
CityAttorney's
Attorney'sOffice
Officecertainly
certainly
13
seems to indicate that such materials were faxed

faxed to
to the
the City
City Attorney's
Attorney's Office
Office by
bythe
the RSIC
RSICPolice
Police
14
Department on
on September
September 13th,
13 th , 2011, however, the page numbers
numbers and
and page
pagecounts
countswould
wouldseem
seemtoto
15
indicate some materials were not propounded).
16
l7
In his "Arrest
"Arrest Report
Report and
and Declaration
Declarationof
ofProbable
ProbableCause"
Cause"from
fromSeptember
September9th,
9th ,2011,
2011,RSIC
RSIC
18
Officer Crawford writes:"On 9/9/11

9/9111 at about 21:21
21 :21 hours I responded to 2425 E. 22"nd St.,
St., Reno,
Reno, NV
NV
19
89502
Upon my
my arrival
arrival II met
met with
with Asset
Asset Protection
Protection Associate
AssociateThomas
Thomas
89502 for
for a Petit Larceny.
Larceny. Upon
20
Frontino, whom made a citizens arrest for Petit Larceny.

Frontino was
was in
in possession
possession of
ofthe
the stolen
stolen
Larceny. Frontino
21
items." Frontino's
Frontino'stestimony
testimonyatattrial,
trial, however,
however, clearly
clearlyindicated
indicated he
he had
had only
only asked
askedCoughlin
Coughlin to
to meet
meet
22
23
had "immediately"
"immediately" made
madeaa"citizen's
"citizen'sarrest"
arrest"right
rightafter
afterthe
thecommission
commission
with him, not that Frontino had
24
of the alleged crime.

Further, ififFrontino
Frontino had
had made
made such
such aa "citizen's
"citizen's arrest"
arrest"and
and"was
"wasininpossession
possession
crime. Further,
25
of the stolen items", then why

why did
did itit take
take five
five minutes
minutes of
ofinterrogation
interrogationby
bythe
theRSIC
RSICOfficers
Officersand
andaa
26
technical point
point of
ofarrest
arrest by
by Crawford,
Crawford, and
andwhy
whydid
didCrawford
Crawfordneed
needtotoexplain
explain
pat down before the technical
27
conduct aa search
search incident
incident to
to arrest,
arrest, and
andbasis
basisfor
forprobable
probablecause
causefinding
findingtoto
his decision to arrest, and conduct
28
-- 15/94
15/94--
1341
do so, upon some alleged failure by Coughlin to provide his driver's license? The
The discovery
discovery
propounded a month later

later still
still did
did not
not have
have any
any Magistrate
Magistrate or
orJudicial
JudicialOfficer's
Officer'ssignature
signatureapproving
approving
the probable cause finding,

finding, despite
despite the
the 48
48 hour
hour requirement
requirementthat
thatsuch
suchbe
beissued.
issued.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
However, in his "Incident

"Incident Report",
Report", made
made aaday
daylater,
later,RSIC
RSICOfficer
OfficerCrawford
Crawfordwrites:
writes:
11 at approximately
approximately 22 121
121 hours,
hours, Officer
Officer Braunworth
Braunworthand
andIIwere
were
"On 9/9120 11
dispatched to 2425 East Second
Second Street
Street Reno,
Reno, NY
NY 89502
89502 for
for aareport
reportof
ofaapetit
petit
with Wal-Mart
WaI-Mart Asset
AssetProtection
ProtectionAssociate
Associate
larceny. Upon our arrival we met with
Thomas Frontino who
who stated,
stated, he observed a white male adult,
adult. identified
identified as
as
Zachary Coughlin,
Coughlin~ walking through
through the
the store
store opening
opening various
various items
itemsand
and
discarding them in the garbage
garbage can.
can. Frontino stated,
stated, he also observed
walking through
through the
the store.
store. Coughlin passed all
all
Coughlin eat a candy bar while walking
of sale inside of
ofWal-Mart
and exited.
exited. Coughlin
Coughlin was
was then
thendetained
detainedby
by
points of
Wal-Mart and
Frontino for petit larceny.
larceny. Please
Please refer
refer to
to Frontino's
Frontino's Statement
Statementfor
for further
further
had any
any weapons
weapons on
onhis
his
infonnation. Officer Braunworth asked
asked Coughlin
Coughlin ififhe
he had
couldhave
have
stated, he
he did
did not.
not. II asked
asked Coughlin
CoughlinififIIcould
person and Coughlin stated,
permission to search his
his person
person for
for weapons.
weapons. Coughlin
Coughlingave
gave me
meconsent,
consent,but
but
clothing of
ofCoughlin
Coughlin and
and
stated do not go into my pockets. II searched the outer clothing
found no weapons on him. I then proceeded
proceeded to
to ask
ask Coughlin
Coughlin questions
questionspertaining
pertaining
to issuing him a citation for
for petit
petit larceny.
larceny.
Coughlin however, refused to answer
answer my
my questions
questions relating
relating to
to aacitation
citationand
and
became uncooperative. Coughlin
Coughlin was
was then
then placed
placed under
under arrest
arrestfor
for petit
petitlarceny.
larceny.II
began my search incident to arrest
arrest on
on Coughlin
Coughlin and
and found
found cough
coughdrops
dropsstill
still
wrapped in his 'pockets.
Frontino was
was able
able to
to confirm
confirm they
they were
were the
thesame
samecough
cough
pockets. Frontino
drops that came from the opened
opened cough
cough drop
drop boxes
boxes from
from inside
inside the
the store
storethat
thatwere
were
approximately 2200
2200 hours,
hours, II transported
transported Coughlin
Coughlinto
tothe
theWashoe
Washoe
unpaid for. At approximately
County Detention Facility and
and booked
booked him
him for
for Reno
Reno Municipal
Municipal Code
Code 8.10.040
8.10.040
petit larceny. At approximately
approximately 2122
2122 hours,
hours, IIcleared
clearedthe
theincident
incidentwith
withno
nofurther
further
incident"
21
22
23
24
Officer Crawford testified at

at trial that
that Coughlin
Coughlin refused
refused to
to provide
provide his
his driver's
driver'slicense,
license,
however, this Incident
Incident Report
Report merely
merely mentions
mentions Coughlin
Coughlinallegedly
allegedlyrefusing
refusingtoto"answer
"answermy
my
questions
Why the remix
remix come trial time? Could
Couldititbebethata
thata
questions pertaining to
to issuing
issuing aa citation"?
citation"? Why
25
of"whom
"whomdo
doyou
youwork
workfor"
for"
suspect's allegedly failing to provide an
an Officer
Officer aa response
response to
to his
his querry
querryof
26
27
"I had
had to
to arrest
arrest him
him under
underNRS
NRS171.123
171.123because
becauseI Icouldn't
couldn'tbe
besure
sureofof
does not quite justify the older
older "I
28
his identify" approach,

approach, especially
especially where
where the
the Officer
Officerwas
wasgiven
giventhe
thesuspect's
suspect'sdriver's
driver'slicense,
license,and
andran
ran
- 16/94
16/94--

117 PETITION
1342
a NCIS check on it by calling his

his dispatch,
dispatch, wrote
wrote the
the driver's
driver's license
license number
numberdown
downon
onhis
his
contemporaneous Arrest Report and
and Declaration
Declaration of
ofProbable
Probable Cause,
Cause, and
andwhere
wherethe
theOfficer
Officerisisclearly
clearly
seen being handed the driver's license by Coughlin in the Wal-Mart interrogation room video? Any
Any
4
5
why is it that no other video exists

exists to
to support
support any
any of
ofWal-Mart
andFrontino's
Frontino'sallegation
allegationofof
Wal-Mart and
Coughlin consuming this or that or opening this or that, or throwing this or that away.
this had
had
away. IfIfthis
been a slip and fall case you can

can bet
bet Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart would
would have
have videos
videos from
from more
moreangles
anglesthan
thanaareplay
replayofof
a great catch in the Super Bowl, with their

their stores
stores having
having literally
literally hundreds
hundreds of
ofthose
thoseceiling
ceilingmounted
mounted
Oh, and,
and, suprise,
suprise, surprise,
surprise,
camers evenly dispersed throught the store and clearly visible to all.
all. Oh,
10
there is no audio on either

either of
ofthe
the Interrogation
Interrogation Room
Room videos
videos provided
providedby
byWal-Mart,
Wal-Mart,despite
despitetheir
their
11
12
13
14
loss prevention associates carrying around

around recording
recording devices
devices throughout
throughoutthe
theentire
entireincident,
incident,and
andthe
the
RSIC failed to provide any such
such recordings
recordings as
as well
well and
and indicated
indicatednone
noneexist.
exist.
How exactly was Frontino able
able to "confirm
"confirm they
they were
were the
the same
samecough
coughdrops
dropsthat
thatcame
camefrom
from
15
the opened cough drop boxes from inside the store"? Did
Didthese
these"cough
"coughdrops'
drops'have
haveaaserial
serialnumber
number
16
17
attached to them? Maybe

Maybethe
theinference
inferenceisisthat
thatthese
these"cough
"coughdrops"
drops"were
wereofofthe
thetype
typeone
onewould
wouldfind
find
18
in a box with the UPC that appears on

on both
both receipts
receipts in
in Exhibit
Exhibit 11(the
(the receipt
receiptfor
for$14.72
$14.72containing
containing
19
items allegedly
allegedly consumed
consumed while
while shopping
shopping for
for any
anypaying
payingfor
forthe
theentries
entrieson
onthe
the
the entries for the items
20
however, at
at trial,
trial, testimony
testimony was
was the
the unsupportable
unsupportableand
anddisengenous
disengenousposition
position
receipt for $83.82), however,
21
that Frontino knew they were the

the exact
exact "cough
"cough drops"
drops"that
thatwere
wereformerly
formerlyininthe
theboxes
boxesthat
thatFrontino
Frontino
22
23
24
25
from the
the box
box of
ofthe
the same
same Duract
Duract Cough
CoughMelts
Melts(again,
(again,bearing
bearingthe
thesame
sameUPC)
UPC)
had gathered, and not from
that appeared on Coughlin's $83.82
$83.82 receipt.
receipt.
Lacking any real probable cause
cause to
to arrest,
arrest, especially
especially for
for the
the alleged
alleged misdemeanor
misdemeanornot
not
26
committed in the Officer's presence, after

after 77 p.m.,
p.m., (see,
(see, below,
below, NRS
NRS 171.124(1)(a))),
171. 124(1)(a))),RSIC
RSICOfficer
Officer
27
28
Crawford, a trainee being overseen

overseen by
by Officer
Officer Braunworth,
Braunworth, who
who could
couldbarely
barelyremember
rememberhis
hisown
own
-- 17/94
17/94--
1343
name on
on the
the witness
witness stand
stand atattrial,
trial, was
wasleft
leftto
tothe
thedubious
dubiousatatbest
bestallegation
allegationthat
thathehehad
hadtotomake
makeanan
name
arrest because
because Coughlin
Coughlin failed
failed to
to provide
providehis
hisdriver's
driver'slicense(
licenseethis
thisassertion
assertionwas
wasdubious
dubiousatatbest,
best,and
and
arrest
fraudulent police
police misconduct
misconduct done
done under
undercolor
colorof
ofstate
statelaw
lawbest,
best,considering
consideringthis
thisoccurred
occurredatata aretail
retail
fraudulent
4
property owned
owned by
by the
the same
same entity,
entity, the
theReno
RenoSparks
SparksIndian
IndianColony,
Colony,that
thatowns
ownsand
andruns
runsthe
theRSIC
RSIC
property
force, and
and which
which partners
partners with
withand
andrents
rentsto
toland
landon
onwhich
whichthis
thisWal-Mart
Wal-Martsits,
sits,totoitsitsbusiness
business
police force,
Wal-Mart, considering
considering that
thatthe
the interrogation
interrogationroom
roomvideos
videospropounde
propoundeby
bythe
theCity
CityofofReno
Reno
partner, Wal-Mart,
by Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart clearly
clearly show
showOfficer
OfficerCrawfor
Crawforbeing
beinghanded
handedCoughlin's
Coughlin'sdriver's
driver's
itself, and filmed by
license by Coughlin
Coughlin and
and Crawford's
Crawford's written
written report
report has,
has, ininCrawford's
Crawford'sown
ownhandwriting,
handwriting,the
theexact
exact
10
number belonging
belonging to
to Coughlin
Coughlin on
onthe
the "suspects
"suspectsinformation"
information"portion
portionofofthe
thereport,
report,
driver's license number
11
12
other information
information taken
taken directdly
directdly off
offof
ofthe
the driver's
driver's license
licenseCoughlin
Coughlinprovided
providedtoto
in addition to other
13
Further,Coughlin's
Coughlin'sattempts
attemptsto
toobtain
obtainthe
thedispatch
dispatchcalls
callsand
andrecords
recordsand
andany
any911
911 calls
calls
Crawford). Further,
14
made by Wal-Mart, where met with contradictory responses and obfuscation. Nonetheless,
Nonetheless,upon
upon
15
information and belief, such records

records would
would show
show what
what the
the interrogation
interrogationroom
roomvideo
videoshows,
shows,ie,
ie,
16
radio to call
call into
into dispatch
dispatch and
and run
run aa check
checkfor
forpriors
priorson
onCoughlin
Coughlin
Officer Crawford using his radio
17
18
utilizing Coughlin's drivers license number. Indeed,

Indeed, the
theNCIS
NCIS reports
reportsand
andrecords
recordslikely
likelyare
are
19
required to show when such

such aa report
report was
was run
run and
and by
by whom,
whom, and
andOfficer
OfficerCrawford's
Crawford'ssubsequent
subsequent
20
mincing assertion on the witness stand

stand that
that the
the Washoe
Washoe County
County Jail
Jailprovided
providedhim
himCoughlin's
Coughlin's
21
driver's license number is not only

only counter
counter to
to privacy
privacy laws
laws and
and Washoe
WashoeCounty
CountyJail
Jailpolicy
policyand
and
22
procedure, it is also blatantly false and

and aa pathetic
pathetic attempt
attempt to
to game
game the
the system
systemunder
undercolor
colorof
ofstate
state
23
24
law.
To the
the extent
extent that
that City
City of
ofReno
Reno Deputy
Deputy Prosecutor
Prosecutor Pamela
Pamela Roberts,
Roberts, Esq.,
Esq., was
was in
in possession
possession of
of
law. To
25
these interrogation room videos and continue

continue to
to facilitate
facilitate Officer
OfficerCrawford's
Crawford'sapparent
apparentperjury,
perjury,or,
or,atat
26
least,
should mitigate
mitigate any
any anger
angeror
orretaliation
retaliationmade
madeagainst
against
least, glaring "mis-rememberance", itit should
27
Coughlin for attachign as an exhibit to a pretrial

pretrial motion
motion the
the various
various law
lawreviews
reviewsrelated
relatedtoto
28
-- 18/94
18/94--
MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE TO
TO FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1344
prosecutorial misconduct
misconduct that
thatformer
former prosecutor,
prosecutor,RMC
RMCJudge
JudgeHoward,
Howard,seemed
seemedtotofind
findsosooffensive
offensive
prosecutorial
offputting.
and offputting.
3
4
on
minute chronology
chronology reveals
reveals that
that the
the $83.82
$83.82receipt
receiptwas
wasissued
issuedatat21:14
21: 14on
A minute by minute
that Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart created
created to
to support
supportits
its valuation
valuationof
ofthe
theitems
items
9th , 2011.
September 9th,
2011. The $14.74 receipt that
consumed while
while shopping
shopping but
but not
not paid
paidfor
forwas
wascreated
createdsome
someten
tenminutes
minuteslater
lateratat21:24
21 :24
allegedly consumed
(military time, 24 hour clock). The

TheRSIC
RSICPolice
PoliceOfficers
OfficersCameron
CameronCrawford
Crawfordand
andThe
Thetime
time
Interrogation Room
Room videos
videos provided
providedby
byWal-Mart
Wal-Martindicate
indicatethe
theinterrogation
interrogation
stamping on the two Interrogation
9
10
21 :17 to 21:39.
21 :39. Coughlin
Coughlinprovided
providedRSIC
RSICOfficer
OfficerCrawford
Crawfordhis
hisdriver's
driver'slicense
licenseatat
ran from 21:17
11
of the Interrogation Room video). Crawfords

Crawfords
approximately 21:23 (the 6 minute 49 second mark of
12
The
Incident Report indicates he transported Coughlin at 22:00 to the Washoe County Jail. The
13
seenhigh
highflying
fivingaaWalWalvideos made
made by
by Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart (the
(the one's
one's where
whereFrontino
Frontinoisisseen
Interrogation Room videos
14
seen giving
giving the
the RSIC
RSIC officers
officers aa cd/dvd,
cd/dvd, despite
despitethe
thefact
factthat
thatlater
lateron
onboth
bothWalWalMart cohort, and seen
15
Mart's Frontino and the RSIC

RSIC Officers
Officers Crawford
Crawford and
and Braunworth
Braunworthtestified
testifiedthat
thatother
otherthan
thanthe
thetwo
two
16
17
Interrogation Room videos, no

no other
other videos
videos were
were provided
provided to
to the
the RSIC
RSICPD,
PD,nor
norwas
wasany
anyother
other
18
Wal-Mart'sThomas
ThomasFrontino's
Frontino'sSupplemental
Supplemental
relevant action caught on video from that night. Wal-Mart's
19
datedSeptember
September9th,
9th, 2011 with
with aa time
time of
of22:13
22: 13 and
andlists
listshis
his"Residence
"Residence
Witness Statement
Statement Form
Form isis dated
20
Address" as 2425 E.
E. Second
Second St.,
St., Reno
Reno 89502,
89502, which
whichisisthe
theaddress
addressgiven
givenfor
forthe
theWal-Mart
Wal-Martasaswell,
well,
21
in violation of
of the Sixth Amendment
Amendment Right
Right of
ofConfrontation.
Confrontation.
22
23
24
Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino, Loss Prevention

Prevention Associate's
Associate's "Supplemental
"SupplementalWitness
WitnessStatement
Statement
of September
September 9th,
9th , 2011,
completed handwritten
handwritten in
inas
as 22:13
22:13(10:13
(10:13p.m.)
p.m.)reads:
reads:
Form of
2011, with a time completed
25
26
27
28
"On 09/0912011 at about 8:45

8:45 PM
PM II noticed
noticed aa male
male customer
customerwho
who IIhad
had
previous encounters with who we
we had
had followed
followed for
for suspicious
suspicious activities
activitiesinin
the past. As I followed him around
around the
the store
store he
he made
made his
his way
wayback
backand
and
forth across the store. He selected various items
items such
such as
as candy
candyand
andcough
cough
medicine and some various other food
food items.
items. He
He opened
opened two
two packages
packagesof
of
-- 19/94
19/94--
MOTION
1345
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
cough drops and concealed the contents

contents inside
inside his
his pockets.
pockets. He
He then
thenthrew
threw
cough drops
drops in
in two
two different
different garbage
garbagecans
cansininthe
the
the packaging to the cough
store. One in the candy aisle
aisle and one
one in
in the
the soda
soda aisle.
aisle.
bar which
which he
he proceeded
proceeded to
to open
openand
andeat
eat
He also selected a chocolate bar
throughout the store. When
When he
he was
was finished
finished shopping
shoppinghe
he went
wentto
toregister
register
17
the rest
restof
ofthe
the merchandise
merchandisethat
thathe
hehad
hadselected.
selected.He
Hedid
did
17 and paid for the
any attempt
attempt to
to pay
pay for
for the
the chocolate
chocolate bar
barand
andcough
cough
not however make any
drops he had selected. He concealed
concealed the
the wrapper
wrapper to
to the
the candy
candy in
in the
the cart
cart
sanitizer wipes. He
He then
then exited
exited the
the facility
facility via
viathe
the
and covered itit with sanitizer
grocery doors.
Once completely outside the facility, II approached
approached him
him with
with Stanley
Stanley
as Wal-mart
Wal-mart asset
asset protection
protection and
and
Cunningham and identified myself
myself as
to reenter
reenter the
the facility
facility so
so that
that we
we would
wouldbe
be
informed him that I needed him to
able to complete our investigation. He
He was
was compliant
compliant at
at this
this time
time and
and
followed us to the office. At
At this time
time became
became non
non compliant.
compliant. The
The police
police
arrived on scene and took over
over the investigation.
investigation. When
When asked
asked by
bythe
the
if he would consent
consent to aa pat
pat down
down he
he complied.
complied. Also
Also after
afterhe
hewas
was
officers if
by the officer
officer his
his belongings
belongings were
were emptied
emptiedfrom
from his
his
placed under arrest by
ofthe
the cough
coughdrops
drops
also able
able to
to recover
recover some
some of
pants pockets and we were also
that he had concealed on
on his
his person.
person. He
He then
then became
became very
verynon-compliant
non-compliant
with the officers questioning. He
He was
was arrested
arrested and
and removed
removed from
from our
our
facility. He was also tresspased
tresspased at
at this
this time
time from
from all
all Wal-Mart
Wal-Martfacilities.
facilities.
Video evidence will also be
be compiled."
compiled."
171.124(l)(a)):Arrest by
by peace
peace officer
officer or
orofficer
officerof
ofDrug
DrugEnforcement
Enforcement
NRS 171.124(1)(a)):Arrest
Administration.
1.
Except as
as otherwise
otherwise provided
provided in
in subsection
subsection 33 and
and NRS
NRS 33.070
33.070 and
and 33.320,
33.320, aa
1. Except
officer of
ofthe
the Drug
Drug Enforcement
EnforcementAdministration
Administrationdesignated
designatedby
by
peace officer or an officer
the Attorney General of
ofthe
the United
United States
States for
for that
that purpose
purpose may
maymake
makean
anarrest
arrestinin
obedience to a warrant delivered to
to him
him or
or her,
her, or
or may,
may, without
withoutaawarrant,
warrant,arrest
arrestaa
person:
(a) For a public offense committed
committed or
or attempted
attempted in
in the
the officer's
officer'spresence.
presence.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ofperson
personsuspected
suspectedof
of
171.123 Temporary
Temporarydetention
detentionby
bypeace
peaceofficer
officerof
NRS 171.123
criminal behavior or of
of violating conditions
conditions of
ofparole
parole or
orprobation:
probation: Limitations.
Limitations.
1.
Any peace
peace officer
officermay
maydetain
detainany
anyperson
personwhom
whomthe
theofficer
officerencounters
encounters
1. Any
under circumstances which
which reasonably
reasonably indicate
indicate that
that the
the person
personhas
hascommitted,
committed,isis
committing or is about to commit
commit aa crime.
crime.
3. The
The officer
officermay
may detain
detain the
the person
person pursuant
pursuantto
to this
this section
sectiononly
onlyto
to ascertain
ascertain
the person's
person's identity
identity and
and the
the suspicious
suspicious circumstances
circumstances surrounding
surrounding the
the person's
person's
presence abroad.
abroad. Any person so detained shall
shall identify
identify himself
himselfor
or herself,
herself,but
but
ofany
anypeace
peaceofficer.
officer.
may not be compelled to answer
answer any
any other
other inquiry
inquiry of
- 20/94
20/94--

117 PETITION
1346
2
3
NRS
171.1231 Arrest
Arrest ififprobable
probable cause appears. At
Atany
any time
time after
after the
the onset
onset
NRS 171.1231
of the
171.123, the person so
so detained
detained shall
shall be
be arrested
arrested
the detention pursuantto
pursuant to NRS 171.123,
if probable
inquiry into
into the
the circumstances
circumstances
probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry
which prompted the detention, no probable cause for
for arrest
arrest appears,
appears, such
such person
person
shall be released.
5
6
7
NRS 171.123 Temporary

Temporarydetention
detention by
by peace
peace officer
officerof
ofperson
person suspected
suspected of
ofcriminal
criminal behavior
behavior
of parole or probation: Limitations.
Limitations.
or of violating conditions of
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer
1.
officer encounters
encounters under
under
committing or
orisis
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person
person has
has committed,
committed, isis committing
about to commit a crime.
crime.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2. Any peace officer may detain any

any person
person the
the officer
officer encounters
encounters under
undercircumstances
circumstances
violating the
the conditions
conditions of
ofthe
the
which reasonably indicate that the person has
has violated
violated or
or isis violating
person's
parole or
or probation.
probation.
person's parole
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section

3.
section only
only to
to ascertain
ascertain the
the person's
person's
identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding
surrounding the
the person's
person'spresence
presenceabroad.
abroad.Any
Any
person so detained shall identify
identify himself
himself or
or herself,
herself, but
but may
may not
not be
be compelled
compelledto
toanswer
answerany
any
of any
any peace
peace officer.
officer.
other inquiry of
4. A person must not be detained longer
longer than
than is
is reasonably
reasonably necessary
necessary to
to effect
effectthe
the
of this section, and
and in
in no
no event
event longer
longer than
than 60
60 minutes.
minutes. The
Thedetention
detentionmust
mustnot
not
purposes of
ofthe
the place
place where
where the
the detention
detentionwas
wasfirst
first
extend beyond the place or the immediate
immediate vicinity
vicinity of
effected, unless the person
person isis arrested.
arrested.
(Added to NRS by 1969,
1969,535;
1973,597;
1975, 1200;
1200; 1987,
1987, 1172;
1172; 1995,
1995,2068)
535; A 1973,
597; 1975,
2068)
NRS 171.1231
171.1231 Arrest
Arrest ififprobable
probable cause
cause appears. At
Atany
anytime
time after
afterthe
the onset
onset of
ofthe
the
detention pursuant to NRS 171.123,
171.123, the person
person so
so detained
detained shall
shall be
be arrested
arrestedififprobable
probablecause
cause
for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry
inquiry into
into the circumstances
circumstances which
which prompted
promptedthe
thedetention,
detention,no
no
for arrest
arrest appears,
appears, such
such person
person shall
shall be
be released.
released.
probable cause for
of
Wal-Mart's Frontino's sworn Criminal
Criminal Complaint,
Complaint, however,
however, fails
fails to
to make
makeany
anyindication
indicationof
21
just how
how he
he knew
knew or
or why
why he
he believed
believed Coughlin
Coughlin violated RMC 8.10.040.
8.10.040. To
Tothe
theextent
extentthat
thatFrontino
Frontino
just
22
23
own hand,
hand, that
that the
the items
items "taken
"takenor
orcarried
carriedaway"
away"(despite
(despiteFrontino,
Frontino,ififnot
notthe
thevarious
various
writes, in his own
24
news outlets covering

covering this
this case,
case, actually
actually testifying
testifying that
that he
he "watched
"watchedCoughlin
Coughlinconsume
consumethe
thechocolate
chocolate
25
thereceipt
receiptfor
forthe
theallegedly
allegedlystolen
stolen
shopping) included
included aa "chocolate
"chocolatebar"
bar"when
whenthe
theUPC
UPCofofthe
bar" while shopping)
26
Wal-Mart, actually
actually reveals
reveals that
that UPC
UPC to
to belong
belongto
toaa"Magnum
"MagnumDouble
DoubleCaramel
CaramelIce
Ice
items, provided by Wal-Mart,
27
ofspecificity
specificitynecessar
necessartotosustain
sustainaaprosecution,
prosecution,
Complaint fails
fails to
to pled
pled with
with the
the sort
sortof
Cream Bar", the Complaint
28
- 21/94
21/94--
1347
Attorney's conduct
conductin
incontinuing
continuing to
to crosscrossmuch less the temporary suspension of one's law license. Attorney's
examine police officer after judge had

had ruled
ruled that
that police
police log
log was
was not
not admissible
admissible was
wasnot
notcontempt
contempt
that he
he was
was trying
trying to
to impeach
impeach witnesses'
witnesses' memory,
memory, not
notlay
layfoundation
foundationfor
for
where attorney claimed that
4
5
of log, so that his

his conduct
conduct could
could not
not be
be said
said to
to be
be willful.
willful. United
UnitedStates
StatesvvGiovanelli
Giovanelli(1990,
(1990,
admission of
CA2 NY) 897 F2d 1227. Resort

Resort to
to summary
summary disposition
disposition of
ofcriminal
criminal contempt
contempt proceeding
proceeding under
under Rule
Rule
of Criminal Procedure,
Procedure, isis permissible
permissible only
only when
when express
express requirements
requirementsof
ofrule
rulearc
ar
42(a), Federal Rules of
is compelling
compelling reason
reason for
for immediate
immediate remedy
remedy or
orwhen
whentime
timeisisof
ofessence.
essence.Thus,
Thus,
met and when there is
attorney's conviction for criminal contempt

contempt in
in pursuing
pursuing line
line of
ofquestioning
questioningforbidden
forbiddenby
bycourt
courtwould
would
10
11
be reversed, since record showed

showed that
that there
there was
was no
no compelling
compelling need
need for
for immediate
immediateremedy
remedyprovided
proVided
12
of Criminal
Criminal Procedure,
Procedure, and
and that
that trial
trial court,
court, by
byits
itsown
ownactions,
actions,did
didnot
not
by Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of
13
of essence; trial court

court should
should have
have observed
observed "normal"
"normal" procedure"
procedure"of
ofnotice
noticeand
and
consider time to be of
14
ofCriminal
Criminal Procedure.
Procedure. U.S.
U. S.v.v.Moschiano,
Moschiano,695
695F.2d
F.2d
Federal Rules
Rules of
hearing, provided by Rule 42(b), Federal
15
Servo 124 (7th Cir. 1982). See United States v Turner (1987, CAll
Ala)812
812
236, 12 Fed. R.
R. Evid. Serv.
CAll Ala)
16
14.
F2d 1552, 14.
17
18
19
NRS 171.102 Complaint

Complaint defined;
defined; oath or declaration required. The
The
of the essential
essential facts
facts constituting
constituting the
the public
public
complaint is a written statement of
offense charged. It
It must
must be
be made
made upon:
upon:
20
1. Oath before a magistrate or a notary public; or

1.
or
21
2. Declaration which is made subject

subject to the penalty
penalty for
for perjury.
perjury.
22
23
Frontino apparently
apparently
In his testimony during
during the
the November
November30th,
30 th, 2011
2011 trial, Thomas Frontino
24
realized that he needed to say

say something
something to
to the
the effect
effect that
that he
he "personally
"personallywitnessed"
witnessed"Coughlin
Coughlin
25
"consuming" the cough drops in the store. So,

So,Thomas
ThomasFrontino
Frontinotestified,
testified, under
underoath,
oath, the
thehe
he
26
Coughlin consuming
consuming the
the cough
cough drops
drops throughout
throughoutthe
thestore
store("He
("Heopened
openedtwo
two
personally witness Coughlin
27
... "). However,

However,ininhis
his
packages of
of cough drops and concealed the contents inside his pockets
pockets...").
28
-- 22/94
22/94--
1348
Supplemental Witness Statement Form, Frontino does not say that.

There isis no
no mention
mention of
ofseeing
seeing
that. There
Coughlin consume any cough drops throughout the store. In
In fact,
fact, at
attrial,
trial, Frontino
Frontino slipped
slippedup
upand
andhad
had
to admit that official Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart policy
policy prevented
prevented him
himfrom
from following
followingCoughlin
Coughlininto
intothe
therestroom
restroom
4
5
while he was shopping, which

which was
was unfortunate,
unfortunate, according
accordingto
toFrontino,
Frontino,because
becausehe
hewanted
wantedtotosee
seeifif
Coughlin did anything with the cough drops in the restroom,

Attrial,
trial, Frontino
Frontino decided
decided
restroom, but could not. At
it would just be more expeditious and

and accomplish
accomplish his
his goals
goals quicker
quickerto
to say
saythat
thathe
he"personally
"personallyeye
eye
witnessed Coughlin consuming

consuming the
the cough
cough drops
drops while
while shopping".
shopping".
10
Frontino then goes on to indicate

indicate that
that Coughlin
Coughlin "also
"also selected
selectedaachocolate
chocolatebar
barwhich
whichhe
he
11
proceeded to open and eat throughout the store." At

Attrial
trialFrontino
Frontinotook
tookgreat
greatcare
caretotomake
makeclear
clearthat
that
12
eye witnessed"
witnessed" Coughlin
Coughlinselect
select"that
"thatexact
exactchocolate
chocolatebar"
bar"from
fromthe
the"candy
"candyisle".
isle".
he "personally eye
13
Frontino was nonplussed when, on

on cross
cross examination,
examination, ititwas
was pointed
pointedout
outto
tohim
himthat
thatthe
theUPC
UPCfor
forthe
the
14
"chocolate bar from

from the candy
candy isle"
isle" was
was actually
actuallythe
theUPC
UPCfor
foran
anice
icecream
creambar
barfrom
fromthe
the
15
refrigerated/frozen
food isle.
isle.
refrigerated/frozen food
16
17
Frontino then indicates that Coughlin

Coughlin "did
"did not
not however
howevermake
makeany
anyattempt
attempttotopay
payfor
forthe
the
18
chocolate bar and cough drops he had selected." However,

However, atatTrial,
Trial, Frontino
Frontino had
hadto
to admit
admitthat
thathe
hewas
was
19
too far away from Coughlin

Coughlin and
and the
the cashier
cashier to
to hear
hearwhether
whetheror
ornot
notCoughlin
Coughlinmade
madeany
anyattempt
attempttotopay
pay
20
or the "cough
"cough drops".
drops". Frontino
Frontinowas
wassure
suretotoattest,
attest,under
underoath,
oath,atattrial,
trial,
for either the "chocolate bar" or
21
that he was absolutely sure

sure and
and completely
completely able
able to
to tell
tell from
from his
his vantage
vantagepoint
pointsome
someapproximately
approximately30
30
22
23
yards from register 17

17 where
where Coughlin
Coughlin paid
paid for
for the
the items
items he
heselected
selectedwhile
whileshopping
shoppingtotoascertain
ascertainthat
that
24
none of the items the cashier rang up had the same UPC as, say, the cough drops. However,
However,Exhibit
Exhibit11
25
clearly shows that Frontino was,

was, "wrong"
"wrong" about
aboutthat
thatgiven
giventhat
thatboth
boththe
thereceipt
receiptfor
for$14.72
$14.72and
andthe
the
26
receipt for $83.82 have an

an entry
entry for
for the
the same
same Duract
DuractCough
CoughMelt
Melt"cough
"coughdrops"
drops"(containing
(containing1212
27
28
-- 23/94
23/94--
117 PETITION
1349
lozenges (2 separate foil sheet

sheet with
with 66 lozenges
lozenges on
on each
each sheet)
sheet) with
with 30
30mg
mgDextromethophan
DextromethophanHBr
HBr
(DXM) in them.
Wal-Mart's Frontino then writes that

that "He
"He concealed
concealed the
the wrapper
wrapperto
to the
thecandy
candyininthe
thecart
cartand
and
4
5
covered it with sanitizer wipes." However,

However, Frontino
Frontinothen
thentestified
testifiedthat
thatthere
therewas
wasabsolutely
absolutelyno
novideo
video
accusation, despite
despite the
the fact
fact that
that the
the areas
areas around
aroundcashiers
cashiersare
aretypically
typically
evidence supporting that accusation,
subject to particularly high video scrutiny. Frontino

Frontino testified
testified that
that he
he review
review the
the video
video from
from all
all
cameras wherein Coughlin appeared

appeared in
in the
the store
store that
that day
day and
and that
thatnothing
nothingwas
wascaptured
capturedon
onvideo.
video.
Frontino cannot be said

said to have
have made
made an
an arrest
arrest "immediately
"immediatelyafter"
after"the
thealleged
allegedinfraction
infraction
10
Supplemental Witness
Witness Statement
Statement he
he writes:
writes: "informed
"informedhim
himthat
thatI Ineeded
neededhim
him
occurred where, in his Supplemental
11
12
to reenter the facilit sosothat

thatwe
wewould
wouldbebeable
abletotocorn
comslete
leteour
ourinvesti.
investi ation.
ation.He
Hewas
wascomeliant
com liantatatthis
this
13
time and followed us

us to the
the office.
office. At
At this
this time
time became
became non
non compliant.
compliant.The
Thepolice
policearrived
arrivedon
onscene
scene
14
and took over the investigation."

investigation."
15
Frontino's written statement

statement is
is noticeably
noticeably devoid
devoid of
ofany
any assertions
assertions concerning
concerningthe
thequestioning
questioning
16
by the RSIC Officers and the probable cause analysis and inquiry attendant thereto. Frontino
Frontino
17
18
19
20
21
's written Statement concludes by noting that "video evidence will also be compiled." Indeed,
Indeed,ininthe
the
Frontino is
is seen
seen handing
handing aa cv/dvd
cv/dvdto
to the
theRSIC
RSICOfficers.
Officers.
Interrogation Room video Frontino
With respect to these Duract Cough Melt "cough drops"... So,
So,each
eachpackage
packagewould
wouldcontain
contain
360mg of
of DXM, which, if
if ingested
ingested rapidly
rapidly would
would give
give one's
one's brain
brainthe
the dissociative
dissociativeeffects
effectsattendant
attendanttoto
22
drinking an entire large bottle of

of cough
cough syrup,
syrup, however,
however, given
given the
the fact
fact that
thatsuch
suchDuract
DuractCough
CoughMelts
Melts
23
24
are a candy like lozenge that literally

literally dissolves
dissolves in
in second,
second, the
the method
methodof
ofdelivery
deliveryof
ofsuch
suchaahigh
high
25
dosage of
of DXM could potentially
potentially result
result in
in severe
severe incapacitation
incapacitation and
andor
ormental
mentalimpairment,
impairment,ofofaa
26
dissociative nature, quite rapidly, so

so much
much so,
so, that
that this
this sort
sortof
ofitem
itemwas
waspulled
pulledfrom
fromthe
theshelves
shelves
27
several years ago when Zicam originally manufacture and distributed them. DXM
DXMisisused
usedin
inclincial
clincial
28
- 24/94
24/94--

117 PETITION
1350
trials to treat patients with conditions

conditions ranging
ranging from
from fibromyalgia
fibromyalgia to
to PTSD,
PTSD,and
andisisincluded
includedininthe
theclass
class
of medications known as dissociatives that Campral

Campral (acamprosate)
(acamprosate) isis aa
Campral is in as
as well.
well. Campral
medication prescribed to alcoholics that

that is
is intended
intended to
to lessen
lessen or
or curb
curb the
the "phenomenon
"phenomenonofofcraving"
craving"
4
associated with alcoholism.

Acamprosate isis thought
thought to
to stabilize
stabilize the
the chemical
chemical balance
balance in
in the
the brain
brain that
that
alcoholism. Acamprosate
would otherwise be disrupted by

by alcoholism,
alcoholism, possibly
possibly by
by antagonizing
antagonizingglutamatergic
glutamatergicN-methyl-DN-methyl-D-
aspartate receptors and agonizing gamma-aminobutyric

gamma-aminobutyric acid
acid (GABA)
(GABA) type
type AAreceptors.
receptors.Williams,
Williams,
SH.
alcohol dependence".
dependence". American
American Family
FamilyPhysician
Physician72
72(9):
(9):
SH. (2005). "Medications for treating alcohol
1775-1780. PMID 16300039.

16300039. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051101/1775.html
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005110111775.html..
10
http://
en. wiki pedia.org/wikilDextromethorphan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan
11
12
("Dextromethorphan has also

also found
found other
other uses
uses in
in medicine,
medicine, ranging
ranging from
from pain
painrelief
reliefto
topsychological
psychological
13
applications
.... DXM is also used recreationally.
recreationally. When
When exceeding
exceeding label-specified
label-specifiedmaximum
maximumdosages,
dosages,
applications....DXM
14
dextromethorphan acts as a dissociative hallucinogen.

hallucinogen. Its
Its mechanism
mechanism of
ofaction
actionisisvia
viamultiple
multipleeffects,
effects,
15
including actions as a nonselective serotonin

serotonin reuptake
reuptake inhibitor[3]
inhibitor[3] and
and aa sigma-1
sigma-l receptor[4][5]
receptor[4] [5]
16
agonist and the action of

of its major metabolite
metabolite dextrorphan
dextrorphan as
as an
an NMDA
NMDA receptor
receptorantagonist,
antagonist,
17
18
producing effects similar

similar to those of
ofthe
the controlled
controlled substances
substances ketamine
ketamineand
andphencyclidine
phencyclidine(PCP),[6]
(PCP),[6]
19
as well as the active metabolite 3-methoxymorphinan,

3-methoxymorphinan, which
which produces
produces local
local anesthetic
anestheticeffects
effectsininrats
rats
20
with a potency above dextrorphan

dextrorphan but
but below
below dextromethorphan
dextromethorphan itself.
itself. Hou,
Hou, C;
C;Tzeng,
Tzeng,J;J;Chen,
Chen,Y;
Y;
21
Wang, JJ (2006).
(2006). "Dextromethorphan,
"Dextromethorphan, 3-methoxymorphinan,
3-methoxymorphinan,and
anddextrorphan
dextrorphan
Lin, C; Lin, M; Tu, C; Wang,
22
on sciatic
sciatic nerve
nerve blockade
blockade in
in rats".
rats". European
EuropeanJournal
Journalof
ofPharmacology
Pharmacology
have local anaesthetic effect on
23
24
544 (1-3):
DOI:l0.10l6/j.ejphar.2006.06.013. PMID
PMID 16844109...Uncompetitive
16844109 ... Uncompetitive NMDA
NMDA
(1-3): 10-6. DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.06.013.
25
site) antagonist..
antagonist.. .During the 1960s
1960s and
and 1970s,
1970s, dextromethorphan
dextromethorphanbecame
becameavailable
availableinin
receptor (PCP site)
26
an over-the-counter tablet form by

by the brand
brand name
name Romilar.
Romilar. In
In 1973,
1973, Romilar
Romilarwas
wastaken
takenoff
offthe
the
27
shelves after a burst in sales because of

of frequent
frequent misuse,
misuse, and
and was
was replaced
replaced by
bycough
coughsyrup
syrupininan
an
28
-- 25/94
25/94--
1351
2
3
attempt to cut down on abuse. See,

See, White, William.
William. "The
"The DXM
DXM Experience".
Experience".
http://www
.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/faqldxm_ experience.shtml.. Retrieved
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/faq/dxm_experience.shtml
Retrieved December 21,
2010; AJ Giannini. Drugs of
of Abuse--Second
Abuse--Second Edition.
Edition. Los
Los Angeles,
Angeles, Practice
Practice Management
ManagementInformation
Information
4
5
Corp,
See,also:
also:http://www.uspharmacist.com/content/d/feature/i/1500/c/28282/
http://www.uspharmacist.com/contentld/feature/iI1500/c/28282/ Jamero, D.
Corp, 1997.") See,
The emerging role of

ofNMDA
in Pain
Pain Management.
Management. US
NMDA Antagonists in
US Pharmacist.
Pharmacist. 2011. Jobson
Publishing. Posted to Medscape.com on 6/22/2011.

6122/2011.
8
9
Coughlin has provided the State Bar of

of Nevada's Bar
Bar Counsel
Counsel (though
(though Mr.Susich
Mr.Susichand
andMr.
Mr.
King's recent SCR 117
117 petition do
do not
not seem
seem to
to acknowledge
acknowledge that,
that, and
andfurther
furthermisstate
misstateaanumber
numberofof
10
very material facts, like

like this suddenly
suddenly new
new allegation
allegation that
thatthe
the locks
locks to
to Coughlin's
Coughlin'sformer
formerlaw
lawoffice
office
11
12
were broken when Coughlin was

was arrested
arrested for
for criminal
criminal trespass
trespass in
inthe
thequasi
quasibasement
basementunder
underthe
thehouse,
house,
13
a "basement" which never

never had
had any
any locks....but
locks .... butin
in the
the SCR
SCR117
117King
Kingand
andSusich
Susichmake
makeititsound
soundlike
likethe
the
14
locks to the interior of

of the former home
horne law
law office
office had
had been
been broken
brokeninto,
into, which
whichhas
hasnever
neverbeen
been
15
alleged previously or supported by

by any
any factual
factual allegations
allegations or
or specifics),
specifics), and
andhis
hisfather,
father,Dr.
Dr.Timothy
Timothy
16
D. Coughlin, MD, (a
(a family practitioner
practitioner based
based in
in Reno,
Reno, NV,
NV, with
withaapractice
practiceemphasis
emphasison
onaddiction
addiction
17
18
medicine and a former President

President of
ofthe
the Nevada
Nevada Health
Health Professionals
ProfessionalsAssistance
AssistanceFoundation
Foundationand
andpast
past
19
President of
of the Nevada
Nevada Academy
Academy of
ofFamily
Family Physicians,
Physicians, and
andvarious
variousimpaired
impairedphysician's
physician'sdiversion
diversion
20
with aa complete
complete certified
certified prescription
prescription history
historydating
datingback
backtotolate
late2007
2007which
whichshows
showsthat
that
programs) with
21
Buproprion/anti-depressant prescription
prescriptionboth
bothininApril
April2009
2009(when
(whenCoughlin,
Coughlin,
Coughlin did not fill his Buproprion/anti-depressant
22
unit attorney
attorney for
for legal
legal aid
aid non-profit
non-profitWashoe
WashoeLegal
LegalServices,
Services,and
andWLS
WLS
a former domestic violence unit
23
24
and that
that Coughlin
Coughlin stopped
stopped filling
filling his
his Buproprion
Buproprionprescription
prescriptionininAugust
August2011,
2011,and
andthat
that
parted ways) and
25
was twice
twice charged
charged with
with petit
petitlarceny
larcenywithin
withinaaperiod
periodofof19
19days
days(first
(firston
on
subsequently Coughlin was
26
August 20th,
20 th , 2011
for which
which Coughlin
Coughlinspent
spentroughly
roughly77days
daysininjail
jail
2011 by
by the
the Reno Police Department, for
27
on his
his own
own recognizance)
recognizance) and
and against
againstininthe
thematter
matterunderpinning
underpinningthis
thisfiling,
filing,the
the
awaiting a release on
28
26/94- 26/94
-
117 PETITION
1352
arrest at Wal-Mart on September

September 9th,
9th, 2011.
domestic partner
partner of
offour
four and
and half
halfyears
yearsand
andhe
he
2011. Coughlin's domestic
parted ways sometime in

in June 2011
2011 and
and Coughlin
Coughlin became
became aware
awareof
ofseveral
severalmonths
monthsrent
rentallegedly
allegedly
landlord, Dr.
Dr. Matthew
Matthew J.1. Merliss,
Merliss, MD,
MD, sometime
sometimeininmid-August.
mid-August.
being own their neurosurgeon landlord,
4
5
While in
injail
incident to
to the
the August
August20th,
20th , 2011
essentially, possession
possessionof
oflost
jail incident
2011 arrest (for, essentially,
lost oror
mislaid iPhone as petit larceny,

larceny, aa matter
matter for
for which
which Coughlin
Coughlin asserts
asserts his
hisinnocence
innocenceand
andfor
forwhich
whichaa
video fo the arrest and exculpatory

exculpatory evidence
evidence has
has been
been available
available all
all year
yearon
onyoutube.com
youtube.com)) Coughlin
was served with a No Cause Summary Eviction Notice for his former home law office. NRS
NRS 40.253
40.253
explicitly forbids utilizing summary

summary eviction
eviction proceedings
proceedings against
againstcommercial
commercialtenants
tenantsunless
unlessthe
thenonnon-
10
of rent is alleged and a Non-Payment of

of Rent Eviction Notice is served. Landlord
LandlordMerliss,
Merliss,
payment of
11
12
and his attorney's Richard Hill, Esq., and

and Casey
Casey Baker,
Baker, Esq.,
Esq., decided
decidedto
to proceed
proceedwith
withaaNo
NoCause
Cause
13
required to
to litigate
litigate the
the habitability
habitability issues
issues for
forwhich
whichaapaper
papertrail
trailexists
exists
eviction Notice rather than be required
14
and for which Merliss failed to address

address issues
issues related
related to
to apropriately
apropriately served
served14
14day
daynotice
noticetotocure
cure
15
habitability issues complaints and

and other
other matters.
matters.
16
Coughlin has attended Lawyer's Concerned

Concerned for
for Lawyers
Lawyers since
since early
early 2003
2003 and
and isisactive
activeininthe
the
17
18
has been
been some
some difficulty
difficulty in
instraddling
straddlingthe
theline
linebetween
betweenthe
theold
old
recovery community, though there has
19
school hard line AA'ers and those in

in the psychiatric
psychiatric community
community who
who recognize
recognize the
the danger
dangerininsay,
say,not
not
20
treating adult ADHD with anything

anything other
other than
than aa 12
12 step
step program,
program, and
andinstead
insteadfacing
facingthe
therisk
riskofofself
self
21
medicating via abusing substances

substances not
not necessarily
necessarily indicated
indicated as
as appropriate
appropriatetreatment
treatmentmodalities
modalitiesand
and
22
outside the setting of

of a trained professional
professional such
such as
as Coughlin's
Coughlin's current
currentpsychiatrist,
psychiatrist,Dr.
Dr.Suat
SuatYasar,
Yasar,
23
24
whom took over Coughlin's treatment

treatment from
from Dr.
Dr. Mujahid
Mujahid Rasul,
Rasul, whom
whompassed
passedaway
awayininSeptember
September
25
has made
made aware
aware of
ofhis
his various
various arrests
arrests and
anddifficulties
difficultiesthis
thisyear
yearand
andwhom
whom
2010, and whom Coughlin has
26
takes an active role in

in seeing
seeing that
that Coughlin
Coughlin continues
continues progressing
progressinghis
hisrecovery
recoveryfrom
fromwhat
whathas
has
27
admittedly been a disappointing and

and regrettable
regrettable year.
year.
28
- 27/94
27/94--
1353
receives treatment
treatment from
from Dr.
Dr. Suat
SuatYasser
Yasserand
andhas
hasresumed
resumedthe
thetreatment
treatment
Coughlin regularly receives
that were
were yielding
yielding efficacious
efficacious results
results prior
priorto
tothe
theunexpected
unexpectedmoney
moneytroubles
troublesthat
thatresulted
resulted
modalities that
able to
to afford
afford either
either of
ofhis
his medications
medications beginning
beginningininearly
earlyAugust
August2011.
2011.
in Coughlin not being able
4
did make
make several
several inquiries
inquiries with
with Nevada
NevadaAdult
AdultMental
MentalHealth
Health(NAMHS)
(NAMHS)but
but
Coughlin, at that time, did
of the medications Coughlin

Coughlin takes
takes was
was not
notone
onefor
forwhich
whichNAMHS
NAMHSwould
wouldbe
beable
abletotoprovide
provide '
one of
way of
offinancial
financial help
help given
given budget
budgetconstraints,
constraints,and
andthe
theother
othermedication
medicationwas
wasnot
notsoso
anything in the way
that itit seemed

seemed all
all that
that worthwhile
worthwhile to
to go
go through
throughaasomewhat
somewhatinvasive
invasiveand
andprivacy
privacy
expensive such that
intake process
process at
at NAMHS
NAMHS rather
ratherthan
than to
to attempt
attemptto
tocontinue
continuetotopay
payout
pocketfor
forthat
that
threatening intake
out ofofpocket
10
(which incidentally
incidentally and
and inexplicable,
inexplicable, tripled
tripledin
inprice
priceshortly
shortlythereafter
thereafterdespite
despiteour
oursagging
sagging
medication (which
11
12
13
14
15
its long
long off
offpatent
patentstatuts).
statuts).
economy and its
his innocence
innocencewith
withrespect
respecttotothe
theAugust
August20th,
20th , 2011
2011 petit
petitlarceny
larcenycharge
charge
Coughlin maintains his
("iPhone" found on
on ground
ground by
by man,
man, man
man threatens
threatens to
to throw
throwaaphone
phonehe
hepicked
pickedup
upininthe
theriver
riverifif
someone doesn't claim it right away,
away, Coughlin
Coughlin thereafter
thereafter attacked
attacked by
byaagang
gangof
ofskateboarders
skateboarders
16
and will
will shortly
shortly face
face trial
trial in
in that
thatmatter,
matter, given
giventhe
theintransigence
intransigence
claiming the iPhone to be theirs), and
17
18
displayed by the District Attorney's Office

Office and
and the
the Mental
Mental Health
HealthCourt
Courtvis
visaavis
vissome
someofofthe
theissue
issue
19
explicated above and despite the

the fact
fact that
that the
the iPhone's
iPhone's owner,
owner, aaCory
CoryGoble,
Goble,24,
24,of
ofReno,
Reno,NV,
NV,
20
recently battered Coughlin with aa lit

lit cigarette
cigarette in
in aa parking
parking lot
lot where
where Goble
Goblehad
hadaccosted
accostedCoughlin,
Coughlin,
21
unexpectedly, and despite the fact

fact that
that aa multitude
multitude of
ofvideo
video evidence
evidenceexists
existstending
tendingtotoindicate
indicatethat
that
22
Goble and his associates lied on numerous occasions

occasions to
to 911
911 operators
operators and
andthe
thepolice
policeininorder
ordertotohave
have
23
24
Coughlin arrested where,

While spending
spending 77 days
days in
in
where, quite arguably,
arguably, Coughlin did not commit a crime.
crime. While
25
jail beginning August

August 19th,
19th, 2011,
eviction from
from his
his
2011, and
and returning
returning home
home to an impermissible summary eviction
26
former home law,

law office
explicitly allowed
allowedunder
underthe
theLease
LeaseAgreement
Agreementinin
office (a commercial tenancy explicitly
27
question) may have created a set

set of
of circumstances
circumstances making
making itit tempting
tempting to
to shoplift
shopliftfood
foodor
ornecessaries
necessaries
28
-- 28/94
28/94--
1354
from Wal-Mart, Coughlin maintains that

that he
he isis not
not guilty
guilty of
ofthe
thealleged
allegedpetit
petitlarceny
larcenyfrom
fromWal-Mart
Wal-Mart
and is currently pursuing an

an appeal
appeal of
ofthe
the matter
matter with
with the
the Nevada
NevadaSupreme
SupremeCourt
Courtinincase
casenumber
number
60630.
With respect to matters which may bring

bring into
into doubt
doubt the
the validity
validity of
ofthe
theconviction
convictionininthe
thetrial
trial
court judgment in RMC 11 CR 26800: InInthe

theappeal
appealtotothe
theDistrict
DistrictCourt
CourtininCR11-2064,
CRII-2064,Judge
JudgeElliot
Ellio
utilized a civil statute in

in excusing
excusing the
the RMC
RMC from
from its
its failure
failure to
to forward
forwardto
tothe
theDistrict
DistrictCourt
Courtaacopy
copyofof
of the audio
audio recording
recording of
ofthe
the trial
trial and
and to
to forward
forwardsuch
suchtotothe
theDistrict
DistrictCourt
Courtwithin
withinten
ten
the transcript of
days
Further, Coughlin
Coughlin made
made numerous
numerous attempts
attempts to
to order
ordersuch
suchaa
days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Further,
10
transcript and was thwarted

thwarted in
in his
his attempts
attempts to
to do
do so
so by
by the
the RMC's
RMC'sexpress
expressdictate
dictatethat
thatonly
onlythe
theRMC's
RMC's
11
12
of choice,
choice, Pam
Pam Dongoni,
Dongoni, would
would be
be permitted
permittedto
toperfrom
perfromthe
thetranscribing
transcribingduties,
duties,and
and
transcriptionist of
13
phone on
on Coughlin
Coughlin and
and refused
refused to
to provide
provideinformation
informationrelated
relatedtotowhere
whereand
and
Ms. Dongoni hung up the phone
14
in what method of payment Coughlin could pay for the transcript and assure its production. Further,
Further,
15
the RMC refused to timely

timely provide
provide Coughlin
Coughlin aa copy
copyof
ofthe
theaudio
audiorecording
recordingof
ofthe
thetrial
trialuntil
untilwell
wellafter
after
16
filing tolling
tolling motions
motions or
or aa Notice
Notice of
ofAppeal
Appealhad
hadpassed,
passed,and
andfurther,
further,the
theRMC
RMCfailed
failed
the deadline for filing
17
18
to notate in the certified docket

docket (which
(which isis not
not available
available to
to litigants
litigantsduring
duringthese
thesematters,
matters,and
andattempts
attempts
19
by Coughlin to so obtain such

such aa docket
docket has
has resulted
resulted in
in the
the City
Cityof
ofReno
RenoMarshals
Marshalsthreatening
threatening
20
Coughlin and forcing him to

to leave
leave the
the courthouse
courthouse and
and writing
writing disengenous
disengenousletters
letterstotoBar
BarCounsel.
Counsel.
21
The RMC Marshals were also involved

involved in
in aa scenario
scenario wherein
wherein Coughlin's
Coughlin'ssmartphone
smartphonewas
was"booked
"booked
22
into evidence" for

for 37
37 days
days (and
(and returned
returned with
with all
all the
the data
datapreviously
previouslyon
onititwiped
wipedclean,
clean,with
withthe
the
23
24
contradictory statements
statements regarding
regarding the
the chain
chainof
ofcustody
custodyof
ofthe
thephone
phoneand
anddata
data
interim seeing various contradictory
25
thereon between the RMC,

RMC, WCSO,
WCSO, and
and City
City of
ofReno
Reno Marshals,
Marshals,and
andWashoe
WashoeCounty
CountyDistrict
District
26
Attorney's Office) incident

incident to
to aa five
five day
day incarceration
incarcerationof
ofCoughlin,
Coughlin,stemming
stemmingfrom
fromaasummary
summary
27
contempt committed in the presence of the Court in

inaa traffic violation Trial, 11 TR 26800 (3 moving
28
- 29/94
29/94--
1355
violations were issued to Coughlin upon Coughlin being told by the Reno PD to leave the office of
opposing counsel in the eviction from

from his
his former
fonner law
law office
office (Richard
(Richard G.
G. Hill,
Hill, Esq.,
Esq.,opposing
opposingcounsel
counsel
to Bar Counsel King recently in

in the
the Milsner
Milsner vv Carstarphen
Carstarphen decision
decision of
ofthis
this Court
Courtissued
issuedininMarch
March
4
2012, and whom filed

filed aa grievance
grievance with
withBar
BarCounsel
Counselininaaletter
lettertotoKing
Kingdated
datedFebruary
February14th,
14th,2012
2012
wherein Hill details an arrest

arrest of
ofCoughlin
Coughlin that
that had
had not
not proceeded
proceeded to
to trial,
trial, much
muchless
lessa
convictionfor
for
a conviction
which Coughlin would be required to

to report
report under
under SCR
SCR 111,
111, and
and in
in which
whichHill
Hillmakes
makesbaseless
baseless
accusations of "ghostwriting" by Coughlin for one for whom Coughlin was listed as attorney of
record. Further,
Further, the
the recent,
recent, and
andextremely
extremely prejudicial
prejudicial and
and inaccurate
inaccurate confidential
confidential SCR
SCR 117
117'Disability
Disability
10
and or
or Mr.
Mr. Susich
Susich isis seemingly
seemingly largely
largely cribbed
cribbedfrom
fromHill's
Hill'.sMotion
Motionfor
for
Petition by Bar Counsel and
11
12
Attorney's Fees incident to the

the appeal
appeal of
ofthe
the summary
summary eviction
eviction from
from Coughlin's
Coughlin'sformer
fonnerhome
homelaw
law
13
office (a "wrong site surgery"

surgery" of
ofthe
the courtroom
courtroom variety
variety Hill
Hill litigated
litigatedon
onbehalf
behalfof
ofhis
hisCalifornian
Californian
14
Beverly Hills neurosurgeon client,

client, wherein
wherein Hill
Hill proceeded
proceeded with
with aa summary
summaryeviction
evictionagainst
againstaa
15
non-payment of
of rent
rent was
was not
not alleged
alleged nor
norwas
was any
anyeviction
evictionnotice
notice
commercial tenant where the non-payment
16
provided other than a No Cause Eviction Notice).

In that
that Motion
Motion for
for Attorney's
Attorney's Fees,
Fees, Hill
Hill somehow
somehow
Notice). In
17
18
attempts to at once claim Coughlin's filings in

in the
the appeal
appeal in
in CV11-03628
CV11-03628 were
were atatonce
onceso
sobaseless
baselessas
as
19
to be sanctionable, yet, also,

also, at
at the
the same
same time,
time, apparently
apparently well
well founded
founded enough
enoughto
torequire
requireHill
Hilltotorun
run
20
fees charged
charged to
to Merliss
Merliss (for
(for the
the period
periodof
oftime
timefollowing
followingthe
theNovember
November
up some $43,000 in attorney's fees
21
3,2011
of a Notice of
of Appeal of
of the
the Order
Order of
ofSummary
Summary Eviction
Eviction in
inRJC
RJC 2011-001708),
2011-001708),on
ontop
top
3,
2011 filing of
22
of the $20,000 in attorney's fees Hill and

and Baker
Baker sought
sought to
to recover
recover ("mistakenly"
("mistakenly"citing
citingtotoan
anattorney's
attorney's
23
24
fees
statute related
related only
only to
to situations
situations where
where aatenant
tenantwas
wasmanufacturing
manufacturing
fees in a landlord tenant context statute
25
controlled substances at the rental, rather

rather than
than admitting
admitting that
that NRS
NRS 69.030
69.030 forbid
forbidHill
Hilland
andBaker
Bakerfrom
from
26
getting attorney's fees in a landlord tenant

tenant trial
trial court
court matter,
matter, much
much less
less aasummary
summaryeviction,
eviction,much
muchless
less
27
$20,000 worth of them).

BarCounsel
Counsel King
King displayed
displayed aa particularly
particularly troubling
troubling resistance
resistance to
to
them). Bar
28
- 30/94
30194-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR
SCR 117 PETITION
1356
any of
ofthe
the grievances
grievances against
againstother
otherattorneys
attorneysCoughlin
Coughlinthen
thenasserted,
asserted,yet
yetsteadfastly
steadfastly
countenancing any
G. Hill,
Hill,Esq.'s
Esq.'sdubious
dubiousbasis
basisfor
forfiling
filing
devote Bar
Bar resources
resources to
to addressing
addressing Richard
RichardG.
continued to devote
ofthe
thelegs
legsto
toaafour
fourpart
partquadruple
quadruplejeopardy
jeopardy
multiple grievances
grievances against
against Coughlin,
Coughlin, contributing
contributing one
oneof
4
wherein Hill
Hill filed
filed Motion
Motion for
for Orders
Ordersto
toShow
ShowCause
Causebefore
beforeJudge
JudgeSferrazza
Sferrazzaininthe
the
approach Hill took, wherein
5
Judge Flanagan
Flanagan on
on Appeal,
Appeal, filed
filed aaTRO
TROwith
withJudge
JudgeSchroeder
SchroederininJustice
JusticeCourt,
Court,
Trial Court, before Judge
12th,
Coughlin arrested
arrestedfor
forjaywalking
jaywalkingand
andcriminal
criminaltrespass
trespass(the
(thetrespass
trespassarrest
arrestononNovember
November
and had Coughlin
12th,
2011 resulted in
in the resetting
resetting of
ofthe
the Trial
Trial in
inthe
the RMC
RMC case
caseresulting
resultingininthe
thepetit
petitlarceny
larcenyconviction
conviction
111 Bar
Bar Counsel
Counsel Petition
Petition (where
(where Coughlin
Coughlin was
was not
nottold
toldto
toleave
leaveor
or"warned"
"warned"toto
involved in the SCR 111
10
horne law
law office
office and
and where
where the
the Washoe
Washoe County
County Sheriffs
SheriffsOffice
Officelied
liedinina asworn
sworn
leave the former home
11
12
SummaryEviction
Eviction
in attesting
attesting to
to have
have "personally
"personallyserved"
served"Coughlin
Coughlinthe
theOrder
OrderofofSummary
written affidavit in
13
only to
to later
later have
haveWCSO
WCSOSupervisor
SupervisorLiz
Liz
November7th,
7th, 2011
(Deputy Machem, November
2011 Affidavit on file) only
14
Stuchell admit that her office considers itit "personal

"personal service"
service" for
forDeputy
DeputyMachem
Machemtototape
tapeaadocument
document
15
to one's door when they are not home.

horne. NRS
NRS 40.253
40.253 requires
requireseither
eitherpersonal
personalor
orconstructive
constructiveservice.
service.
16
ofthe
thecounty
countytoto
"The court may thereupon issue
issue an
an order
order directing
directing the
the sheriff
sheriffor
orconstable
constableof
17
18
ofthe
the order..."
order ... "isisinapplicable
inapplicabletotothis
thissituation,
situation,where
where
remove the tenant within 24
24 hours
hours after
after receipt
receipt of
19
Thatlanguage
languageisisonly
onlyfound
found
an Order Granting Summary
Summary Eviction
Eviction was
was signed
signed by
by October
October27th,
27th, 2011.
2011.That
20
in situations inapplicable to the current

current one.
one. NRS
NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2),
40.253(3)(b)(2), and
and NRS
NRS 40.253(5)(a)
40.253(5)(a)are
arethe
theonly
only
21
"within 24
24 hours"
hours" language
languageoccurs,
occurs,and
andthose
thosesituations
situationsonly
onlyapply
apply
sections ofNRS
of NRS 40 where this "within
22
where, in:
in:
23
24
25
26
27
28
noticeserved
servedpursuant
pursuanttotosubsection
subsection11or
or22must:
must: ...(b)
... (b) Advise
Advise
40.253(3)(b)(2):
40.253(3)(b)(2): "3.
"3. AAnotice
the tenant:
.... (2)
(2) That
Thatififthe
the court
courtdetermines
determines that
that the
the tenant
tenant isis guilty
guilty of
ofan
anunlawful
unlawful
tenant: ....
ofthe
the tenant
tenant or
oran
anorder
order
detainer, the court may issue a summary order
order for
for removal
removal of
ofthe
the tenant,
tenant, directing
directing the
the sheriff
sheriffor
orconstable
constableof
ofthe
the
providing for the nonadmittance of
ofthe
the order"
order"
county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after
after receipt
receipt of
and,
40.253(5)(a):
Uponnoncompliance
noncompliance with
with the
the notice:
notice:
(a) The landlord or the
40.253(5)(a): "5. Upon
- 31/94
31194--
1357
2
3
4
5
landlord's agent
agent may
may apply
apply by
by affidavit
affidavit of
of complaint
complaint for
for eviction
eviction to
to the
the justice court
court of
of
the township in which the dwelling,
dwelling, apartment,
apartment, mobile
mobile home
home or
orcommercial
commercialpremises
premises
of the county
county in
in which
which the
the dwelling,
dwelling, apartment,
apartment,
are located or to the district court of
mobile home or commercial premises
premises are
are located,
located, whichever
whicheverhas
has jurisdiction
jurisdictionover
overthe
the
ofthe
the
matter. The court may thereupon issue
issue an
an order
order directing
directing the
the sheriff
sheriffor
orconstable
constableof
ofthe
the order."
order."
county to remove the tenant within 24
24 hours
hours after
after receipt
receipt of
orders are
are being
being carried
carried out
outand
and "served"
"served"ininWashoe
WashoeCounty
County
The way these summary eviction orders
There isisnot
notbasis
basisfor
for effectuating
effectuatingaa
presently shocks the conscience and violates Nevada law. There
lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem

Machem did
did in
in the
the case
case of
ofthe
the undersigned's
undersigned's former
formerhome
homelaw
law
8
9
office. The above two sections containing

containing the
the "within
"within24
24 hours
hoursof
ofreceipt"
receipt"language
languageare
areinapplicable,
inapplicable,
10
invoke the
the present
present circumstances,
circumstances, where
where the
the Tenant
Tenantdid
didfile
filean
anAffidavit
Affidavit
as those situations do not invoke
11
and did contest this matter to aa degree

degree not
not often
often seen.
seen. To
To require
require Nevada's
Nevada'stenants
tenantsto
toget
getup
upand
andget
get
12
of"receipt
"receiptof
ofthe
the order"
order"(what
(whatdoes
doesthat
thateven
evenmean?
mean?The
Theuse
useofofterms
termslike
like
out "within 24 hours" of
13
ofentry",
entry", "pronounced",
"pronounced", isisabsent
absenthere,
here, and
andthis
this "receipt
"receiptof
ofthe
the
"rendition", "rendered", "notice
"notice of
14
15
is something
something rarely
rarely found
found elsewhere
elsewhere in
in Nevada
Nevadalaw-see
law-seeattached
attachedDMV
DMVstatutory
statutory
order" language is
16
citations, and in employment law

law litigation
litigation where
where one
one must
must file
file aaComplaint
Complaintwithin
within90
90days
daysofof
17
"receipt" of
ofa
Right To
To Sue
Sue Letter,
Letter, aa situation
situationwhich
whichfollows
follows NRCP
NRCP5(b),
5(b),and
andNRCP
NRCP6(e)
6(e)ininimputing
imputing
a Right
18
receipt of
of such a letter,
letter, when
when actual
actual receipt
receipt isis not
not shown,
shown, by
by applying
applyingaa"constructive
"constructivenotice"
notice"
19
for mailing
mailing extension
extension of
oftime
time for
for items
itemsserved
servedininthe
themailing,
mailing,etc.).
etc.).
standard that relies upon the days for
20
21
In Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic

Oceanographic Institute,
Institute, 553
553 F.3d
F.3d114
114(1st
(1stCir.
Cir.2009),
2009),the
therecord
recorddid
didnot
not
22
reflect when the plaintiff

plaintiff received his
his right-to-sue
right-to-sue letter.
letter. The
The letter
letterwas
wasissued
issuedon
onNovember
November24,
24,
23
2006. The court calculated that

that the
the 90-day
90-day period
period commenced
commenced on
onNovember
November30,
30,2006,
2006,based
basedon
onthree
three
24
Saturdays and
and Sundays.
Sundays. In
In order
orderto
to bring
bringaaclaim
claimunder
undereither
eitherTitle
Title
days for mailing after excluding Saturdays
25
receiptof0
VII or the ADA, a plaintiff
plaintiff must
must exhaust
exhaust administrative
administrative remedies
remedies and
andsue
suewithin
within90
90days
daysofofreceipt
26
27
28
a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1).

2000e-5(f)(I). See
See Baldwin
BaldwinCounty
CountyWelcome
WelcomeCenter
Centerv.v.Brown,
Brown,
n.l, 104
104 S.Ct.
S.Ct. 1723,
1723, 80
80 L.Ed.2d
L.Ed.2d 196
196 (1984)(granting
(1984)(grantingplaintiff
plaintiffan
anadditional
additionalthree
three
466 U.S. 147,
147, 148
148 n.1,
- 32/94
117 PETITION
1358
days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).

6).
of "24
"24 hours"
hours" and
and the
the applicability
applicabilityof
ofthe
theJCRCP
JCRCPtotocases
caseslike
like
With respect to any mention of
these, NRS 40.400 Rules of

of practice,
practice, holds
holds that
that :"The
:"Theprovisions
provisionsof
ofNRS,
NevadaRules
RulesofofCivil
Civil
NRS, Nevada
4
ofAppellate
Appellate Procedure
Procedure relative
relative to
to civil
civil actions,
actions, appeals
appealsand
andnew
newtrials,
trials,
Procedure and Nevada Rules of
5
6
so
ofNRS
40.220 to
to 40.420,
40.420, inclusive,
inclusive,apply
applytoto
so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of
NRS 40.220
the proceedings mentioned

mentioned in
in those
those sections.
sections. As
As such
such NRCP
NRCP 6(a),(e)
6(a),{e)applies
appliesto
tothe
theOrder
Orderofof
Summary Eviction that WCSO Deputy Machem alleged,

alleged, under
under penalty
penalty of
ofperjury,
perjury, that
thathe
he"personally
"personall
served" upon me on November 1,

1,2011.
2011.
10
ATTEMPT AT PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL

11
12
Here is the undersigned's attempt

attempt to type out,
out, word
word for
for word,
word, the
the beginning
beginning of
ofthe
theproceeding
proceeding
13
indigency has
has prevented
prevented securing
securing the
the production
production of
ofaacertified
certifiedtranscript
transcriptand
an
in this matter (Coughlin's indigency
14
hopefully it is obvious to the reader

reader the
the points
points at
at which
which the
the undersigned
undersigned interlineates
interlineatescommentary
commentaryoror
15
Further, the
the For
For The
The
analysis within the transcription itself,
itself, typically
typically always
always set offfby
offf by parenthesesis.
parenthesesis. Further,
16
Record version of
of the audio of
ofthe
the petty
petty larceny
larceny trial
trial isis available
available for
for free
free download
downloadhere,
here,as
asare
arethe
the
l7
18
ofthe
theSeptember
September9th,
9th , 2011 arrest
arrest at
at Walmart
Walmartand
andthe
thediscovery
discovery
two Interrogation
Interrogation Room
Room videos
videos of
19
produced by the City

City Attorney and
and the
the receipt
receipt for
for $83.82,
$83.82, showing
showingthe
the UPC
UPCfor
forthe
thecough
coughdrops
dropsdid
did
20
Frontino and
and Officer
Officer Crawfords
Crawfords testimony.):
testimony.):
appear on the receipt, contrary to Frontino
21
https:llskydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28
!921
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!921
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Beginning of audio
audio transcript
transcript at
at 2:12
2:12 p.m.)
p.m.)
Marshall: all rise department for the Reno
Reno Municipal
Municipal Court
Court staff
staffsession
sessionthe
theHon.
Hon.
Judge Howard:presiding
Hon. Judge Howard: Be seated
seated everyone
everyone
11 CR
CR22176
22176Mr.
Mr.
Roberts: Your Honor last cases is
is City
City verses
verses Zachary
Zachary Coughlin:
Coughlin: 11
Coughlin would you step forward please?
is the
the time
time and
and place
place set
set for
for trial
trial in
inregard
regardto
toaa
Hon. Judge Howard: all right this is
ofthis
this year
year complaint
complaintalleges
alleges
petit larceny
larcenyalleged
allegedto
to been
beencommitted
committed on
on September
September99of
at Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart2425
2425 E.
E. 2nd
2ndSt.
St.city
cityofof
that said defendant on
on or
or about
about September
September 992011
2011 at
Reno state of
of Nevada did take carrying
carrying away
away Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart property
propertyvalued
valuedatatless
lessthan
than
- 33/9433/94 -
1359
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
$250 with the intent to deprive Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart of
ofsaid
said property
property said
said property
propertyconsisted
consistedof
of
cough drops and a chocolate bar,
bar, Mr.
Mr. Coughlin,
Coughlin, isis that
that your
your understanding
understandingof
ofthe
the
charge?
Coughlin: I believe so Your Honor
Honor
Hon. Judge Howard: all right
right part
part both
both parties
parties ready
ready to
to proceed
proceedatatthis
thistime
time
Robert: Yes, Your Honor
Honor
Coughlin: no Your Honor
Honor I'm not
not ready
ready to
to proceed
proceed
Hon. Judge Howard: why not
not
Mr. Coughlin: Well,
Well, there
there isis aavariety
varietyof
ofreasons,
reasons, Your
YourHonor
Honor
you want
want me..
me ..
Hon. Judge Howard: you have
have to
to speak
speak up
up ififyou
Coughlin: yes sir Your Honor, there's
there's aa variety
variety of
ofreasons,
reasons, sir,
sir, II would
wouldsay
saychief
chiefof
of
which is that it unlawful rent
rent distraint
distraint is
is currently
currently being
being applied
appliedto
tomy
myfiles
files that
thatare
are
necessary to defend this case
case II was
was evicted
evicted in
injustice
courtcase
caseREV2011-001708
REV2011-001708
justice court
an impermissible
impermissible rent
rent escrow
escrowdeposit
depositapplied
appliedto
tome
meininthat
that
recently, besides having an
case.
what does
does that
that have
have to
to do
do with
with this
this case?
case?
Hon. Judge Howard: what
Coughlin: recently II have
have been
been affected
affectedall
allmy
myfiles
files
right
Hon. Judge Howard: right
Coughlin: all my files incident to the defense
defense of
ofthis
this case
case are
are currently
currently being
beingwithheld
withheld
ofNRS
40.253 and
and118
118a.460
a.460
under in an impermissible rent
rent distraint
distraint in
in violation
violation of
NRS 40.253
Hon. Judge Howard:what
Howard:what else
else you
you have
have other
other than
than this
this what
whatelse
elseyou
youhave,
have,as
asaabasis
basis
for not being prepared?
prepared?
Coughlin: I made numerous attempts to
to contact
contact the
the Reno
Reno City
City Attorney's
Attorney's office
officeand
and
Ms. Roberts in attempts to discuss
discuss this
this matter
matter
Hon. Judge Howard: Ms.
Ms. Roberts
Coughlin: and I have not been able
able to
to reach
reach her
her
Hon. Judge Howard: or
or that
that sound
sound basis
basis for
for aa continuance
continuance maybe
maybeshe
shedoesn't
doesn'tspeak
speaktoto
she is not required to
of discovery
discovery that
that needs
needs to
to be
be undertaken
undertakenininthis
this
Coughlin: further there's a good deal of
has been
been obstructive,
obstructive, as
as well
well as
as (unintelligible)
(unintelligible)
regard Wal-Mart has
ofdiscovery
discovery
what items
items of
Coughlin: well I'd like to take some
some depositions
depositions as
as well
well have
have them
them respond
respondto
tosome
some
subpoena duces tecums I had
had served
served on
on them
them
what else?
else?
Coughlin: the same could be said
said for
for the Reno
Reno Sparks
Sparks Indian
Indian Colony
Colonyand
andthis
thisisisaa
complex case in terms you have
have the
the Indian
Indian colony
colony renting
renting property
propertyto
toWal-Mart
Wal-Martwhile
while
employing the same police patrolling
patrolling the
the property
property on
on which
which they
theyhave
haveaafinancial
financialstake
stake
in whether make an arrest there's Fourth
Fourth Amendment
Amendment issues
issues involved
involvedininthis
thiscase
caseas
as
is42
1983 abuse
abuse of
ofprocess's
process's and
and police
police misconduct
misconductininterms
termsof
ofattempting
attempting
well is
42 section 1983
to obtain consent to an impermissible
impermissible search
search through
through coercive
coercivemeans
meansthis
thisisisnot
notaa
simple case..
case ....civil
civil recovery
alleged on
on the
the part
partof
ofWal-Mart
attempted
recovery abuses are being alleged
Wal-Mart attempted
state actors
putinto
into words,
words, Your
YourHonor,
Honor, how
howtruly
truly
actors.... also, and I probably can't put
disruptive this
... II was evicted
evicted from my home office. II am
am an
an
this eviction
eviction has
has been
been...
attorney in the state of
of Nevada
Nevada my
my client
client files
files are
are currently,
currently, IIdon't
don'teven
evenknow
knowifif!
I
28
- 34/94
117 PETITION
1360
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
files or
or my
my client's
client's files
files are
are being
beingwithheld
withheldunder
underan
animpermissible
impermissible
should call them my files
Also, II was
was sexually
sexually assaulted
assaultedby
byaabailiff
bailiffinincourt
courtthe
theother
otherday
day
rent distraint. Also,
Howard: in
in this
this court
court
Hon. Judge Howard:
in Justice Court
Court
Coughlin: in
of these matters
matters contribute
contribute to
to an
an unduly
unduly burdensome
burdensomeenvironment
environmentinin
Coughlin: all of
ability to
to defend
defend this
this case
case has
has been
been unduly
undulyprejudiced
prejudicedininthe
theextreme
extreme
which my ability
Howard:! am
am going
going to
to deny
deny the
the request
requestto
to continue
continueIIguess
guesswhether
whetherthis
thisisisaa
Hon. Judge Howard:I
is in
in the
the eye
eye of
ofthe
the beholder,
beholder, IIdon't
don'ttypically
typicallyfind
findthat
thatthese
thesematters
mattersare
are
complex case is
ofthe
theargument
argumentthat
that
as you've
you've indicated
indicated they
they are
are on
on that
that as
as well
wellthat
thatmuch
muchof
as complex as
of a bailiff
bailiff and another court your
yourinability
inabilitytoto
you made here relating to sexual assault of
control your
your client
client files
files have
have no
no relevance
relevanceininmy
mymind
mindtotoproceeding
proceedingwith
withthe
the
possess control
petty larceny
larceny alleged
alleged to
to have
have occurred
occurred atatWal-Mart
Wal-Marton
onSeptember
September99
charges and petty
Coughlin: not
notjust
just my
my client
client files
files or
or materials
materials needed
needed to
to defend
defendthis
thiscase
caseare
arebeing
being
withheld
interrupt you
you sir,
sir, don't
don't interrupt
interruptme.
me.
Hon. Judge Howard: II interrupt
sir.
Coughlin: Yes, sir.
note that
that the
the last
last hearing
hearing November
November14
14the
thecity
citywas
was
Hon. Judge Howard: Additional note
initiallyindicated
indicatedthat
that
present with three witnesses the matter was continued, and we initially
Coughlin's failure
failure to
to appear
appearwe
weordered
orderedaabench
benchwarrant
warrantand
and$1000
$1000
we would note Mr. Coughlin's
unfortunately for
for Mr.
Mr. Coughlin,
Coughlin, that
thathe
hewas
wasinincustody
custodyso
so
cash bail only to discover, unfortunately
the matter was reset. IIthink
thinkthere's
there'sbeen
beensufficient
sufficienttime
timeto
toprepare
preparefor
fortrial
trialininthis
this
proceed with
with trial
trial all
all witnesses
witnesses please
pleasestand
standand
andraise
raiseyour
yourright
righthand
hand
matter so we will proceed
so you
can be
be sworn
sworn please
please
you can
Coughlin: if
if I can just make my objections
objections for
for the
the record,
record, Sir?
Sir?
Hon. Judge Howard: standing
standing objections
objections
Coughlin: Ms. Roberts has agreed
agreed to
to aa continuance
continuance submitting
submitting aawritten
writtenagreement
agreementtoto
the continues this matter
matter
Howard:Ms. Roberts
Roberts: he initially
initially had asked
asked for
for aa motion
motion to
to continue
continue sometime
sometimeago
agoIIwent
wentwas
wasfor
for
not object
object at
at that
that time
time am
am II think
thinkyou
you sent
sentme
mean
ane-mail
e-mailafter
afterthe
the14th
14th
the 14th and I did not
and I said I would not object
object but
but Your
Your Honor
Honor so
so at
at that
that time
time II did
didnot
notobject
objecthe
hehas
has
filed
additionalmotions
motionswith
withadditional
additionalallegations
allegations that
that IIthink
think should
should be
be stricken
stricken and
and
filed additional
not considered by this court and I'd
I'd like
like to
to withdraw
withdraw my
my lack
lackof
ofopposition
oppositionto
to
continuance
Hon. Judge Howard: will in
in any event
event this
this court
court isis not
not going
going to
to agree
agreeto
tothe
thestipulation
stipulation
if there was a stipulation to continue with witnesses
witnesses here
here for
for second
second time
time they're
they'reready
ready
we will
will swear
swearin
inthe
thewitnesses
witnesses
to proceed this is case going
going forward,
forward, and
and we
Marshall: I swear to tell the truth and
and nothing
nothing but
but the
the truth
truth
Witnesses: Yes, sir.
Marshall: They've been sworn.
sworn.
Hon. Judge Howard: All right Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlin do
do II need
need to
to go
go over
overthe
the procedure
procedurehere
here
today?
Coughlin: Yes, sir.
ofproof
proofand
and as
as such
suchwill
willallow
allowMs.
Ms.Roberts
Roberts
Hon. Judge Howard: the city has aa burden
burden of
to proceed with its case in chief
chief initially
initially she
she can
can do
do so
so by
by calling
calling one
onemore
morewitnesses
witnessestoto
the witness stand you have an opportunity
opportunity to
to cross
cross examine
examine each
eachof
ofthose
thosewitnesses
witnesses
-- 35/94
35/94--
1361
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
completed she
she can
can also
also offer
offerany
any physical
physicalor
ordocumentary
documentaryevidence
evidencethat
that
once she has completed
she feels is
is relevant
relevant obviously
obviously subject
subjectto
to any
any objections
objectionsthat
thatyou
youmight
mighthave
havetoto
Once the city
cityhas
hasconcluded
concludedits
itscase
caseyou
youwill
willhave
havean
anopportunity
opportunitytotopresent
present
relevancy. Once
highlightthe
theword
wordopportunity
opportunitybecause
becauseIIthink
thinkyou
youunderstand
understandthere
thereisisno
no
a defense. IIhighlight
shouldyou
youchoose
choosenot
nottoto
requirement that you present any evidence whatsoever and should
as to
to your
your guilt
guiltor
orinnocence
innocencebased
basedon
onyour
your
court there's
there's no
no inference
inference as
testify this court
testify on
on the
the other
other hand
hand you
you have
have an
anabsolute
absoluteright
rightto
tooffer
offertestimony
testimony
decision not to testify
of witnesses including
including yourself
yourselfrealizing
realizing that
thateach
eachof
ofthose
thosewitnesses
witnesseswill
will
in the form of
cross-examination by
by the
the city
city attorney
attorney in
infact
factififyou
youhave
haveany
anyadditional
additional
be subject to cross-examination
or documentary
documentary that
that you
you would
would like
likeme
me to
to review
reviewininmost
most.
evidence physical or
do so
so subject
subject once
once again
again to
to any
any objections
objectionsthat
thatthe
thecity
cityattorney
attorney
circumstances I will do
that evidence
evidence once
once the
the two
two of
ofyou
you have
havesubmitted
submittedyour
yourrespective
respective
and he might have to that
ofyou
you to
to make
make closing
closing arguments
arguments once
onceconcluded
concludedthis
thiscourt
court
allow both of
cases I will allow
as your
your guilt
guilt for
for your
your innocence
innocence do
do understand?
understand?
decision as
will render a decision
Youmentioned
mentioned that
that IIwould
would be
be able
able to
to
Coughlin: I do have a question, Your Honor. You
that evidence
evidence isis being
being withheld
withheld from
from me
meatatthis
thispoint
pointand
andit's
it's
evidence ifif that
present evidence
ofaa motion
motion for
for return
return of
ofpersonal
personalproperty
propertyininJustice
JusticeCourt
CourtI I
pending the resolution
resolution of
precluded from
from action
action accessing
accessing that
thatevidence?
evidence?
would be precluded
I've ruled
ruled on
on that
that already,
already, have
have IInot?
not?
Hon. Judge Howard: I've
like you said
said itit didn't
didn't matter.
matter.
Coughlin: It sounded like
don't find
find that
that it's
it's relevant
relevantto
to go
go forward
forwardwith
withthe
thetrial
trialtoday.
today.
Hon. Judge Howard: II don't
Coughlin: so if
if!I have video evidence of
ofretaliatory
retaliatory intent
intent by
by Wal-Mart?
Wal-Mart?
Hon. Judge Howard:you should've
should've brought
brought itit with
with you
you today.
today.
if it's being withheld impermissibly
impermissibly under
under the
the law?
law?
Coughlin: but if
Hon. Judge Howard: we are
are going
going forward
forward today
today II have
have addressed
addressedthe
theissue
issueyou
youcan
can
bring it up on appeal if
if you
you feel
feel that
that the
the decision
decision of
ofthe
the Court
Courtisis improper,
improper,understood?
understood?
Coughlin: Yes, Sir,Your Honor.
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin,
Coughlin, lets
lets you
you and
and II have
have an
an agreement
agreementtoday
todaythat
thatwe
we
will be respectful of
of one
one another
another you
you can
can tender
tender any
any objections
objections that
thatyou
youmay
mayhave
haveIIdo
do
not want you to be repetitious ifif you
you made
made an
an objection
objectionor
oraapresentation
presentationand
andI've
I'veruled
ruled
we have
have an
an understanding?
understanding?
on it except that and let's move on.
Do we
on. Do
Coughlin: I do however to the extent that you've
you've told
told me
me that
that my
my life
life and
and career
careerare
arenot
not
worth a continuance because
because itit might
might cost
cost aa Wal-Mart
Wal-Martassociate
associateanother
anothertrip
triptotothe
the
court house I don't see where we are
are being
being respectful
respectful of
ofme,Your
me, YourHonor.
Honor.
(2:27 PM)
Hon. Judge Howard: Very good, please
please proceed.
proceed.
Roberts: Your Honor, can
canIIinvoke
invoke exclusionary
exclusionaryrule
rule asked
asked Thomas
Thomas Frontino.
Frontino.
justinterject
interject and
and address
address aacouple
couple preliminary
preliminary motions
motions
Coughlin:
Coughlin: Your Honor, may I just
in limine and exclusionary motions?
Hon. Judge Howard: What?
What?
Coughlin:
I
ask
that
any
of the discovery that
that there
there Reno
Reno City
City Attorneys
Attorneys provided
providedbe
be
Coughlin:
of
excluded under them motion in limine/ exclusionary
exclusionary rule
rule and
and that
that we
we fully
fully brief
briefthe
the
if before any such such
such discovery
discovery is
is admitted
admitted into
into evidence.
evidence.
issues there and if
Howard: What is your motion in
in limine?
Coughlin: to exclude the the written statements
statements of
ofMr.
Mr. Frontino
Frontino and
and the
the
-- 36/94
36/94--
1362
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
On what
what basis?
basis?
Hon. Judge Howard: On
Coughlin: that the search was violative
violative of
ofthe
the Fourth
Fourth Amendment.
Amendment.
City, aa response?
response?
Hon. Judge Howard: City,
Roberts:
articulate how
how they invoke the Fourth and
and Fifth
Fifth
Roberts: I think he needs
needs to
to articulate
just make
make bald
bald assertion
assertion that
that they've
they've violative.
violative.
aAmendments rather than just
Well, II am
am going
going to
to deny
deny your
your request..
request.. NRS
NRS 170.4125
170.4125motions
motions
Hon. Judge Howard: Well,
do that
that in
in written
writtenform
formand
andIIam
amnot
not
prior to
to trial
trial you
you failed
failed to
to do
are required to be made prior
of
going to consider them at this point
point in
in time
time because
because there
there have
have the
the obvious
obviouseffect
effectof
you're going
goingafter.
after.
continuing this preceding today and I think that's what you're
just interject
interject an
anobjection.
objection.
Coughlin: and I'll just
to hear
hear anything
anything further,
further, its
its denied.
denied.
don't want
want to
Coughlin: I need to
to enter
enter my
my objections
objectionsfor
forthe
therecord.
record.
have given
given you
you fair
fair warning
warningififyou
youcontinue
continuetoto
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, II have
of performance
performance I'm
I'm going
going to
to hold
hold you
you in
incontempt
contempt(2:29
(2:29PM)
PM)
persist in this line of
Coughlin: I won't be bullied into
into not
not entering
entering my
my objections
objections on
on the
the record.
record.
matter will
will be
be continued
continued because
because you're
you're going
goingtotobe
beplaced
placed
Hon. Judge Howard: This matter
in custody now, you've been given fair warning, let's
let's proceed.
proceed.
Coughlin: Your Honor may II enter
enter my
my objections
objections in
in the
the record
record to
to preserve
preservethem
themfor
forthe
the
record on appeal?
Go ahead.
ahead.
Hon. Judge Howard: Go
just told
told me
me that
that II may
may not
notbecause
becauseyou
youjust
justtold
told
Coughlin: It seems as though you've just
to be
be arrested
arrested ififII do
do so
so II am
am aa little
little scared
scaredto
todo
dothat
thatatatthis
this
me you are going to have to
point Your Honor
Honor and II move
move for
for your
your recusal
recusal from
from this
this case
caseon
onthat
thatbasis
basis
Coughlin: Okay,then can I enter my
my objections
objections for
for the
the record
record and
and state
statethe
thebasis
basisfor
formy
my
objections for the motions in
in limine?
limine?
Coughlin: let's
let's proceed,
proceed, make
make your
yourobjections
objectionson
onthe
therecord
record
Hon. Judge Howard:Mr. Coughlin:
now, go ahead.
Coughlin: Okay, I don't mean to
to provide
provide aa reason
reason to
to get
get angry..
angry .. Those
Thosemotions
motionswere
were
submitted, I believe I have submitted
submitted those
those motions
motions in
in writing.
writing.
they have
have been
been denied.
denied.
Hon. Judge Howard: and they
Coughlin: well it seemed as
as though aa second
second ago
ago Your
Your Honor
Honor said
said that
thatthey
theyhad
hadnot
not
been submitted in writing
Hon. Judge Howard: All right!
right! (pounds
(pounds fist
fist on
on desk
desk making
making very
veryloud
loudsound,
sound,
courtroom microphone malfunctions
malfunctions with
with feedback
feedback for
for aa period
period of
oftime
time)
)
(2:30:06: p.m.)
p.m.)
Coughlin: further there is a coercive
coercive attempt
attempt to
to procure
procure consent
consentto
to aasearch
searchbased
basedupon
upon
not consenting. Probable cause
cause was
was buttressed
buttressed upon
upon aa failure
failure to
to not
notconsent
consenttotosearch
search
earlier, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, asserting
asserting one's
one's Fifth
FifthAmendment
AmendmentororFourth
Fourth
which as you stated earlier,
Amendment right
rightcannot
cannotbe
beused
usedto
to infer
inferevidence
evidenceof
ofguilt
guiltor
orto
to buttress
buttressaaprobable
probable
cause finding for a search,
search, particularly
particularly for
for aa search
search that
that occurs
occursprior
priorto
toarrest.
arrest.
further?
Hon. Judge Howard: anything further?
do .. I am terribly shaken
shaken by
by what
what you
you said
said to
to me,
me, Sir,
Sir, and
andit's
it'saffected
affectedmy
my
Coughlin: I do..
now and
and defend
defend my
my case
case given
given the
the00to
to60
60ininone
onesecond
second
ability to concentrate right now
ofthreatening
threateningme
mewith
with
approach that I have witnessed you
you take
take with
with me
me today
today in
in terms
terms of
contempt upon the first attempt
attempt II believe
believe II made
made to
to preserve
preserveand
andobjections
objectionsfor
forthe
the
- 37/94
37/94--

117 PETITION
1363
further II believe
believe my
my motion
motionfor
for reconsideration
reconsiderationthe
thedenial
denialof
ofappointed
appointedcounsel,
counsel,
record further
ruled on.
on. There
ThereisisaaSixth
SixthAmendment
Amendmentright
righttotocounsel
counselwhere
wherethe
the
but itit was never ruled
possibility of
ofjail
jail time
time is.
is.
possibility
3
4
5
6
I'lldeny
denyitit
Hon. Judge Howard: your initial motion has been previously denied. I'll
in regard to motion
motion for
for counsel
counsel I'll
I'll deny
deny itit again
again for
for the
therecord
recordthat
thatisisfounded
founded
again in
Scott versus Illinois
Illinois which
which held
held that
that where
where an
an indigent
indigentindividual,
individual,as
asyou
youclaim
claim
upon Scott
is not going
going to
to be
be sentenced
sentenced to
to jail
jail time,
time, there
there isis no
no requirement
requirementof
ofthe
the
you are, is
ofcounsel.
counsel.
appointment of
appointment
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2:47:33 pm
identified yourself
yourselfas
as Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart asset
assetprotection
protectionwhat
whatdid
didyou
yousay
saytotohim
him
Roberts: After you identified
as asset
asset protection
protection and
and that
thatIIneeded
neededtototalk
talktotohim
himabout
aboutsome
some
identified myself
myselfas
Thomas Frontino: I identified
items that he had
had taken
taken from
from our
ourfacility.
facility.
Roberts: And
And did
did he
he say
say anything
anything to
to you
you atatthat
thattime:
time:
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts:
pretended ... He did
did not
not say
say anything,
anything, however
howeverhe
hedid
didcome
comewith
withus
usback
backinto
intothe
the
Thomas Frontino: He pretended...He
store
2:48:33 pm
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did
Did you
you place
place Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlin in
in custody,
custody, did
didyou
youplace
placehandcuffs
handcuffson
on
him at that time?
Thomas Frontino: No, we did not
not touch him
him in
in any
any way,
way, He
He was
was simply
simplyfollowing
following our
ourdirections
directionsatat
that point.
2:49:31
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: When
When you
you were
were walking
walking Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinback
backto
tothe
theAP
APOffice
Officewas
was
he in handcuffs?
Thomas Frontino: No, he was not.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: and were you
you escorting
escorting him
him in
in any
any way,
way, did
didyou
youhave
haveyour
yourarm
arm
around him in any way?
Thomas Frontino: No, we did not.
Reno
in the
the AP
AP office,
office, did
did you
you ask
askhim
him any
anyquestion
questionor
or
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Once you were in
have further discussion.
Thomas
items he concealed
concealed and
and he
he refused
refused to
to cooperate
cooperateany
anyfurther
further
Thomas Frontino: I asked him about the items
with our investigation
.....He
He just
candy
investigation...
just continued
continued to
to say
say that
that he
he didn't do
do it when I asked him about the candy
bar and cough drops.
25
27
2:50:47
Zach
on Frontino's
Frontino's vague
vague recollections
recollectionsrather
ratherthan
tha
Zach Coughlin:
Coughlin: Objection, Best Evidence Rule, why rely on
use
use any of the video tape.
28
2:51:19:
2:51:19:
26
-- 38/94
38/94-MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1364
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Did
Did you
you ask
ask Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinany
anymore
morequestions
questionsrelevant
relevanttotothis
this
Reno City Attorney
situation?
asked him
him for
for his
his information
information so
so we
we could
couldenter
enterititinto
intoour
oursystem.
system.
Thomas Frontino: II asked
2:52
rule regarding
regarding witness,
witness, Hazlett-Stevens
Hazlett-Stevensininthere
therewatching,
watching,mention
mentionHoward
Howard
argue about exclusionary rule
leave earlier,
earlier, all
all witnesses
witnesses are
are male,
male, etc.
etc.
made a woman leave
2:52:25 pm
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: What
What specific
specific information
information did
did you
youask
askof
ofMr.
Mr.Coughlin?
Coughlin?
Reno City Attorney Pam
Identification. his
his name
name birth
birth date,
date. social
social security
securitynumber.
number.
Thomas Frontino: Identification,
ofthat
that information
information to
Reno City
AttorneyPam
PamRoberts:
Roberts:And
Anddid
did he
he Brovide
provide any
Reno
Cit Attorne
an of
to you?
ou?
No. he
he did
did not.
not.
Thomas Frontino: No,
Based upon
upon his
his unwillingness
unwillingness to
to provide
providethat
thatinformation
informationdid
didyou
you
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Based
further action?
action?
take any further
Yes. we called
called the
the police,
police. the
the Reno
Reno Sparks
Sparks Indian
Indian Colony
ColonyTribal
TribalPolice
Police
Thomas Frontino: Yes,
They usually
usuallyarrive
arrive within
within ten
ten minutes.
minutes. II believe
believe my
my statement
statement reflects
reflects ititwas
was less
less than
than
Department. They
that.
Roberts: Were
Were you
you present
present when
when the
the Officers
Officersdecided
decidedtotoput
puthandcuffs
handcuffson
on
Mr. Coughlin
Yes.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Prior
Prior to
to placing
placing the
the handcuffs,
handcuffs, did
didyou
youobserve
observethe
theOfficers
Officersplace
place
their hands in Coughlin's pockets?
pockets?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: What

What were
were the
the items
items you
you believe
believe Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinhad
hadtaken
takenfrom
from
Wal-Mart?
Thomas Frontino: chocolate bar and
and two packages
packages of
ofcough
cough drops.
drops.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: were
were you
you able
able to
to recover
recover those
those items.
items.
Vh, he consumed the
the chocolate
chocolate bar
bar and
and he
he consumed
consumed some
someof
ofthe
thecough
coughdrops
dropsasas
Thomas Frontino: Uh,
well but we were able to get the packaging
packaging to
to everything.
everything.
Zach Coughlin: Objection, foundation
foundation
Hon. Judge Howard: Denied,
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did
Did you
you recover
recover the
the packaging
packaging for
for the
the cough
coughdrops?
drops?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I did.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: So
So you
you were
were able
able to
to tell
tell what
what type
type of
ofcough
coughdrop
dropititwas?
was?
Yes.
Zach Coughlin: Objection, foundation.
Hon. Judge Howard: Overruled.
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: did you recover

recover the
the candy
candy bar
bar wrapper
wrapper that
thatwas
wasassociate
associatewith
withthe
the
candy bar you saw Mr. Coughlin consume?
ofthose
thoseitems
itemsare
areby
by
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I did, and prepared aa receipt
receipt to
to indicate
indicate what
what they
they value
value of
of the item
item and
and preparing
preparing aa traning
traning receipt
receiptso
so we
wecan
canget
getthe
theexact
exactvalue
valueofof
taking the exact wrapper of
what they
in Reno
Reno
they sell
sell for
for in
-- 39/94
39/94--

THIS OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1365
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
2:56:59
2:56:59
Coughlin: Objection
Objection hearsay
hearsay
Zach Coughlin:
Howard: Overruled!
Overruled! Did
Did you
you hear
hearme,
me, Sir?
Sir?Did
Didyou
youhear
hearthat?
that?
Hon. Judge Howard:
2:57: 17
2:57:17
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Did
Did you
you actually
actually conduct
conductthe
thescanning
scanningof
ofthose
thoseitems
itemstotocreat
creatthe
the
receipt
training receipt
don't have
have aa cashier
cashier number
number so
so IIgo
go with
withthem
themand
andstand
standwith
withthem
themand
andwatch
watch
Thomas Frontino: II don't
scan the
the items
items to
tocreate
createthe
thereceipt
receipt(check
(checkthe
thetape
tapetotosee).
see).
while they scan
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: So
So you
you actually
actually observe
observe them
themgoing
goingthrough
throughthe
themotion
motionofof
Reno City Attorney
scanning the items and
and preparing
preparing the
the receipt?
receipt?
Yes, IIdo.
do.
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Wish
Wish to
to enter
enter as
as Exhibit
Exhibit11the
thereceipt
receipt
Reno City Attorney
Objection: foundation
foundation and
and authentication,
authentication, best
bestevidence
evidencerule
rule
Zach Coughlin: Objection:
denied.
ofitems
items which
whichhe
heconsumed
consumedororremoved
removed
as aa training
training receipt
receipt with
with aa list
list of
Thomas Frontino: identifies itit as
chocolate bar
bar and
and the
the cough
cough drops,
drops, IIhave
havethe
theactual
actualreceipt
receiptwith
withme
me
from the facility, including the chocolate
photocopy isis consistent
consistentwith
withit.it.
and that photocopy
oflack
lack of
offoundation,
foundation, authentication,
authentication, best
bestevidence
evidencerule,
rule,he
heisisnot
not
objection basis
basis of
Zach Coughlin: objection
with regard
regard to
to the
the business
business practices
practices of
ofhis
his employer
employerininthis
thisparticular
particular
qualified to testify with
relevancy, to
to what
whatextent
extentisisthis
thisprobative.
probative.
circumstance, relevancy,
14
15
Indian Colony
Colony land,
land, anyone
anyone with
with
? Anything from
from Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts:
Roberts: on jurisdiction?
jurisdiction? Indian
a drop of
of tribal blood must be tride in
in tribal
tribal court.
court.
16
l7
18

Roberts: He
He personally
personally observed
observed this
this document
documentbeing
beingproduced
producedby
bythe
the
maching and saw the items
items that
that he
he saw
saw consumed
consumed or
or stolen
stolenby
by the
the defendant
defendantscanned
scannedinto
intothe
theregister.
register.
Hon. Judge Howard: Objection
Objection overruled,
overruled, admitted.
admitted.
ofthis
this witness
witness
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: no
no further
further questions
questions of
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cross ofFrontino:
3:01:00
of Frontino: 3:01:00
Zach Coughlin: Mr. Frontino will
will you
you state
state your
your social
social security
security number
numberfor
forthe
therecord.
record.
Hon. Judge Howard: he doesn't
doesn't have
have to
to provide
provide that.
that.
ofthe
theCity
CityAttorney's
Attorney's
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, II do
do not
not believe
believe you
you are
are practicing
practicing law
lawon
onbehalf
behalfof
Officer he.
Hon. Judge Howard:
Howard: before
before he
he speaks
speakshis
hisssn
ssninto
intothe
therecord..
record ...1.I am
am going
going to
to prevent
preventitit
ofthe
thecity
cityattorney's
attorney's
Zach Coughlin: objection to the court's
court's sua
sua sponte
sponte practicing
practicing law
lawon
on behalf
behalfof
office.
Zach Coughlin: Mr.
Mr. Frontino
Frontino didn't
didn'tyou
you have
have aa social
social security
security number
number on
on aa piece
piece of
ofpaper
paper with
withmy
my
name on it prior to the police arriving?
arriving? (3:02:07)
(3:02:07)
Thomas Frontino: I do not recall.
C:So in you LP room did you have any piece of
of paper
paper with
with what
what you
you thought
thoughtwas
wasmy
myname,
name,social
social
security number, or other personally identifiable information
information already
already filled
filled out.
out.
Thomas Frontino: At the time you had only
only given
given us
us your
your name,
name, that
that was
was it.
it.
-- 40/94
40/94-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1366
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin: Objection, non

non responsive.
responsive.
Hon. Judge Howard: You
You asked
asked the
the question,
question, you
you got
gotaaresponse,
response, your
yourobjection
objectionoverruled,
overruled,denied.
denied.
lying when
when you
you say
say II provided
provided you
you my
myname?
name?
Zach Coughlin: so are you lying
Zach Coughlin: So,
So, just
just to
to be
be clear,
clear, you
you are
are stating
stating here
here under
under penalty
penaltyof
ofperjury
perjuryunder
underoath,
oath,that
thatprior
prio
my name?
name?
to the police arriving I gave you my
Thomas Frontino: Ilam
that we
we did
did not
not have
have the
the evidence
evidence required...
required ... we
wedid
didnot
nothave
havethe
the
am saying that
information required, so
so whether
whetheryou
yougave
gaveme
meyour
yourname
nameorornot
notwas..
was ....was
wasnot
notthe
thepoint,
point,you
youwere
were
uncooperative and that is
is why
why we
we notified
notified police.
police.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, just
just aa second
second ago
ago you
you testified
testified that
that II gave
gave you
youmy
myname
nameprior
priortotothe
thepolice
police
arriving, now it seems you are backing
backing off
offof
ofthat
that aa little
little bit,
bit, Mr.
Mr. Frontino...and
Frontino ... andyou
youare
aresmiling
smiling
smugly.
smugly.
don'tremember
rememberwhether
whetheryou
you gave
gave me
me your
your name
name or
ornot
not at
atfirst,
first, IIknow
knowyou
you did
did
Thomas Frontino: IIdon't
whypolice
policewere
were
not give me the information required
required for
for us
us to
to complete
complete our
ourinvestigation,
investigation, that
thatisiswhy
notified.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so
so you
you just
just lied
lied earlier
earlier when
when you
you said
said "yes,
"yes,for
forsure"
sure"IIgave
gaveyou
youmy
myname
nameprior
prior
to the police arriving and
and that
that you
you didn't
didn't already
already have
have my
my name
name on
onaapiece
pieceof
ofpaper
paperand
andwhat
whatyou
you
thought was my social
social security
security number
number written
written on
on aa piece
piece of
ofpaper
paperright
rightthere
thereon
onyour
yourdesk,
desk,ininthe
the
loss prevention office? Were you
you lying
lying right
right there,
there, Mr.
Mr. Frontino?
Frontino?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection,
Objection, complex
complex question.
question.
ofquestions
questionsininnarrative
narrative
Hon. Judge Howard: Its a complex
complex question,
question, lets
lets ask
ask aa question,
question, not
notaaseries
seriesof
form.
is itit true that
that you
you just
just testified
testified earlier
earlier that
that you
you did
did not
nothave
havemy
myname
namewritten
writtenon
onaa
Zach Coughlin: is
of paper in
in your office
office immediately
immediately upon
upon bringing
bringing me
me back
backto
toit.
it.
piece of
Thomas Frontino: I believe I did
did have
have your
your name
name but
but II do
do not
not remember
rememberconclusively
conclusivelywhether
whetheroror
to
complete
my
investigation.
not...I
know
that
I
did
not
have
enough
information
not.. .1 know that I did not have enough
investigation.
so earlier
earlier when
when you
you testified
testified that
that you
you didn't
didn'thave
havemy
myname
nameon
onaapiece
pieceofofpaper,
paper,
Okay, so
Zach Coughlin: Okay,
but then that the only way you got
got my
my name
name prior
prior to
to the
the police
police arriving,
arriving, was
wasby
byme
meoffering
offeringit,it,you
you
ofperjury?
perjury? I Idon't
don'tknow
knowwhy
whyyou
you are
are smiling,
smiling, Sir?
Sir? There's
There'snothing
nothingfunny
funn
were lying? Under
Under penalty
penalty of
about perjury.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't
don't see
see that
that as
as aa smile,
smile, let's
let's let
let the
the record
recordbe
beclear.
clear.
Thomas Frontino: I'm not quite understanding your question perhaps.
am saying
saying that
that II did
did not
nothave
have
perhaps. II am
enough information to proceed with
with my
my report
report without
without notifying
notifying police.
police.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, well,
well, I'll
I'll just
just write
write these
these questions
questions down
down real
realsimple.
simple.
Hon. Judge Howard: is
is that aa question?
question?
Zach Coughlin: I am
am making
making itit aa question
question right
right here.
here.
you are
are being
being argumentative,
argumentative, what
whatIIwant
wantyou
youtotodo
doisisask
ask
Hon. Judge Howard: What
What you
you are
are doing
doing isis you
him questions.
Zach Coughlin: Were you lying
lying when
when you
you said
said earlier
earlier that
that you
you didn't
didn'thave
havewhat
whatyou
youthought
thoughtwas
wasmy
my
name
Thomas Frontino: No, I was not
not lying,
lying, II believe
believe that
that II was
was making
making aastatement
statementthat
thatIIstill
stillbelieve
believewas
was
time.
true .. .I.1believe
true..
believeyou
yougave
gave me
me your
your name
name and only your name at the time.
Okay, so
so just
just aa minute
minute ago
ago when
when you
you said
said "now,
"now,I'm
I'mnot
notsure
surewhether
whetheryou
yougave
gaveyou
you
is it?
it? The
Thetape
tapeof
ofthis
thistestimony
testimony right
righthere
here will
will show
show that
that at
at first
firstyou
you
me your name or not?
Which is
not? Which
said you didn't have my nme?
canaddress
address it.
it.
Hon. Judge Howard: there is aaquestion
questionbefore
before him,
him, IIbelieve,
believe, let's
let'ssee
seeififhe
he can
- 41/94
41194--
1367
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Frontino: What
What was
was the
the question?
question?
Thomas Frontino:
Zach Coughlin:
Coughlin: Did
Did you
you already
already testify
testifytoday
todaythat
thatyou
youdid
didnot
notknow
knowmy
myname
namewhen
whenyou
youbrought
broughtme
me
Zach
back to
to the
the LP
LP room.
room.
back
Frontino: When
When II brought
broughtyou
you back
backto
to the
the room,
room, no
noIIdid
didnot
nothave
haveyour
yourname?
name?
Thomas Frontino:
Coughlin: Did
Did you
you have
have aa name
name that
thatyou
you believe
believemight
mightbe
bemine?
mine?
Zach Coughlin:
Frontino: Yes
Yes because
becauseyou
yougave
gaveususa.a...
name, but
butwithout
withoutproper
properidentification
identificationititisisWalWalThomas Frontino:
..aa name,
policy to
to call
call the
the police.
police.
Mart policy
So, now
now you
you are
are saying
saying II gave
gaveyou
you aaname?
name?
Zach Coughlin: So,
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Your
Your Honor,
Honor, asked
askedand
andanswered.
answered.
Reno City Attorney
Its been
been answered
answered in
in several
several contradictory
contradictoryways...
ways ...
Zach Coughlin: Its
... Hon. Judge
Judge Howard:
Howard: Sustained,
Sustained,ask
askanother
anotherquestion
question...
didn't give a name", then its "you
"you gave
gave us
us aa name"
name" then
then its
its "I'm
"I'm not
not
Zach Coughlin: At first its "you didn't
if you gave a name" then
then its
its you
you smiling
smiling some
some more...
more ...
sure if
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Objection,
Objection, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, he's
he's testifying...
testifying ...
Coughlin, II have
have told
told you
you that
thatII am
amnot
notgoing
goingto
toallow
allowyou
youtotopresent
present
ofquestions..
questions ..
get along
along with
with another
another line
line of
argument at this time, let's get
Okay, but
but I'm
I'm confused...
confused ...
Another line
line of
ofquestions,
questions, the
the record
record isis clear...
clear ...
Hon. Judge Howard: Another
Zach Coughlin: Do you recall having
having aa piece
piece of
ofpaper
paper with
with aa name
name that
thatyou
youbelieve
believemight
mightbe
bemine,
mine,on
on
upon bringing
bringing me
me into
into what
what you
you call
call the
the asset
assetprotection
protectionroom?
room?
your desk, immediately upon
brought you
you back
back into
into the
the room
room our
our normal
normal procedure
procedureisisto
toget
getout
outour
our
Thomas Frontino: When we brought
get information
information from
from our
our suspect,
suspect, we
we asked
askedyou
youyour
yourname,
name,all
allof
of
information collection form and to get
your
...
your...
Zach Coughlin: Objection, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, II am
am not
not asking
asking him
him was
was he
he was
was seeking
seekingto
tohave
havecollected
collected
my understanding
understandinghe's
he'sasking
askingyou
youififyou
youhad
hadaa
What Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlin is
is asking...its
asking .. .its my
Hon. Judge Howard: What
onyour
yourdesk
deskwith
with his
his name
name on
on itit when
when he
he was
was brought
brought back
back to
to the
the room?
room? Is
Is that
that
piece of paper on
correct?
it.
Zach Coughlin:
1Zach
Coughlin: With my name already on it.
Thomas Frontino:
.... (nervous
.. Absolutely not...I
not...1 must
must have
have
1Thomas
Frontino: No
No...
.(nervous laughter
laughter from
from Frontino)
Frontino)..Absolutely
misunderstood the question before, but absolutely no.
of paper, Sir,
Sir, with my
my name
name and
and social
social security
security number
numberon
onit?
it?
C:Y
ou didn't have a piece of
C:You
Thomas Frontino: Already on it when you first
first entered
entered the
the room?
room? No.
No.
Zach Coughlin:
Coughlin: Yeah..
Yeah ....yeah.
yeah.
Thomas Frontino: Absolutely not.
of paper
paper with
with my
my name
name on
on it?
it?
Zach Coughlin: Did you have a piece of
Zach Coughlin: Something similar to my name on it?
it?
Reno
how would
would he
he know
know what
what name
name is
is similar
similar to
to yours..
yours ..
Reno City
City Attorney
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Objection,
Objection, how
Hon.
Speculative ...
Hon. Judge Howard: Speculative...
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Speculative,
Speculative, yes
Hon.
Zach Coughlin:
of one or
or two letters
letters being
being different
different out
out of
of20
orso
soletters..
letters ..
Coughlin: Similar in terms of
20 or
Hon.
Coughlin... Mr. Coughlin...proceed
Coughlin ... proceed with
with another
another line
line of
ofinquiry.
inquiry.
Hon. Judge
Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin...Mr.
of paper
paper with aa name
name already
already on
on ititwhen
when you
you brought
broughtme
me
Zach Coughlin: Okay, did you have a piece of
into
the
office.
into the
just said?
said?
Hon.
Asked and
and answered..
answered ....did
did you hear what
what II just
Hon. Judge Howard: Asked
-- 42/94
42/94-MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1368
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
l7
18
Coughlin: II believe
believe that
thatwas
wasaadifferent
differentquestion,
question,Sir.
Sir.IIdidn't
didn'task
askififitithad
hadmy
myname,
name,I Iasked
askedififit it
Zach Coughlin:
had
"a"
name
on
it.
had "a" name on it.
Frontino: There
There isis other
otherpeople's
people'snames
nameson
onthe
thedesk,
desk,so
sochances
chanceswere,
were,yes,
yes,there
therewas
wasanother
another
Thomas Frontino:
ofpaper
paper with
with somebody's
somebody's name
nameon
onit,
it,somewhere
somewhereon
onthe
thedesk.
desk.
piece of
piece
Coughlin: And
And you
you have
have video
video of
ofthis?
this?
Zach Coughlin:
ofthe
theoffice
officeatatthat
thattime.
time.
Frontino: There
There isis video
video of
Thomas Frontino:
ofpaper?
paper?
Coughlin: Would
Would have
have have
have those
those pieces
piecesof
Zach Coughlin:
Frontino: There's
There's aa lot
lot of
ofpaper
.. .1 didn't
didn'tknow
knowwhich
whichone
oneyou
youwanted
wantedme
metotobring.
bring.
Thomas Frontino:
paper...I
paperwith
withmy
myname
nameorora a
Coughlin: So,
So, you
you are
are saying,
saying, under
under oath,
oath, that
thatthere
therewasn't
wasn'taapiece
pieceofofpaper
Zach Coughlin:
name that
that is
is substantially
substantially similar
similar to
to it,
it, in
in the
the office
officealready,
already, atatthe
thetime
timeyou
youbrought
broughtme
meininthere.
there.
When II brought
broughtyou
you in
inour
ouroffice
officethere
therewas
wasno
nopiece
pieceofofpaper
paperwith
withyour
yourname
nameon
onitit
Thomas Frontino: When
that was
was substantially
substantiallysimilar.
similar.
or a name that
Coughlin: II will
will remind
remind you
you that
thatyou
you are
are under
underoath,
oath,Sir.
Sir.(3:10:37
(3:10:37pm)
pm)
Zach Coughlin:
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Objection,
Objection, badgering
badgering
Reno City Attorney
Hon. Judge Howard:
Howard: Sustained.
Sustained.
Your Honor,
Honor, I'm,
I'm, uh...I
uh .. .1 do
do have
have respect
respectfor
foryou,
you,Sir.
Sir.And
AndIIam
amnot
nottrying
tryingtotowaste
wastethe
the
Zach Coughlin: Your
next question,
question, but
but II am
am trying
trying to
to figure
figure out
outwhat
whatMr.
Mr.Frontino's
Frontino'sfinal
finaltestimony
testimony
Court's time with this next
Mr. Frontino,
Frontino, isis itityour
your
is with regard to whether I offered him my name prior to the police getting it. Mr.
offered you
you my
my name
name prior
priorto
to the
the police
policearriving?
arriving?
testimony that I offered
you specifically
specificallygave
gaveus
us your
yourname
nameatatthe
thetime.
time.
not remember
remember ififyou
Thomas Frontino: I do not
Did you
you testify
testify earlier
earlier today
today that
thatIIdid
didgive
giveyou
youmy
myname
nameprior
priortotothe
thepolice
policearriving?
arriving?
Zach Coughlin: Did
believe you
you might
might have,
have, but
butI...but
I...butIIdo
do not
notrecall
recallconclusively
conclusivelyenough
enoughtotosay
say
Thomas Frontino: I believe
did" or
or "no,
"no, you
you did
didnot
notgive
giveus
usyou
youname
namebefore
beforethe
thepolice
policearrived".
arrived".
"yes, for sure you did"
think you
you knew
knew what
what my
my name
name might
mightbe?
be?
Zach Coughlin: Did you think
Thomas Frontino: Absolutely
Absolutely not.
not.
Zach Coughlin: Prior
Prior to the
the police
police arriving?
arriving?
Zach Coughlin: Did you testify earlier
earlier that
that you
you had
had had
had "previous
"previousinteractions"
interactions"with
withmean
meanindicate
indicatesoso
in your written statement provided to the police?
police?
Thomas Frontino: I had seen
seen you previous
previous times...
times ...
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:12:09 pm
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I had had previous interactions
interactions with
with you...I
you .. .1 had
had never
neverspoken
spokentotoyou
youthough.
though.
Zach Coughlin: Had you had previous discussions
discussions with
with any
any other
otherWal-Mart
Wal-Martemployees
employeesor
or
supervisors, or loss prevention or asset
asset protection
protection individuals?
individuals?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I have.
Zach Coughlin: Did my name ever come up?
up?
Thomas
Thomas Frontino: No, it did not.
Zach Coughlin: How did you refer to me and
and how
how did
did those
those co-workers
co-workers refer
referto
to me?
me?
Reno
Objection, II don't
don't know
know what
whathe
he isis talking
talkingabout,
about,when
whendid
didthis
this
conversation happen, who was he talking to?
Hon.
Hon. Judge Howard: Overruled.
Thomas
as the
the "laptop
"laptop switcher",
switcher",um
umfor
forswitching
switchingRAM
RAMand
and
Thomas Frontino: We generally referred to you as
hard drives and things like that...
that. ..
3:13:34
3:13:34 pm
-- 43/94
43/94--
MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE TO
TO FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1369
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zach Coughlin: and who made that statement?

Thomas
and electronics
electronics associates.
associates.
Thomas Frontino:
Frontino: ap associates and electronics assocites and
Zach Coughlin: what are their names?
Thomas
is another female
female who
who works
works in
in electronics,
electronics,Jessie.
Jessie.
Thomas Frontino:
Frontino: Stanley Cunningham and there is
Zach Coughlin: Jessie What?
Thomas Frontino:
different
Frontino: I don't know here last name.
name. II believe
believe Alexis
Alexis Trundy
Trundy who
who now works
works tt different
facility. My
facility.
My supervisor
supervisor Anthony
Anthony Rickerson.
Rickerson.
Zach Coughlin:
shaved head,
head, seems
seems to
to be
be mybe
mybe Customer
CustomerService
Service
Coughlin: who
who is
is the
the gentlemn with shaved
Manager or an assistant store manger
ofquestioning.
questioning.
Hon.
to this line
line of
Hon. Judge Howard: what is the relevance to
Zach Coughlin: well, the Jessie, that Frontino refers to ...there
...there was
was an
an incident
incident where
where she
sheaccused
accusedme
me
of something
sernior walmart manager came over and was
something nd
nd this
this CSM
CSM or
or semior
was ble
ble to
to verify
verify that
that her
accusations were unfound
unfound or
or baseless.
baseless.
m sponte",
s onte' I m not going to allow
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't see any relevance. and yes. its "sua
Lets
speed
up
this
process,
ask
another
question.
this line of inquiry.
inquiry. Lets speed up this process, ask another question.
just quickly,
quickly, state
state the
the objection...He
objection ... He isis making
makingthese
theseaccusations
accusations
Zach Coughlin: Yes,
Yes. Sir, okay, just
that are prejudicial and to the extent
extent II have
have aa right
right to
to rebut
rebut them
them II wish
wish to
todo
doso...
so ...
Hon. Judge Howard: I have ruled
ruled on it already ask another question.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so you had aa nickname
nickname for
for me
me but
but you
you had
had no
no idea
ideawhat
whatmy
myname
nameor
oridentify
identify
was?
Thomas Frontino: I had seen you before
before and
and II had
had followed
followed you
you before,
before, but,
but, no,
no, nobody
nobodyknew
knewyour
your
name that I knew of.
of.
Zach Coughlin: any nobody had
had aa name
name that
that they
they thought
thought might
might be
be mine?
mine?
speak to what
what other
other people
people thought?
thought? But
Butyou
you can
cantestify
testifyas
astotowhat
whatthey
they
Thomas Frontino: I cannot speak
told you
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: that
that would
would be
be hearsay
hearsay your
your honor?
honor?
sustained.
hearsay exception,
exception, business
business practice,
practice, custom,
custom, or
orpolicy.
policy.
Zach Coughlin: Habit, hearsay
Sustained.
3:16:57
in question
question Stanley
Stanley Cunningham
Cunningham was
was the
the only
onlyother
otherperson
personworking
workingfor
for
Thomas Frontino: on the day in
asset protection.
protection.
so is
is itit your
your testimony
testimony that
that immediately
immediately upon
uponmy
myentering
enteringthe
thestore
storeyou
youbegan
began
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so
to follow me?
followed you
you immediately
immediately upon
upon seeing
seeing you,
you, and
and followed
followed
Thomas Frontino: No, I did not say that. IIfollowed
half and
and hour
hour to
to an
an hour
hour and
and II personally
personallywitnessed
witnessedyou
youselect
selectopen
openand
and
you for approximately half
bar and select,
select, open,
open, and
and conceal
conceal two
two packages
packages of
ofcough
coughdrops.
drops.
consume a candy bar
you tell the
the police
police that
that night
night that
that you
you personally
personallysaw
sawthe
theaccused
accusedconsume
consumethe
the
Zach Coughlin: Did you
fail to
to mention
mention anything
anything about
about "personally
"personallyseeing"
seeing"anything
anythingwith
withregard
regardtoto
candy bar, but you did you fail
the cough drops?
Thomas Frontino: I did
did not
not fail
fail to
to make
make that
that note
note to
to them,
them, IIstopped
stoppedyou
youspecifically
specificallyfor
forthe
thecandy
candy
after consuming
consuming the
the candy
candy bar
barand
and concealing
concealingthe
thecough
coughdrops
dropsyou
youwent
wentinto
intothe
the
bar, because after
cough drops,
drops, which,
which, per
perWal-Mart
Wal-Martpolicy
policyIIhad
hadtotothen
thensay
say"well
"wellI Ican't
can'tstop
stophim
him
bathroom with the cough
for the cough drops
drops because
because you
you could
could have
have flushed
flushed the
the cough
coughdrops,
drops,you
youcould
couldhave
havedone
donewhatever
whatever
28
- 44/94
44/94--
117 PETITION
1370
11
22
3
44
5
66
77
88
99
10
11
12
13
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wanted with
with the
the cough
cough drops,
drops, however,
however, IIstopped
stoppedyou
youfor
forthe
thecandy
candybar
barand
andthat
thatisiswhy
whyI Istopped
stopped
you wanted
didnot
notaffect
affectthe
thecharge
chargeininany
anyway.
way.
you ... we recovered
recovered more
more walmart
walmart merchandise
merchandise later.
later. ItItdid
you...
any you
you say
say this
this was
was aacandy
candybar.
bar.
Zach Coughlin: any
was aa chocolate...substance,
chocolate ... substance, IIcan
cangive
giveyou
youthe
theexact
exactitem,
item,the
thereceipt
receiptshould
shouldbebe
Thomas Frontino: itit was
when you
you entered
entered the
the AP
AP office.
office.
on camera view from when
and you
you say
say you
you saw
saw me
me select
selectit?
it?
Zach Coughlin: and
did see
see you
you select
select it.
it.
Thomas Frontino: II did
from where?
where?
Zach Coughlin: from
From the
the candy
candy isle...from...the
isle ... from ... the ice
ice cream
creamendcap
endcapand
and...the
... thecandy
candyisle.
isle.
Thomas Frontino: From
is itit aa candy
candy isle
isle or
or an
an ice
ice cream
creamisle?
isle?
Zach Coughlin: is
its the
the same...place...cuz
same ... place ... cuz there's
there's the...ice
the .. .icecream..endcap...that
cream .. endcap ...thathas...the
has ... thecandy
candyisle.
isle.
Thomas Frontino: its
can you
you be
be more
more specific
specific in
in regard
regardto
to where
whereininthe
thestore
storeyou
yousay...
say ...
Zach Coughlin: can
Thomas Frontino: when
when you
you enter
enter the
the facility
facility its
its about
aboutfour
fourisles,
isles,so
soabout
about40
40feet
feetwhen
whenyou
youpass
passthe
the
left, and
and that's
that's where
where all
all of
ofour
ourcandy-type
candy-typesubstances
substancesare.
are.
registers you hang aa left,
Endcap?Was
Wasititon
onan
anendcap?
endcap?
Zach Coughlin: The candy isle? Endcap?
selected itit from
from the
the candy
candy isle,
isle, theres
theresthe
theice
icecream
creamendcap
endcapandthen
andthenthe
thecandy
candy
Thomas Frontino: You selected
selected itit from
from their.
their.
isle, you selected
What's an
an "endcap"?
"endcap"?
Zach Coughlin: What's
It caps
caps off
offthe
the end
end of
ofan
an isle
isle
Thomas Frontino: It
so you are
are saying
saying itit wasn't
wasn't selected
selected from
from the
the candy
candyisle?
isle?
Zach Coughlin: so
Thomas Frontino: I'm saying it was selected from
from the
the candy
candy isle.
isle. There's
There'san
anice
icecream
creamendcap,
endcap, go
go
and then
then there's
there's the
the candy
candyisle.
isle.
left there, and
Hon. Judge Howard: Alright, II have
have heard
heard enough,
enough, continue
continue with
withanother
anotherline
lineof
ofquestioning,
questioning,we
wehave
have
alsoassociated
associatedwith
withthe
the
heard repeatedly that he observed
observed you
you select
select itit from
from the
the candy
candyisle,
isle, which
whichisisalso
to you
you what
what an
an endcap
endcap is,
is, let's
let's go
go forward.
forward.
ice cream isle. He has explained to
is very
very probative,
probative, Your
YourHonor.
Honor.
Zach Coughlin: I believe this
this is
Hon. Judge Howard: Why?
Why? What's
What's the
the relevance.
relevance.
Sir, but
but in
in order
order to
to
Zach Coughlin: I can tell you, Sir,
Hon. Judge Howard: II want you
you to
to explain
explain itit right
right now,
now, what's
what's the
therelevance?
relevance?
in Order
Order to
to have
have my
my ability
ability to
to impeach
impeachhis
his testimony,
testimony, Your
YourHonor,
Honor,there
thereisissome
some
Zach Coughlin: in
leeway that would be helpful in
in order
order to
to have
have him
him put
put some
some answers
answerson
onthe
therecord
record
ofthis
this line
line of
ofinquiry.
inquiry.
Hon. Judge Howard: What is
is the relevance
relevance of
Zach Coughlin: I can tell you that...
Hon. Judge Howard: If
If you can't
can't state
state itit II am
am going
going to
to make
make you
you move
moveon.
on.
Zach Coughlin: I can state it,
it, Sir,
Sir, but
but to
to state
state itit before
before II am
am able
able to
to get
gethim
himput
putsome
somethings
thingson
onthe
the
record impairs my ability to impeach
impeach him.
him.
Hon. Judge Howard: Finding no
no relevance
relevance to
to this
this line
line of
ofinquiry
inquiryIIam
amnot
notgoing
goingtotoallow
allowit.it.
Zach Coughlin: I will tell you the relevance..
relevance ..
Hon. Judge Howard: I am
am not
not going
going to
to allow
allow it,
it, move
move on!
on!
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, II didn't
didn't say
say II wouldn't
wouldn't reveal
reveal the
the relevance..
relevance ..
Hon. Judge Howard: Move On!
On! II have
have given
given you
you every
every opportunity
opportunityto
to reveal
revealthe
therelevance
relevanceofofthis
thisline
line
of inquiry...
inquiry ...
Zach Coughlin: I don't believe you
you have,
have, Your
Your Honor...
Honor. ..
You failed
failed to
to do
doit..
it...I
.1 am
am not going to allow itit
Zach Coughlin: I will state the relevance
relevance right
right now.
now.
Hon. Judge Howard: No, its
its too late
late now,
now, move
move on!
on!
-- 45/94
45/94--
1371
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
Zach Coughlin: Wow.

We are
are not
not playing
playing aa game
game here.
here.
Hon. Judge Howard: We
Zach Coughlin: Wow.
Wow.
Hon. Judge Howard: The next
next "Wow"
"Wow" that
thatyou
youmake
makeininthese
theseproceedings..
proceedings ....under
under these
these
circumstnces,Sir, I m telling you
you now
now itit demens
demens the
the Court,
Court, IIhave
havegiven
givenyou
youevery
everyleeway
leewaypossible
possible
either move
move on..
on ....ask
ask another question.
question.
continue to
to push
push the
thebuttons,
buttons,now..
now ....either
and you continue
ofthe
thecandy
candyisle,
isle,
Zach Coughlin: Yes, sir. So,
So, the
the candy
candybar
barwas
wastaken
takenfrom
from the
the endcap
endcap on
onthe
the end
endof
you say?
Thomas Frontino: No, you took
took itit from
from the
the candy
candy isle.
isle.
Hon. Judge Howard:
Howard: Did
Did you
youunderstand..
understand ....Hold
Hold on..
on ....Did
Did you understand my
my admonishment
admonishmentabout
aboutthis
thi
line of questioning?
believe so,
so, Sir.
Sir.
Zach Coughlin: I believe
Then why
why did
did you
you go
go right
right back
backto
to ititand
andask
askabout
aboutthe
thecandy
candybar
baron
onthe
theendcap
endcap
Hon. Judge Howard: Then
Zach Coughlin: I am asking him about it for impeaching
impeachinghim
himwith
withregard
regardto
to where
wherethis
thisquote
quoteunquote
unquote
candy bar was selected from
to hear
hear anything
anything else
else about
aboutthe
theendcap
endcapor
orthe
theisle,
isle,let's
let'sgo
goforward.
forward.
don't want
want to
Zach Coughlin: I'll just
just preserve
preserve my
my objection
obj ection for
for the
the record,
record, Your
YourHonor,
Honor,Mr.
Mr.Frontino
Frontinohas
hastestified
testified
under oath that this "candy
"candy bar"
bar" was
was taken
takenfrom
froman
anice
icecream
creamendcap
endcapon
onthe
theend
endofofthe
thecandy
candyisle,
isle,but
but
the video evidence would
would suggest
suggest that
that its
its taken
taken from
from somewhere
somewhereentirely
entirelydifferent,
different,that
thatwould
wouldtend
tendtoto
undermine Mr. Frontino's testimony,
testimony, impeach
impeach his
his character,
character, and
andevery
everyother
otherfactual
factualassertion
assertionhe
hehas
has
made here today.
Hon. Judge Howard: Do you have that evidence here today in your possession? Answer
Answeryes
yes or
orno.
no.
Zach Coughlin: I am
am not
not sure.
sure.
You don't
don't know
know whether
whether you
you have
have that
thatevidence
evidencein
inyour
yourpossession?
possession?
C:That's
.... or whether Wal-Mart will
will provide
provide itit
C:That's....or
Coughlin, you
you are
are telling
telling me,
me, IIwant
wantto
to be
beclear
clearabout
aboutthis,
this,that
thatyou
youare
are
whether you
you personally
personally possess
possess this
this video
video tape?
tape?
uncertain as to whether
Zach Coughlin: I though you
you said
said whether
whether II possess
possess evidence
evidencethat
thatwould
wouldimpeach
impeachwhat
whathe
hesaid
saidand
and
testified to as to where the candy
candy bar
bar was
was
ofaa video
video tape,
tape, yes
yesor
orno?
no?
are you
you in
in possession
possession of
Hon. Judge Howard: are
Zach Coughlin: of
ofaa video tape? Sir,
Sir,IIam
amunclear
unclearon
onwhat
whatyou
youare...But,
are ...But,Wal-Mart
Wal-Martdoes
doeshave
have
so, whether
whether or
or not
not II am,
am, IIwould
wouldthink
thinkititwould
wouldbe
befairly
fairlyeasy
easyfor
forWal-Mart
Wal-Mart
cameras all over the store, so,
to show where this
this alleged
alleged candy
candy bar
bar was
was taken
taken from
from and
andwhether
whetherthat
thatjibes
jibeswith
withwhat
whatMr.
Mr.Frontino
Frontino
has just said.
Mr. Coughlin,
Coughlin, II am
am going
going to
to hold
holdyou
youin
incontempt
contemptatatthis
thispoint
pointinintime,
time,I Ithink
think
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr.
ofthe
the Court
Courtwith
with unprofessional
unprofessionalconduct
conductrepeatedly,
repeatedly,you've
you've
that you have derogated the authority
authority of
opportunity to
to have
have this
this matter
matter expedited
expeditedand
andproceed
proceedto
totrial
trialand
andhave
haveaajust
justfinding
find in
been given every opportunity
ofdirect
direct
but you continue to interfere with that process. IImake
make aafinding
finding that
thatyou
you are
are guilty
guilty of
Alright, you
youcan
can
contempt, I am going to hold off
off with imposition until this proceeding is resolved. Alright,
of inquiry.
inquiry.
continue your line of
Zach Coughlin: Your
Your Honor,
Honor, II need
need to
to use
use the
the restroom.
restroom.
beg your
your pardon?
pardon?
Hon. Judge Howard: II beg
Zach Coughlin: II need
need to use
use the
the restroom.
restroom.
Hon. Judge Howard: We
We will
will take aa five
five minute
minute recess,
recess, IIam
amgoing
goingto
toremain
remainhere
hereon
onthe
thebench.
bench.
Zach Coughlin: Sir,
Sir, II will be
be quick.
quick. (3:26:52
(3:26:52 pm)....
pm) ....
(3:35:52 pm)
- 46/94
46/94--

117 PETITION
1372
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hon. Judge Howard: We are back on the record. Mr.

Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinhas
hashad
hadan
anopportunity
opportunitytotouse
usethe
the
facilities and we will proceed.
ofwhether
whetherorornot
notyou
youwere
were
Zach Coughlin: Thank
Thank you, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, Mr.
Mr. Frontino,
Frontino, are
are you
youaware
awareof
recorded or
or video
video taped.
taped.
being tape recorded
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I am,
am, there's
there's camera
camera throughout
throughout the
the store
storeand
andsigns
signsletting
lettingcustomers
customersknow
know
being tape.
tape.
they are being
Zach Coughlin: So,
So, there's camera's
camera's throughout
throughout the
the store.
store.
Thomas Frontino: There's not cameras
cameras everywhere
everywhere in
in the
the store,
store, primarily
primarilyininhigh
hightheft
theftor
orsafety
safety
areas.
related areas.
Zach Coughlin: Was there any
any audio
audio tape
tape made?
made?
Thomas Frontino: And, did you or
or anyone
anyone associated
associated with
with Wal-Mart
Wal-Martmake
makeany
anyaudio
audiotapes
tapesinin
connecdtion with this situation?
Zach Coughlin: No.
3:37:27 pm
Zach Coughlin: Did Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart provide
provide video
video tape
tape to
to Ms.
Ms. Roberts?
Roberts?
Thomas Frontino: I provided evidence
evidence to
to Ms.
Ms. Roberts
Roberts
Zach Coughlin: In fact, in
in your
your statement,
statement, in
in the
the discovery
discovery provided
providedby
bythe
theCity
CityAttorney,
Attorney,you
youstated
stated
that video evidence would
would be
be compiled?
compiled?
Yes.
Zach Coughlin: and what
what did
did you
you provide.
provide.
Thomas Frontino: I provided evidence
evidence from
from within
within the
the office.
office.
Zach Coughlin: by that do you
you mean
mean just
just video
video evidence
evidence from
from the
the room
roomininwhich
whichyou
youtook
tookthe
the
accused to.
Thomas Frontino: I took
took video images
images of
ofthe
the room
room to
to which
which IItook
tookthe
the accused
accusedto.
to.
Zach Coughlin: Just that though?
though?
Thomas Frontino: just that, yes. That
That is
is all
all we
we compiled,
compiled, yes.
yes.
Zach Coughlin: why?
Thomas Frontino: because the primary,
primary, the
the only
only reson...we
reson ... we don't
don'tgenerally
generallyrecord
recordvideo
videofor
forfourteen
fourteen
dollr petty larceny
larceny incidents,
incidents, urn..
um ....we
we did tht specifically
specifically this
this time
time because
becauseof
ofaccustion
accustionthat
thatwere
were
made towards the
the officers.
officers.
Zach Coughlin: accustions by
by whom?
whom?
had made
made toward
toward the
the officers...you
officers ... youhad
hadmade
madeaccusation
accusationthat
thatthey
they
Thomas Frontino: accustion you had
ofyour
your person.
person.
were making an unlawful search
search of
Zach Coughlin: specifically, what
what was
was unlawful
unlawful about
about it.
it.
Reno City Attorney
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: Objection
Objection calls
calls for
for aalegal
legalconclusion.
conclusion.
Hon: Judge Howard: sustained,
sustained, sustined
sustined
amnot
notasking
askingititfor
forthe
thepurposes
purposesof
ofobtaining
obtainingaalegal
legal conclusion,
conclusion, but
butmerely
merelyfor
for
Zach Coughlin: IIam
what was
was said.
said.
him to restate what
Roberts: that's
that's not
not the
the way
way he
he asked
askedthat
thatquestion,
question,Your
YourHonor.
Honor.
Hon. Judge Howard: ask
ask another
another question.
question.
Zach Coughlin: Yes, Sir, Your Honor. Did
Didanyone,
anyone, including
includingmyself,
myself, that
thatwas
wasin
inthat
thatroom
roomthat
thattime,
time,
specifiy in any way as to what was impermissible about such aa search?
search?
Thomas Frontino: No you did
did not.
not.
Zach Coughlin: so your testimony
testimony isis that
that accustions
accustions were
weremade
madethat
thatthe
thesearch
searchwas
wasimpermissible
impermissible
Thomas Frontino: correct
correct
- 47/94
1373

11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88
99
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
but nothing
nothing more
more specific
specific was
was said?
said?
C; but
Thomas Frontino:
Frontino: no.
no.
Thomas
Coughlin: was
was there any
any commentary
commentary about
about the
the impermissilbty
impermissilbty of
of conditioning
conditioning search
searchbased
based
Zach Coughlin:
failure to consent
consent to such
such search?
search?
upon the failure
Thomas Frontino:
Frontino: Yes.
Yes.
Thomas
Coughlin: well,
well, wouldn't
wouldn't that
that contradicts
contradictswhat
whatyou
youjust
justsaid
saidwith
withregard
regardtotowhether
whetherany
anyspecifics
specifics
Zach Coughlin:
said with respect to what was impermissible about
aboutthe
thesearch.
search.
were said
Hon. Judge
Judge Howard:
Howard: I'll
I'll allow
allow it.
it.
Coughlin: Mr.
Mr. Frontino,
Frontino, itit seems
seems though,
though, again,
again, that
thatyour
yourtestimony
testimonycontradicts
contradictsthe
thetestimony
testimony
Zach Coughlin:
not even
even three
three mintues
mintues prior.
prior. (3:40:33).
(3:40:33).
you made not
City Attorney
Attorney Pam
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: isis that
that aaquestion,
question,Your
YourHonor?
Honor?
Reno City
Coughlin: I'm
I'm asking
asking him
him to
to explain.
explain.
Zach Coughlin:
Hon. Judge Howard: Stop!.
Stop!. IIwill
willallow
allowit.it.Do
Doyou
youunderstand
understandit?
it?
cango
gothrough
throughititfrom
fromthe
the beginning
beginningto
toend
endififyou
you
Thomas Frontino: I believe I do understand it. IIcan
Therewas
was point
pointinintime
timewhere
whereyou
youmade
madeananaccusation
accusationthat
thatyou
youhad
hadnot
notgiven
givenconsent
consenttoto
like. There
at that time that
that Officer
Officer Crawford
Crawford said
said make
make note,
note, and
andIIbelieve
believeits
itsininmy
mypolice
police
search, and it was at
notationthat
thatyour
yourpockets
pocketswere
weresearched
searchedafter
afteryou
youwere
wereplaced
placedunder
underarrest.
arrest.
statement, that there was notation
I'm wrong,
wrong, but
butthis
this isiswht
whtIIjust
justheard
heardyou
yousay
say"there
"therewas
wasno
no
Okay, correct
correct me
me ififI'm
search, but
butthen
thenupon
upon
dialogue or specifics mentioned about what was impermissible about such aasearch,
wasimpermissible
impermissibletoto
indicted tht
tht there
there was
was some
some dialogue
dialogue about
abouthow
howititwas
further questioning you indicted
condition the search based
based upon
upon the
the refusal
refusal to
to give
give consent
consentfor
forthe
the search,
search,to
touse
userefusal
refusaltotogive
give
as aa basis
basis for
for the
the search.
search.
consent as
Thomas Frontino: You are completely
completely misunderstanding
misunderstanding what
whatIIsaid
saidthen.
then.
"ofcourse
course II am"
am" because
becauseyou
youhave
havegiven
giventhree
threedifferent
different
Zach Coughlin: Well, II would
would say,
say, "of
answers.
contradictory answers.
Hon. Judge Howard: being
being argumentative,
argumentative, let
let him
him resond
resond to
to the
thequestion,
question,go
goahead.
ahead.
Thomas Frontino: can you repeat
repeat the
the question.
question.
Zach Coughlin: can you explain how
how itit could
could not
not be
be contradictory
contradictoryfor
foryou
youto
tooriginally
originallytestify
testifythat
that
of the serach
serach upon
upon failure
failure to
to give
give consentto
consentto the
the search
searchwas
wasnot
notdiscussed,
discussed,and
and
basing the permissibliy of
andthen
then now
nowyou
you are
are testifying
testifying that
thatititwasn't
wasn'tdiscussed?
discussed?
then you testified that is was discussed, and
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objecdion
objecdion calls
calls for
for aa conclusion.
conclusion.
Hon. Judge Howard: do you understand.
understand.
Thomas Frontino: I don't think I do.
Zach Coughlin: was there a discussion related
related to
to whether
whether itit was
was illegal
illegal to
to base
basethe
thesearch
searchupon
uponaa
failure to consent to aa search,
search, and
and you
yousaid
saidyes.
yes.
as best
best II am
am able
able to.
to. Perhaps
Perhaps its
its best
bestto
to start
startwith
withthey
theyasked
askedififthey
they
Thomas Frontino: I will respond as
could do
a
weapon
pat
down
search,
you
consented
to
that,
they
did
an
outside
pat
down.
After
you
do
search,
consented to that, they
down. After you
became non compliant, and uncooperative with
with the
the investigation
investigation and
and asked
asked for
for an
anattorney,
attorney,you
youwere
were
placed under arrest. They arrested
arrested you put
put handcuffs
handcuffs on
on you,
you, whatever
whateverthey
theydo,
do,they
theythen
thenemptied
emptied
other person
person they
they put
put under
under arrest,
arrest, atatwhich
whichtime
timewe
wethen
then
your pockets, as they do with every other
.Itwas
wasatatthat
thattime
timethat
thatyou
yousaid
saidI I
recovered more stolen merchandise,
merchandise, which
whichwas
wasthe
thecough
coughdrops..
drops ...It
.. .I didn't give
give you
you consent
consent to
to search
search me.
me.
didn't consent to a search, your can't, I ...I
Zach Coughlin: Do you feel, Mr. Frontino, that
that ever
ever time
time II put
put forth
forth to
to you
you the
the inconsistency
inconsistencyand
and
contradicdtions in your testimony that you respond by
by talking
talking about
about things
things that
thatare
are completely
completely
unrelated
unrelated...
Thomas
completely related.
related.
Thomas Frontino: No, because I believe that's completely
-- 48/94
48/94--
MOTION
MOTION FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1374
3
4
5
6
7
Zach Coughlin:
Coughlin: now,
now, what
what did
did you
you tell
tell the
thepolice
policewhen
whenthey
theyarrived.
arrived.
Zach
Frontino: II told
told the
the police
police that
thatIIhad
hadstopped
stoppedyou
youfor
forshoplifting
shopliftingthe
thechocolate
chocolateitem
itembut
butthat
thatI I
Thomas Frontino:
believed you
you had
had cough
cough drops
drops on
onyour
yourperson
personbut
butthat
thatIIalso
alsobelieved
believedyou
youhad
hadcough
coughdrops
dropsonon
also believed
your person
person but
but that
that you
you had
had gone
gone into
into the
therestroom
restroombut
butthat
thatIIdid
didnot
nothave
havepositive
positiveevidence
evidencethat
thatyou
you
your
anddisposed
disposedof
ofthe
the
still had some in your possession even though you had consumed some and
packaging to
to them.
them.
packaging
himself from sentence to sentence. He
Hedoesn't
doesn'thave
havepositive
positiveevidence
evidenceofof
(here Frontino contradicdts himself
being what? Possessed, consumed?
consumed? But
Butby
bythe
thenext
nextsentence
sentencehe
heisisattesting
attestingthat
that
the cough drops being
So,where
whereWal-Mart
Wal-Martpolicy
policy
Coughlin had "consumed" some "disposed of the packaging
packaging to
to them".
them". So,
leveragethe
the
apparently won't let Frontino do somethig with the bathroom, Frontino attempts totoleverage
force to
to do
do that
that which
which his
his employer's
employer's policy
policyforbids?
forbids?
police force
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
have you
you discussed
discussed your
your testimony
testimonyher
hertoday
todaywith
withthe
thetwo
twoIndian
IndianColony
ColonyOfficers?
Officers?
Zach Coughlin: have
Thomas Frontino: No, II have
have not.
not.
where you
you sitting
sitting with
with them
them for
for about
aboutan
anhour
hourbefore
beforecourt?
court?
Zach Coughlin: where
halfan
an hour
hour(3:45:35).
(3:45:35).
probably for
for about
about half
Thomas Frontino: probably
Were you
you laughing
laughing and
and joking
jokingtogether?
together?
Zach Coughlin: Were
we were.
were.
Thomas Frontino: Yes, we
withthose
those officers?
officers?
C:are you close to or do you have a personal relationship with
do not,
not, but
but there
there are
are very
very few
few tribabl
tribabl police
policeofficers
officersso
sowe
wetend
tendtotowork
workwith
with
Thomas Frontino: No, I do
regularly
them fairly regularly
so your
your testimony
testimony is,
is, here,
here, under
underpenalty
penaltyof
ofperjury...I
perjury .. .!don't
don'tknow
knowwhy
whyyou
youare
are
okay, so
Zach Coughlin: okay,
smiling, thats not very funny, you
you wouldn't
wouldn't apprecfiate
apprecfiate going
going into
into an
an operating
operatingroomand
roomandseeing
seeingaa
surgeon joking around?
just been
been reminded
reminded several
several times.
times.
Thomas Frontino: I have just
here today
today isis that
that you
you provided
providedstatements,
statements,both
bothoral
oraland
andwritten,
written,toto
Zach Coughlin: Your testimony here
the two Indian Colony officers,
officers, from
from the
the time
time they
they arrived
arrived until
until the
the time
timethey
theyleft,
left,that
thatyou
you personally
witnessed something with regard to the cough drops. Was
Was your
your testimony
testimonythat
thatyou
you told
toldthe
theofficers
officers
that you personally witnessed
witnessed the
the accused
accused doing
doing something
somethingwith
withthe
thecough
coughdrops?
drops?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: asked
asked and
and answered.
answered.
Zach Coughlin: in your written statement,
statement, what
what did
did you
you indicate
indicate with
with respect
respectto
tothe
thecough
coughdrops?
drops?
HI
don'tremember,
if!
had
the
statement
with
me
maybei
t
would.
HI
if I
statement with me maybei t would.
Zach Coughlin: when the police arrived
arrived on
on the
the scene,
scene, did
did you
you make
make statements
statementstotothe
thepolice
policeregarding
regarding
previous interactions with the accused?
accused?
Thomas
that II had
had
Thomas Frontino:
Frontino: I believe
believe I did make
make the statements that I had followed
followed you
you in that past,
past, that
seen you in the past select and consume a package of
ofM&M's,
that you
you had
had aa long
longstanding
standinghistory
history
M&M's, that
with the store, that our management
management had
had already
already wanted
wanted to
to have
have you
you trespassed
trespassedbut
buthad
hadthat
thatfar
farfailed
failed
to have an opprotunity to do so.
so.
Zach Coughlin: Was the reason they wanted to have the
the accused
accused trespassed
trespassed based
basedupon
uponaaretaliatory
retaliatory
motive in conjunction with the accused's attempts
attempts to
to hold
hold Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart to
to the
the Return
ReturnPolicy
Policywhich
whichisis
incorporated into all
clearly and
and expressly
expressly displayed
displayed both
bothininthe
thestores
stores
all sales they make and which is clearly
and
and on Wal-Mart's website.
Reno
going to object
object calls
calls for
for him
him to
to speculate
speculateinto
intothe
theminds
mindsofofthe
the
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: II am going
managers
him.
managers as to why they wanted to trespass him.
-- 49/94
49/94-MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1375
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hon. Judge Howard: Do you know

know anything
anything about
about that?
that?
ofit,
it, from
from my
my side,
side, technically
technicallythere
thereare
aretwo
twodifferent
different
Thomas Frontino: I can speak
speak to
to some
some of
operations in the store, there are
are operations
operations that
that deal
deal with
with customers,
customers, and
andthere
thereisisasset
assetprotection
protection
technically field
field asociates,
asociates, so
so we
we had
had our
ourown
ownreasons
reasonsfor
forwanting
wantingtotohave
haveyou
you
which we are technically
trespassed from the facility
facility based
based upon
upon our
ourown
own dealings
dealings with
withyou,
you,we
wemeaning
meaningmy
mymanager
managerAnthony
Anthony
Rickerson, Sean who is
is another
another assitant
assitant manager
manager who
who isis aware
awareof
ofyou,
you,Alodia,
Alodia,who
whoisisanother
another
signed your
your trespass
trespass form.
form.
assistant manager who signed
Zach Coughlin: When you say we, are you just referring to individuals who work with you ininyour
your
group or
or in
in your
your particular
particular Wal-Mart
Wal-Martstore?
store?
particular AP group
Thomas Frontino: We do communicate
communicate between
between stores
stores via
via email,
email, we
weall
allhave
haveaccess
accesstotothe
thesame
same
database called
called apis
apis A
A PPIS.
I S.
Zach Coughlin: Did
Did you
you communicate
communicate about
about me
me with
with other
otherstores
storesor
ordid
didanybody
anybodyelse
elseatatyour
yourstore?
store?
Thomas Frontino: not to my know
know knowledge.
knowledge.
if the West
West 7th
7th St.
threat to
to the
the accused
accused in
inconjunction
conjunctionwith
withthe
the
C:, so if
St. Walmart
Walmart made a retaliatory threat
accused pointing out that the managers,
managers, who
who had
had been
been there
there for
for over
overten
tenyears,
years,seem
seemtotoconveniently
conveniently
"forget" the Return
Return Policy
Policy whenever
whenever the
the numbers
numbers don't
don'twork
workout
outininaaway
waythat
thatmakes
makesthem
themhappy,
happy,isis
that something you would have never been informed of
of
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection
objection,, relevance
relevance
is the
the relevance
relevance of
ofthis?
this?
what is
Zach Coughlin: retaliatory motive,
motive, specifically
specifically for
for frontino
frontino or
orothers
othersto
tolie
lie
Thomas Frontino: I get paid...
paid ...
Hon. Judge Howard: Hold on, hold on. Objection sustained. IIhave
have given
givenyou
you aagreat
greatdeal
deal of
oflatitude.
latitude.
We have had this witness testify for over an hour.
We are
are going
going ot
otget
get through
through this
this trial
trial tongith.
tongith. The
The
hour. We
youinquire
inquireinto
intomatters
mattersthat
thatare
are
expedite this
this proceeding.
proceeding. InInthe
thefuture
futureififyou
court has a perogative to expedite
not relevant, whether or
or not
not the
the city
city objects,
objects, II am
am going
going to
to cut
cutyou
youoff.
off.
Zach Coughlin: are
are you aware
aware that
that an
an ap
ap associate
associate from
from Walmart
Walmartmade
madethreats
threatstotothe
theaccused
accusedthat
thathe
he
would retaliate against
against they accused
accused for
for trying
trying to
to assert
asserthis
his rights
rightsunder
underthe
theReturn
ReturnPolicy
Policythat
that
Walmart puts forth to customers, by
by having
having him
him banned
banned from
from all
all walmarts
walmartsand
andor
ormaliciously
maliciously
prosecuted.
Thomas Frontino: no, other
other than previous
previous to
to court
court that
that several
several things
things were
werementioned
mentionedbefore
beforethat,
that,no.
no.
(3:53:47 pm)
Zach Coughlin: so you never
never communicated
communicated about
about the
the accused
accusedwith
withany
anyother
otherwalmart.
walmart.
Thomas Frontino: we don't communicate
communicate directly
directly through
through Apis
Apis its
its simply
simplyaadatabase.
database.I Ihave
havenever
never
receive a picture or
or an
an email
email about
about you.
you.
Zach Coughlin: have you
you felt
felt any
any pressure
pressure from
from your
yourmanagers
managersto
toretaliate
retaliateagainst
againstsomeone,
someone,maybe
maybeaa
is investigating
investigating
documentary filmmaker who is
don't have
have to
to answer
answer that
that question,
question, that
thatisisirrelvant
irrelvanttotothis
thisproceeding.
proceeding.
Hon. Judge Howard: you don't
Another question.
Zach Coughlin: Do you believe
believe your
your employer
employer retaliates
retaliates against
againstindividuals
individualswho
whoshine
shinelight
lighton
ontheir
their
employers failure to abide by
by their
their own
own Return
Return Policy?
Policy?
Pam Roberts:
Roberts: objection
objection Relevanace
Relevanace
sustained.
issue of
ofwhether
whether his
his employer
employer isis pressuring
pressuringhim
himto
toretaliate
retaliateisisnot
notrelevant
relevant
Zach Coughlin: so the issue
right, II don't
don't find
find itit relevant,
relevant, ask
askanother
anotherquestion!
question!
Hon. Judge Howard: thats right,
Zach Coughlin: so stanley
stanley cunningham
cunningham was
was on
on break?
break?
Thomas Frontino: yes, he
he was
was on
on lunch
lunch break.
break.
- 50/94
50/94--

117 PETITION
1376
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zach Coughlin: so, right when the accuse

accuse came
came into
into the
the store,
store, you
you began
begantailing
tailinghim,
him,was
wasanyone
anyone
you were
were tailing?
tailing?
watching the filmwhile you
Thomas Frontino: no
so nobody's watching
watching the
the video/film?,
video/film?, its
its just
justbeing
beingrecorded?
recorded?
Zach Coughlin: so
its need
need we
we can
can go
go back
backto
to ititand
andacquire
acquireit,
it,ininlarger
largerstores
stores
Thomas Frontino: its being recorded so
so ifif its
pan tilt
tilt zoom
zoom cameras.
cameras.
with high theft that have pan
are just
just concerned
concerned with
with what
what isis going
goingon
onhere!
here!
Hon. Judge Howard: We are
Thomas Frontino: okay.
okay.
Zach Coughlin: your store
store does
does not
not have
have pan
pan tilt
tilt zoom
zoom cameras?
cameras?
Thomas Frontino: no, sir.
Zach Coughlin: did you watch
watch any
any or
or attempt
attempt to
to watch
watch any
any video
video of
ofwatch
watchyou
youallege
allegewas
wasdone
donewith
with
the cough drops?
Thomas Frontino: no, I did not.
Zach Coughlin: why not?
Thomas Frontino:
$14.00 dollar
dollar petty
petty larceny.
larceny.
Frontino: because I generally don't based upon $14.00
if your employer
employer could
could get
get sued
sued for
for wrongful
wrongful arrest
arrestor
ordamge
damgeto
toones'
ones'
Zach Coughlin: but if
professional repution couldnt it become bigger issue thn fourteen
fourteen dollar
dollarpetit
petitlarceny
larceny
Hon. Judge Howard: he has answered
answered the
the question
question as
as to
to why
why he
he did
didnot
notreview
reviewthe
thevideo
videotape:
tape:
Zach Coughlin: and I am asking aa follow
follow up
up question.
question.
has
another question!$##$%#$%!
question!$##$%#$%! II am
am not
notgoing
goingto
to allow
allowthat
thatquestion!
question!ItIthas
Hon. Judge Howard: ask another
no relevance!!
!%1\& *##$%#
relevance!!!%^&*##$%#
Zach Coughlin: do you have any duty
duty to
to ascertain
ascertain whether
whether or
or not
not the
the allegation
allegationyou
youmake
makeand
and
whether any arrests you make are
are based
based in
in fact
fact or
or supported
supported by
by admissible
admissibleevidence
evidence
Thomas Frontino: absolutely.
Zach Coughlin: does that duty not
not include
include bothering
bothering to
to look
lookat
at the
the video?
video?
domore
more
Thomas Frontino: it did not have anything
anything to
to do
do with
with bothering
bothering to
to look
lookatatthe
thevideo,
video,itithad
hadtotodo
with looking at the places where II knew
knew you
you had
had selected
selected to
to conceal
concealitems,
items,there
therenot
notbeing
beingspecific
specific
of slip incidents
incidents in
in the
the candy
candy isle,
isle.
video evidence down those isles,
isles, because we don't have a lot of
walmart elects not
not to put
put aa video
video camera
camera in
in that
that isles.
isles.
Zach Coughlin: where do you alleged
alleged each
each item
item was
was specifically
specifically selected,
selected, opened,
opened,and
andthen
then
concealed.
Thomas Frontino: The candy item
item you
you selected,
selected, opened,
opened, and
and consumed
consumedwhile
whilewalking
walkingaround
aroundthe
the
store.
Zach Coughlin: it was selected
selected from
from an
an endcap
endcap you
you said
said from
from the
the candy
candyisle
isle
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection,
objection, that
that was
was not
not his
his testimony.
testimony.
Hon. Judge Howard: that was not
not his
his testimony.
testimony.
Zach Coughlin: I'm sorry, could
could I.I.
its asked
asked and
and answered,
answered, ififyou
you don't
don't remember
rememberitityou
youcan
canreview
reviewthe
the
Hon. Judge Howard: no, its
forward with
with another
another question.
question.
transcript later. Go forward
Zach Coughlin: oh, I'll be reviewing the transcript later. Where
Where was
was the
the candy
candy bar
barselected?
selected?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Your
Your Honor,
Honor, asked
asked and
and answered.
answered.
Thomas Frontino: in the candy isle.
isle.
on an
an endcap,
endcap, but
but somewhere
somewhere within
within the
the isle
isleitself.
itself.
Zach Coughlin: so not on
Yes.
Zach Coughlin: the candy
candy bar
bar was.
was. Was
Wasit..
it...and
what item
item was
was that?
that?You
Yousay
sayititwas
wasaacandy
candybar?
bar?
.and what
28
- 51/94
51194-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1377
Thomas Frontino: It was a...yes,

a ... yes, itit was
was aa chocolate
chocolate item,
item, II believe...I
believe .. .! believe
believeitithad
hadcaramel
caramelinside
insideit,.
it, II
didn't inspect it, it had already been consumed.
have aa picture
picture of
ofthe
the wrapper.
wrapper.
consumed. II have
2
Zach Coughlin: and we have
have aa number
number for
for it,
it, aa number
number for
for the
the bar
barcode
code
Thomas Frontino: the UPC, yes, the bar
bar code,
code, the
the number
number on
on the
the receipt,
receipt, yes,
yes, that's
that'scorrect.
correct.
3
Zach Coughlin: would it be correct
correct to
to say
say on
on the
the receipt
receipt its
its the
the third
third item
itemdown,
down, magndblcrml
magndblcrmlnumber
number
007756713282
4
F: Yes, that is correct
correct
5
C:
exact item
item that
that is.
is.
C: okay, but you don't know what exact
ofright
right here,
here, based
based upon
upon the
the UPC
UPC code
code usually
usually II can
can discern
discern
F: Um,
Urn, its
its the
the item
item that
that IIhave
have aa picture
picture of
6
them
7
C: He's not entering that into evidence
evidence at
at this
this point
point II don't
don't believe
believe so,
so, IIdon't
don'tknow,
know,ififthe
theCourt's
Court's
C:
accepting it
8
H; it hasn't been offered yet\
c:
and gave
gave itit to
to the
the judge,
judge, I'll
I'll note
note for
for the
the record
record
c: the bailiff took it from the witness and
9
f: no, he has the receipt
receipt
f:
r: no he didn't, that's not the correct
correct record,
record, the
the document
document the
the Judge
Judge has
has isis Exhibit
Exhibit1.1.
10
C: Hh, I'm sorry that was not the picture my
my mistake,
mistake, I'm
I'm sorry,
sorry, you
you were
were talking
talking about
aboutthe
thepicture
pictureso
so
C:
11
it seemed you were
F: no, it was not the picture
12
3:59:55
13 . 4:00:00 p.m.
Zach Coughlin: okay, so this was taken from
from somewhere
somewhere in
in the
the middle
middle of
ofthe
the candy
candyisle,
isle,you
you
14
just testified
testified to
to that
that correct?
correct?
personally witnessed that, right,
right, you
you just
Thomas Frontino: that you took itit from
from the candy
candy isle,
isle, yes,
yes, II couldn't
couldn't tell
tell you
you how
howfar
fardown
downexactly
exactlyII
15
didn't pace it out.
Zach Coughlin: Oh..
Oh ....but,
but, oh
... okay ... you said
oh...okay...you
said you
you "personally
"personally eye witnessed" this
16
Thomas Frontino: yes, but I don't
don't take measuring
measuring tapes
tapes afterwords....or...
afterwords .... or ...
17
halfway".
C:okay but generally you could say "right on the edge of the isle" or "somewhere closer to halfway".
Something
like
that,
right? Because
Because you...you
you ... you are
are telling
telling us...
us ...
Something
like
that,
18
Hon. Judge Howard: do you know
know exactly
exactly where
where itit was?
was? (4:00:33)
(4:00:33)
.itwas
wasfrom...
from .....itit was
wasfrom..
from ....the
the candy
candyisle.
isle.
Frontino: Yes,
Yes,I Ido..
do ...it
Thomas Frontino:
19
perjuryyou
you
Zach Coughlin: okay, but
but its
its not
not about
about "where
"where its
its from"...wer're
from" ... wer'resaying
sayingunder
underpenalty
penaltyofofperjury
20
are saying that you "personally
"personally eye
eye witnessed"
witnessed" the
the
question?
Hon. Judge Howard: is there aa question?
21
Zach Coughlin: yeah.
is it?
it?
Hon. Judge Howard: where is
22
Zach Coughlin: I want to verify, where did
did he
he personally
personally eye
eye witness
witness it.
it.
23
ofthe
the isle
isle and
and you
you selected
selected it.
it.
Thomas Frontino: I was standing
standing at
at the
the end
end of
standing right
right next
next to
to you?
you?
Zach Coughlin: was I standing
24
Of course not.
Thomas Frontino: Of
be aa little
little more
more specific.
specific.
Zach Coughlin: okay then, well could
could you
you please
please be
25
Hon. Judge Howard: Could you
you be
be more
more specific
specific as
as to
to where
where he
he picked
pickedup
upthe
theitem?
item?
26
of our...I
our .. .! believe itit was
was one
one of
ofour
our nicer
nicer chocolates,
chocolates, ititwasn't
wasn'taaSnickers
Snickersor
or
Thomas Frontino: All of
fourfeet,
feet,so
so
selected in
in that
that first
first 44 to
to 88 foot
foot section,
section, because
because each
eachsection
sectionitself
itselfisisfour
anything, and it was selected
27
it was selected from in
in there.
there.
Zach Coughlin: from the candy
candy isle?
isle?
28
1
-- 52/94
1378
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Yes, you
you selected
selected several
severalitems
itemsfrom
fromthe
thecandy
candyisle,
isle,some
someofofwhich
whichyou
youpurchased,
purchased,
of which
which you
you left
left atatthe
thecash
cashregister.
register.
some of
Coughlin: And
And you
youare
aresaying
sayingyou
youthen
thensaw
sawme..
me ....that
thatparticular
particularitem
itemwhose
whosebar
barcode
codewhoe
whoe
Zach Coughlin:
just entered
entered into
into the
the record,
record, you
you saw
sawme
me open
openthat
thatand
andthen
thenconsume
consumeit.it.
barcode we just
Youhad
hadaastack
stack(4:01:35
(4:01:35p.m.;
p.m.;
Thomas Frontino: I am saying yes, I saw you open it and consume it. You
totally effed
effed here)
here) of....of....candy
of.. .. of.... candybars
barsand
andother
otherfood
fooditems,
items,that
thatyou
you
realize his
his isis totally
Frontino starts to realize
of items and put them in your cart, and
andthen
thenyou....
you .... then....sumbh....
then .... sumbh ....
selected a bunch of
mFrontino
Frontinotri
triissall
allover
overhis
histhou.
thou hts
htsand
andwords
wordsand
andutters
utterssome
some uasi
uasiword
wordwhile
whilehe
he
(4:01:44 im
his way
way out
out of
ofthe
the shitpin
shitpin he
he just
justwalked
walkedhimself
himselfinto)
into)
tries to think his
... t selected that
that one
one item
item out
outof
ofyour
yourcar,
car,and
andyou
youopened
openedititand
andconsumed.
consumed.
...t
pm)
(4:01:49 pm)
Okay, and
and ififthat
that item
item isis aa refrigerated item, would it make any sense
sense for
for itit to
to be
be in
in
isle, where
where there
there isis no
no refrigeration?
refrigeration?
the candy isle,
(4:01 :58 pm)
(4:01:58
There ...there is
is on
on the
the endcap.
endcap. (OH, GREAT POINT FRONTINO,
FRONTINO, TRY
TRY TO
TO
Thomas Frontino: There...there
BRING THE OLD ENDCAP BACK INTO NOW THAT YOU NAILED YOURSELF INTO
THE FIRST 4 BY 8 FOOT SECTION SPECIFICITY YOU REACHED FOR
EARLIER!) ...that,that....that...that's
that.. .. that...that'smy
mypoint..
point...you
selectedaalot
lotofofitems
itemsand
andput
putthem
themall
alldown.
down.
EARLIER!)...that,
.you selected
ofperjury
perjurywas
wasthat
thatyou
yousaw
sawthe
theaccuses
accuse
But your
your testimony
testimony under
under oath,
oath, under
underpenalty
penaltyof
Zach Coughlin: But
take that
notfrom the
the endcap,
endcap, but from the first 4 to 88 foot
foot section
section of
ofthe
the candy
candy isle,
isle,
that particular
particular item,
item, notfrom
not refrigerated, right?
right?
which is not
Correct.
Thomas Frontino: Correct.
if that item, if
if we pulled up
upthat
thatitem
itemand
andthat
thatbar
barcode
code and
andits
itsshows
showsits
itsaa
Zach Coughlin: So, if
refrigerated ice cream chocolate
chocolate caramel
caramel confection,
confection, would
wouldthat
thatindicate
indicateyou
youwere
wereinaccurate
inaccurateininwhat
what
you were telling the court?
court?
Thomas Frontino: You could
could have
have easily
easily picked
picked itit up
up from
from the
the candy
candyisle?
isle?
(4:02:45 p.m., hear Frontino's lying

lying voice
voice crack
crack when
when he
he says
says the
theword
word"isle",
"isle", not
not even
evenable
ableto
to
ofhis
his sad
sad attempt
attemptto
tocrawl
crawlout
outofofthe
thequicksand)
quicksand)
summons a halfway convincing
convincing delivery
delivery of
Zach Coughlin: The ice cream
wouldn't you
you think?
think?
cream bar from the candy isle? Wouldn't it be melted, wouldn't
If it hd been sittin' there in
in the cndy
cndy isle?
isle?
Hon. Judge Howard: Is that
that aa question?
question? Is
Is that
that your
your question?
question?
this item,
item,ififititisisestablished
establishedthis..
this ..
Zach Coughlin: I am asking, does
does that
that make
make sense
sense to
to you,
you, ififthis
Thomas Frontino: I am saying you selected...
selected ...
Zach Coughlin: I am not
not finished
finished with
with my
my question,
question, Sir.
Sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: You are
are finished!
finished! You're
You're done!
done! Go
Go ahead
ahead and
andrespond.
respond.
Thomas Frontino: II am
am saying
saying you
you selected
selectedseveral
severalitems
itemsand
andplaced
placedthem
themallallinto
intothe
thecart,
cart,urn..
um ...
y~
.yes,
I
may have been mistaken, because you placed
placed them
them all
all into
into the
the cart
cartand
andthen
thenyou
youdid
didnot
notproceed
proceedtoto
directly open the package after you selected
selected it,
it, you
you put
put itit into
into the
the cart
cartand
andselected
selectedititfrom
fromvarious
various
other items that were put
put into
into the
the cart.
cart.
if that item
item was an
an ice
ice cream
cream bar
bar that
that would
would melt
meltififititwasn't
wasn'trefrigerated
refrigeratedand
anditit
Zach Coughlin: So, if
was selected where you say
say itit was
was selected..
selected ....that
that would be somewhat unusual wouldn't
wouldn't it,
it, for
for aa
refrigerated item to be selected from
from an
an isle
isle that
that doesn't
doesn'thave
have refrigeration?
refrigeration?
(4:03:50 p.m.)
F:
At aa Walmart?
Walmart? No,
No, no,
no, itit wouldn't
wouldn't be
be that
thatunusual.
unusual.
F: to be completely honest? At
-- 53/94
53/94--
1379
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4:04:12 p.m.)
Zach Coughlin: Would itit be
be possible
possible to
to review
review the
the video
video from
from that
thatdate
dateininquestion
questionand
andthe
theisle
isleinin
if the item
item in
in question...
question ...
question to see if
Thomas Frontino: There are no
no video
video evidence
evidence of
ofany
any of
ofthe
the refrigerated
refrigeratedisles
islesor
orthe
thecandy
candyisle,
isle,
however, per Walmart policy you
you would
would have
have had
had to
to subpoena
subpoenathat
thatinformation.
information.
Zach Coughlin: And the litigation hold notice I placed you on at the time of the arrest? You
Youdidn't
didn't
respond to that?
.. .1 don't
don't know
know of
ofaa litigation
litigation hold
hold notice?
notice?
Thomas Frontino: Well, uh..I
uh ..1 ...I
ofyour
your duty
duty to
to maintain....
maintain ....
Zach Coughlin: Wherein you
you were
were informed
informed of
was never
neverinformed:
informed:
Thomas Frontino: II was
anA.P.A.
A.P.A.That
Thatdoesn't
doesn'tknow...
know ...
Objection, Your
Your Honor.
Honor. This
Thisisis an
Hon. Judge Howard: Sustained,
Sustained, sustained.
sustained. Yes,
Yes, go
go forward,
forward, another
anotherquestion.
question.
all the
the video
video evidence?
evidence?
So ... you ... destroyed all
Zach Coughlin: So...you...destroyed
automaticallyrecorded
recordedover
overafter
afterseveral
several
Thomas Frontino: No, I did not
not destroy
destroy the
the evidence,
evidence, itit isis automatically
months.
been several
several months?
months?
Zach Coughlin: has itit been
Thomas Frontino: I would have to
to check
check back
back with
with my
my store
store to
to see
see its
its still
stillon
onthere
thereor
ornot,
not,itit
automatically after time records over
over itself
itself
Zach Coughlin: Please do, and
and II will
will note
note for
for the
the record
record that
that II am
amhereby
herebyinforming
informingyou
youand
and
requesting
...
requesting...
Hon. Judge Howard: Ask another question!
question! Ask
Askanother
anotherquestion!!!
question!!!
you are
are saying
sayingthere
thereare
areno
nocameras
camerasabove
abovethe
thecandy
candy
So you
you don't
don'tknow
knowwhether..
whether. ...you
Zach Coughlin: So
isle?
Hon. Judge Howard: Asked
Asked and
and answered!
answered!
Zach Coughlin: Okay. IsIs there
there something
something that
thatlooks
looks like
like aacamera
cameraabove
above the
the candy
candyisle?
isle?
F: I believe there might be one
one at
at the
the action
action ally,
ally, but
but II can't
can'tbe
be sure
surethat
thatthere
thereis.
is.There
Thereisisanother
anotherone
one
that actually points toward the
the meat
meat department,
department, but
butnot
notdown
downtowards
towardsthe
thecandy
candyisle
isle
C: did you make any attempt
attempt to ascertain
ascertain whether
whether or
or not
not any
any of
ofthese
theseselecting,
selecting,opening,
opening,or
or
caught on
on tape?
tape?
concealing acts were caught
F: I did look
lookiin
soda isle
isle to see
see ifif!I could
could see
see you
you throwing
throwingand
andopening
openingand
andthrowing
throwingaway
awaythe
the
iin the soda
coguh drop package and there waw
waw not
not video
video there,
there, the
the other
otherpackage
package you
youthrew
threwaway
awayininthe
thecandy
candy
isle and there's not
not video
video there.
there.
there?
C: there's not video there?
F: correct
c: meaning?
... no ... video ... there.
F: there
there...no...video...there.
of
C: okay so your saying its not a case of there's video but it doesn't show anything, its a matter of
there's just plain no
no video
f:
not an
an image
image of
ofthat
thatarea
areathat
thatrecorded.
recorded.
f: correct there's not
record the
the candy
candy isle?
isle?
C: so your store doesn't record
4:06:42
H: Asked and answered. He's
He'stestified
testifiedrepeatedly
repeatedlythat
thatthere's
there's no
novideo
video on
onthe
thecandy
candyisle,
isle, ask
askanother
another
question.
C: what are those things on the ceiling
ceiling at
at Walmart
Walmart that
that look
look like,
like, like,
like, uh,
uh, IImean...I
mean .. .1always
alwaysassumed
assumed
they were cameras..
cameras ....they
they are
oflittle
black pupil type
type look
look
are like
like these
these little
little round orbs with a kind of
little black
- 54/94
54/94--
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR

SCR 117
117 PETITION
1380
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
maybe aa white
white plastic
plastic ring
ring and
andthey
theyare
areinterspersed
interspersedall
allthroughout
throughoutthe
thestore
storethey
they
surrounded by maybe
would seem
seem colloqually
colloqually surveillance
surveillance video,
video, most
mostpeople
peoplethink
thinkor
orloss
lossprevention
preventioncameras?
cameras?What
Whatare
are
several hundred throughout
throughoutWalmart
Walmart
those things there are robably several
those are
are video
video cameras
camerasfor
forthe
thebetter
betterpart..
part....some
somestores
storeshave
havefalse
falsecameras
camerasthat
thatare
aresimply
simplythe
the
F; those
as you
you described.
described ...um..
um ..
pupil as
your store
store
c does your
not believe
believe has
has any
any false
false cameras
cameras
f my store I do not
ifther's
cameras approximately
approximately every
every isle
isle
c so if
ther's cameras
no testimony
testimony that
that there
there cameras
cameras approximately
approximatelyevery
everyisle
isle
r objection theres no
question go
go ahead
ahead
h i'll allow the question
cameras just
justabout
aboutaove
aoveevery
everyisle
isle
c; is there cameras
said before, no,
no, pretty
pretty much
much down
down the
the netire
netire grocery
groceryisle
islethere
thereisisnot
notone
onecamera
camerashing
shing
f as I have said
of the actual isles
isles thaty
thaty have
have the
the meat
meat department
departmentproduce
producedeli
deliand
andalcohol.
alcohol.Other
Otherthan
thanthat
that
down any of
of the grocery isles'. We
Wehave
havecamerass
camerassshining
shiningdown
downthe
theaction
actionallies,
allies,so
so
there is not a camera in any of
of them
them shind
shind down
down the
the isles
isles
on the sides, but non of
so ... do any of
of these trash
trash cans...are
cans ... are any
any of
ofthem
... you alleged
allegedsomething
somethingwith
withregard
regardtotothe
the
c okay, so...do
them...you
that correct
correct
cough drops,
drops, isis that
trash cans and the cough
packaging to
to the
the cough
cough drops
drops into
into two
two separate
separatetrash
trashcans.
cans.
f: yes, you through the packaging
saying with
with regard
regard to
to the
the cough
cough drops
drops isisititaccurate
accurateto
tosay
saythat
thatyou
youtestified
testifiedthat
thatyou
you
Z and your're saying
witnessed the
the accused
accused select
select the
the cough
coughdrops
dropsfrom
fromsome
somepoint
pointininthe
thestore?
store?
personally witnessed
F yes, you
you selected them from the shelf
shelf in
in the pharmacy
pharmacy department
department
where abouts is that
that
where ....where
c where..
ofpharmacy
pharmacyits
itsactually
actuallythe
thefirst
firstisle
isleinin
f um
urn it was cold medicine itit was in
in the
the cold
cold medicine
medicine part
part of
past the
the isle
isle with
with femine
femine hygeine
hygeine and
andcondoms
condomson
onthe
theright,
right,on
onthe
theright
rightside,
side,on
onthe
the
pharmacy right past
of the isle we have all of
of our cough drops and cold medicine.
medicine. That
Thatisiswhere
whereyou
youselected
selected
right side of
the cough drops
drops from.
from.
C does it seem c urious
uribus to you that
that your
your store
store appears
appears to
to have
have aa couple
couplehundred
hundredcameras
camerasinterspersed
interspersed
neither you
you nor
nor your
your employer
employer have
have managed
managedto
togather
gatherany
anyof
ofthe
thevideo
videoevidence
evidence
thorought it yet neither
which might support
support your
your testimony?
testimony?
F no, for the same reason that
that II gave
gave earlier,
earlier, we
we don't
don't generally
generallycomplile
complilevideo
videoevidence
evidenceon
onsuch
suchaa
minor incident, and
and incident
incidentwe
wewouldn't
wouldn'thave
haveeven
evencalled
calledthe
thepolice
policehad
hadyou
youcooperated
cooperatedwith..
with.its
.. .its
that minor
c:
conditioned your
your calling
calling the
the police
police based
based upon
upon aalack
lackof
ofcooperation
cooperation
c: are you saying you conditioned
fyes
f yes I am
fsuch
f such as?
F not cooperating
c:
specificallyf II had
had detained
detained you
you for
for shoplifting
shopliftingyou
youmaintained
maintainedyoru
yoru
c: but could you be more specificallyf
however without
without information
information to
to pursue
pursueour
ourcase
caseagainst
againstyou
youwe
wehave
have
innocence, which is acceptable, however
to also call police so
so that they can
can assist
assist us.
us.
(Around 4:
10:55 Frontino tries to say the
the wouldn't
wouldn't have
have called
called the
thecops
copsififsuspect
suspecthad
had
4:10:55
cooperated.
way that
that enables
enables walmart to proceed with their
their
cooperated, but then he defines cooperating II aa way
ase against one and mentions that they would
would call
call the
the police
police to
to accomplish
accomplishthat...more
that... more
contradictory stuff. So,
So, which
which isis it,
it, Frontino?
Frontino? Would
Wouldyou
youhave
havelet
letthe
thesuspect
suspectgo
goififhe
had
he had
on need to "information"
provided
"information" you
did you
rovided the "information"
on desired and "cooperated" or did
and "coo
"cooperation"
Talking out
out fo
fo his
his ass
ass again
again.)
eration" to
to""pursue
ursue your case against the accused"?
accused"? Talking
-- 55/94
55/94--
1381
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
testimony is
is that
that the
the accused
accused made
made some
some statements
statementsmaintiaing
maintiainghis
hisinnocence?
innocence?IsIsthat
that
c your testimony
correct?
correct?
F yes, thats correct?
Fj
yes
that's
correct?
F;
correct?
written statements
statements
C is that consistent with yoru written
f: 1I don't know whats in
in my...i
my... i would
would have
have to
to look
look at
at my
my written
writtenstatement,
statement,I1don't
don'tknow
knowififI
put
f:
I put
my written
written statement
statementor
ornot.
not.
that in my
saying .. some, uh,
uh, other
other candy
candy items
items were
were selected
selected and
and purchased
purchased
C and your saying.,
f correct
receipt of
of the
the items
items that
that were
were purchase
purchase
c do you have the receipt
f; no 1I do not.
not.
f;
C; did
did you
you ever
ever have
have itit
C;
database.
f no, it is still in the walmart's database.
or not
not those
those other
other items
items were
were purchased?
purchased?Those
Thoseother
othercandy
candy
C were you able to verify whether
whether or
receipt has
has other
other candy
candy items
items
items or whether in fact the receipt
all of
of your
your items,
items, at
at no
no time
time did
did you
you present...
present. ..
ffwe
we watched you rign up all
ccwho
who is we?
and I,
I, because
because Stanley..by
Stanley.. by the
the time
time you
you were
wereat
atthe
theregister,
register,Stanley
Stanleywas
was
F Stanley Cunningham and
apprehension because
because as
as policy
policy we
we have
have two
twopeople
people so as he came back
now with me to make our apprehension
from lunch you were at the register
register and he was with me. So perhaps it better if!
if 1say
sayIIwitnessed
witnessed
your transaction
c the truth is best, so rather than saying
saying "you
"you and Stanley"
Stanley" the chafing
chaningitittoto"I",
"I",just
justsay
saythe
the
truth.
H Mr. Coughlin I have repeatedly advised you
Makign the
the
you against arguing with the witness. Makign
just did,
did, which
which you
you previously
previously chastized
chastized Mr.
Mr. Frontino
Frontinofor.
for. I am
facial expressions which you just
and warn
warn you
you against
against such
such further
furtheractions.
actions.I1have
havedone
doneso
so
going to once again admonish you and
repeatedly. Go forward.
forward.
CYes,
C
Yes, sir
H;
H; with cuation
c Mr. Frontino it seems to me
me that
that you have
have just
just testified
testified that
that you
you and
and Mr.
Mr.Cunningham
Cunningham
up the
the items
items and
and then
then you
you changed
changed your
yourtestimony
testimonytotoindicate
indicatethat
that
witnessed the accused ring
ring up
Mr. Cunningham was actdually not
not there
there to
to witness
witness that.
that.
he testified
testified to
to You
You Honor
Honor
R;
R; objection thats not what he
f:f: thats not what I am saying I'm saying II cannot
cannot speak
speak to
to what
what he
he saw
saw even
eventhough
thoughhe
hewas
was
standing next to me watching you
c did
did you did you just say
f;
say that
that I1 witnessed
witnessed you
you
f; but he is not here to say that so I1 will say
he wasn't
wasn't back
back from
from break
break yet?
yet? From
From lunch?
lunch?
c well did you just testify that he
what II testified.
testified. 1I testified that
that he
he was
was back
backfrom
from break
breakatatthe
thetime
timeyou
youwere
wereatat
f no that is not what
the register.
C so
justsay
say "I
"I witnessed",
witnessed", why did
did you make
make that
that
so when
when you
you said
said perhaps
perhaps it better ifI
if! just
statement?
F because 1I was assuming that you were
were going
going to
to again
again question
question me
me about
aboutthe
theusing
using"we"
"we"
speak for
for "we"
"we"
because 1I can't speak
28
-- 56/94
56/94--

THIS OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1382
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
c okay an dyou didn't make

make any
any statement
statement to
to the
the effecdt
effecdt that
thatyou
you should
shouldonly
onlysay
say"I"
"I" because
because
Mr. Cunningham had
had not
not actually
actually returned
returned from
from lunch
lunch yet?
yet?
F no 1
I did not make that statement.
C and if we reviewed the tape that
that won't
won't be
be shown?
shown? The
The tape
tape of
ofthis
hearing?
this hearing?
questionable
rr objection, II don't understand the questionable
Sustained. Ask
Ask another
another question.
question.
h II don't understand either. Sustained.
C so
You say
say you
you saw
saw them
them selected
selected in
in the
the pharmacy
pharmacy isle?
isle?
so where did
did you see the cough drops?
drops? You
F correct
c then at what point did you see
see them...where
them ...where you
you personally
personally witnessed
witnessed them
thembeing
beingopened?
opened?
F you opened one item in
in the
the candy
candy isle
isle and
and discarded
discarded the
the package
packageand
andyou
youopened
openedthe
thesecond
second
package in the soda isle and discarded the
the package.
package.
C so was it a case of opening the package
package and
and discarding
discarding itit right
right away?
away?
You opened
opened one
one in
in the
the basket
basket
F on both cases you did not open them both at the same time.
time. You
your nose
nose with
with the
the paper
papertowel
towelthat
thatwas
wasabove
above
discarded the package, you pretended
pretended to
to blow
blow your
paper towel,
towel, you
you then
then put
putthe
thepackage
packageinside
insidethe
thepaper
papertowel
towel
the garbage can, pulled down
down the
the paper
paper towel
towel concealing
concealing the
the cough
cough drop
droppackage
packageinto
intothe
the
and then placed both items together
together the
the paper
garbage can.
this?
C and you personally witnessed this?
F I personally witnessed this
c not on video
... but with your own eyes?
eyes?
video...but
F with my own eyes.
eyes.
C how close were you?
F at that point I1 was standing
standing on
on the
the endcap
endcap and
and you
you were
were standing
standingjust
justinside
insidethe
theisle
isle
c nd this would be the candy isle?
isle?
F: so how many feet away would you
you say
say you
you were
were
F:
f A few feet maybe...
maybe...
means, does
does that
that mean
mean less
less than
than ten
ten would
would you
yousay?
say?
c II don't know what a few feet means,
probably somewhere
somewhere around
around 3.
3.
F definitely less than ten itit was probably
at the
the endcap
endcap and
and the
the accused
accused was
waswhere?
where?
c you were three feet away, you were
were at
fI
Would you
you like...uh.
like... uh.
f I was at the endcap and were just inside the isle at the garbage can. Would
C and you weren't obscured in any way?
F no I was not
c you were in plain sight
f uh, I was hiding, I1 was not standing next
next to
to the
the garbage
garbage can.
can.
and then
then you
you said
said you
you were
werehiding
hiding
C okay, so you said you were not
not obscured
obscured and
my body
body was
was obscured
obscured from
from your
yourvision
vision
f my line of sight was not obscured, my
possible was
was there
there some
some hole
hole in
in the
the isle
isle you
you peered
peeredthrough
through
c okay, and how is that possible
have shelves
shelves so
so what
what we
we will
will do
do isis we
wewill
willeither
eithercrouch
crouchdown
down
f theres, theres the endcaps that have
look wherever
wherever we
we need
need to
to look
look through
through the
thegap
gapand
andwe
weget
getclose
close
or we will stand stall and look
that
enough to it and the props in the shelves don't obscure our vision at all and ails
alls the people that
were really looking for
for us
us they
they would
would see
see isis our
our eyes,
eyes, but
butthat's
that'sififthey
theywere
werereally
reallylooking
lookingfor
for
us.
C so there's no products on the shelves that
that would
would impede
impede your
your view
view of
ofthat?
that?
F there are products on the shelves
shelves and
and there
there are
are times
times when
when there
thereare
areproducts
productsthat
thatcould
could
we don't
don't choose
choose those
those isles...we
isles ... we don't
don'tchoose
choosethose
thoseendcaps
endcapstotolook
look
obscure our vision, however, we
through as it obscures our vision
-- 57/94
57/94-
1383
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
where you don't

don't have
have aa choice
choice with
with respect
respectto
towhich
whichendcap
endcapyou
youlook
look
c well are there situations where
through
fNo.
f No.
able to
to arrange
arrange where
where people
peopletake
takethings
things
c so, how is that possible, are you able
ffWe
We simply do not catch everyone.
C:
no attempt
attempt made
made to
to pay
pay for
for the
the chocolate
chocolatebar
baror
orthe
thecough
coughdrops?
drops?
C: and you say there was no
F: correct?
C:
ascertain that?
that?
C: And how were you able to ascertain
F You did not attempt to pay
pay for
for them,
them, you
you concealed
concealed the
the items...the
items ... thepackaging
packagingthat
thathad
hadthe
the
UPC's in garbage cans, you also
also concealed
concealed the
the packaging
packaging to
to the
the wrapper
wrapperunderneath
underneathcart
cart
sanitizer wipes in the corner
corner of
of your
your cart.
cart.
C did you hear any discussions between
between the
the cashier
cashier and
and the
the accused?
accused?
F No, I did not.
not.
know of
of at
at Walmart
Walmart
C Did anybody that you know
R Your Honor, calls for speculation
speculation
H that you know of
fThat
No.
f That I know of? No.
ascertain whether
whether the
the accused
accused and
and the
thecashier
cashierhad
hadany
any
C Did you make any efforts to ascertain
the items
items
to the
discussions with respect to
fNo
f No
where an
an individual
individual at
at Walmart
Walmartselects
selects and
and item
item and
andits
itsdamage
damageor
or
c Is there ever a situation where
something is wrong with itit and
and they
they don't
don't purchase
purchase it?
it?
also.
F Yeah, but they don't eat itit also.
C Is there ever a situation where someone
someone takes
takes aa bite
bite of
ofsomething
something and
and finds
finds itittastes
tastesbad
bador
or
maybe an Odwalla drink has
has aa rotten
rotten taste
taste to
to itit
of the
the question?
question?
H what is the relevance of
that this
this items
items were
were opened.
opened.
C Well, Mr. Frontino is asserting that
package... did you
you indicate
indicatean
an"olive"?
"olive"?
H It was a package...did
C: No, I was referring to what he's...
he's ...
C:
referring to
to in
in your
your question
question specifically,
specifically, what
whatwas
wasit?
it?
H what item were you referring
three items...
items ... the
the cough
cough drops
drops and
and the
the candy
candy bar
bar which...or
which ... or what
what Mr.
Mr. Frontino
Frontino calls
calls
all three
C All. all
the "candy bar"
refrigerated item.
item.
bar" which, II believe the UPC actually reveals is aa refrigerated
to your
your inquiry
inquiry
H What is the relevance to
to establish
establish all
all the
theelements
elementsofofthe
thecharge,
charge,one
oneisis"intent".
"intent".
C well in order to
H Intent?
intent...
C Yes, and if there is not an intent...
H How do those other situations
situations relate
relate to
to whether
whether you
you intended
intended to
to conceal,
conceal,consume
consumethe
theitems
itemsin
i
question here?
C II am asking Mr. Frontino what he
he does
does to
to ascertain
ascertain whether
whether or
ornot
not there
therewas,
was,ininfact,
fact,the
the
not someone
someone who
who isis accused
accused of
ofthese
thesecrimes
crimesmight
mighthave
havesampled
sampled
requisite intent or whether or not
to be
be unsaleable?
unsaleable?
something and found it to
(4:20:42 p.m.)
these proceedings,
proceedings, itit has
has no
no relevance.
relevance.
H It has no relevance to these
my objection
objection to
to that
that for
for the
the record,
record, II do
do believe
believeititgoes
goesto...
to ...
C Okay, and I'll just preserve my
H You keep talking over my
my rulings,
rulings, and
and II have
have warned
warned you
you about
aboutthat
thathaven't
haven'tLI.IIhave
have
opportunity and
and you've
you've expressed
expressed your
yourunderstanding
understandingofofyour
yourright
right
indicated that you have an opportunity
-- 58/94
58/94-
1384
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
to appeal. The
Thenext
nexttime
timethat
thatyou
you talk
talkover
overone
oneof
ofmy
mydecisions
decisions or
orrulings,
rulings, II am
am going
goingto
tohold
hold
contempt again,
again. you
you have
have fair
fair warning.
warning.
you in contempt
C I am sorry, Your Honor, I was always
always under
under the
the understanding
understandingthat
thatififI
didnot
notspecifically
specifically
I did
state my objection for the record,
record, II would
would be
be precluded
precluded from
from later
lateron
onarguing
arguingthat
thaton
onappeal,
appeal,I I
you, Sir.
Sir.
don't mean to disrespect you,
H
have made
made myself
myselfclear,
clear, you
you understand
understandit.
it.Ask
Askanother
anotherquestion.
question.
H Ask another question. I have
C In your written statement
statement you stated
stated that
that the
the accused
accused was
was initialy
initialycompliant
compliantbut
butthen
thenbecame
became
non-compliant, in what way
way did
did the
the accused
accused become
become non
non compliant?
compliant?
provide us
us with
with any
any information
information in
in regards
regardsto
toyourself
yourselfso
sothat
thatwe
wewould
wouldnot
notbe
be
F You would not provide
our database,
database, as
as II have
have previously
previously stated.
stated.
able to enter you into our
C Okay, but then earlier you testified
testified that
that the
the accused
accused offered
offered you
youhis
hisname,
name,how
howisisthat
that
consistent.
F As I have previously
previously stated,
stated, whether
whether you
you have
have given
given us
us your
yourname
nameor
ornot
notthat
thatisisnot
notenough
enough
information for us to complete
complete our
our investigation
investigation and
and to
to enter
enteryou
youinto
intoour
oursystem,
system,as
asIIhave
have
stated before.
C Well, okay, that's fine...but
fine ... but my
my question
question didn't
didn't relate
relate to
to that.
that. My
Myquestion
questionrelated
relatedtotohow
howyou
you
can stand here under oath and
and say
say one
one thing
thing that
that inconsistent
inconsistentwith
with something
somethingelse
elseyou've
you'vesaid.
said.
To wit: you said earlier that
that the
the accused
accused offered
offered his
his name
nameto
to you
youprior
priorto
tothe
thepolice
policearriving,
arriving,
'
then just now, you described the
the accused
accused as
as non-compliant,
non-compliant,in
in part,
part,because
becausehe
he/ailed
to
offer
hi
failed
his
name to you.
My question
question is:
is: how
howisis that
that non
non inconsistent
inconsistent and
and indicative
indicative of
ofaa lack
lackof
ofveracity
veracity
you. My
today, Mr.
Mr. Frontino?
Frontino?
attendant to your testimony today,
R Objection, Your Honor, that
that goes
goes to
to argument.
argument.
H
allow the
the question
question up
up to
to the
the point
pointthat
thatititgoes
goesto
toveracity,
veracity,which
whichisisaa
H I am going to allow
make, not
not you,
you, go
go ahead.
ahead.
determination that I make,
F as II believe I have stated earlier,
earlier, II do
do believe
believe you
you gave
gave us
us your
yourname,
name,but
butII would
wouldnot
notswear
swear
my life on the fact that you gave
gave us
us your
your name,
name, however,
however, even
even ififyou
youhad
hadgiven
givenus
usyour
yourname,
name,
us enough
enough information
information for
for us
us to
to complete
completeour
ourinvestigation,
investigation,so
sotherefore,
therefore,we
we
you did not give us
had to notify Tribal Police.
are finding
finding some
some non-compliance
non-complianceon
on the
thepart
partof
ofthe
theaccused
accusedand
and
C Okay so when you say your are
the attendant consequence
consequence to
to that,
that, ie,
ie, your
your calling
calling in
in the
thepolice...what
police...whatyou
youassert
assertwas
wasthe
thenonnoncompliance in your earlier
earlier testimony,
testimony, was
was that
that there
there was
was aa failure
failureto
togive
giveaaname....but
name.... butthat
that
might not be it,
So, was
was there
there any
any other
other nonnonit, apparently,
apparently, according
according to
to your
your testimony.
testimony. So,
compliant behavior?
behavior?
F You wouldn't give us
us your
your information,
information, that
that was
was it.
it.
C Information meaning?
F Name, address, identification,
identification, all
all items
items that
that you
you had
had on
on your
yourperson,
person,but
butwere
wereunwilling
unwillingtoto
share with us.
us.
C So you are saying that aa failure
failure to
to provide
provide those
those materials
materials at
atWalmart
Walmartwill
willresult
resultinincalling
calling
the police?
F Anybody that fails to
to produce
produce aa valid
valid form
form of
ofidentification
identificationwill
willresult
resultin
inus
uscalling
callingthe
thepolice.
police.
C And
... calling the police
police saying what...the
what... the person
person refused
refused to
to give
givetheir
theiridentification?
identification?
And...calling
police because
because at
at that
that point,
point, Walmart
Walmartpursues
pursuestheir
theirright
righttotopursue
pursuecriminal
criminal
F No, we call the police
charges, and you are not
not on
on trial
trial for
for not
not giving
giving aa name,
name, you
you are
areon
ontrial
trialfor
forpetty
pettylarceny,
larceny,sosoatat
that point Walmart...
Walmart...
H
question, thank
thank you.
you.
H He's answered the question,
(4:25:43 p.m.)
- 59/94
117 PETITION
1385
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
to allow
allow Walmart
Walmart to
to search
search the
the contents
contentsof
ofone's
one'sbag
bagor
orthe
theplastic
plasticbag
bagthat
that
C So is refusing to
their purchases
purchases are
are in,
in, isis that
that also
also aa basis
basis for
for callign
callignthe
thepolice?
police?
never search
search individuals,
individuals, per
per policy
policyWalmart
Walmartdoes
doesnot
notsearch
searchindividuals
individuals
F We never
is that
that aa basis
basis for
for contacting
contactingthe
thepolice?
police?
is, is
H His question is,
practice of
ofhaving
having someone
someone stand
stand by
bythe
thedoor
doorand
andsay
saylets
letsme
mecheck
checkyour
your
C So the well known practice
contents of
ofyour
your bag...does
bag ... does that
that occur
occurat
atWalmart?
Walmart?
receipt against the contents
it does.
does.
F Uh, yes it
if someone refuses
refuses to
to allow
allow Walmart
Walmart to
to search
search the
thecontents
contentsof
oftheir
platicbag
bagand
and
C Okay so if
their platic
receipt. ..if someone
someone refuses
refuses to
to consent
consentto
to that
thatsearch,
search,what
whatisisyour
yourpolicy?
policy?
their receipt...if
let them
them leave.
leave.
F To let
that search
search and
and you
youlet
letthem
themleave?
leave?
refuse to
to consent
consent to
to that
C So, someone can refuse
F Correct.
detained someone
someone for
for refusing
refusing to
to consent
consentto
tosuch
suchaasearch?
search?
C Have you ever detained
IfII were working and
and the
the door
door and
and failed
failed to
to observed
observed selection,
selection,concealment,
concealment,and
and
F If
of those
those items,
items, we
we never
never make
make stops
stops based
based on
on those,
those,so,
so,ififsomebody's
somebody'satatthe
thedoor,
door,
consumption of
of an insurance policy
policy to
to check
check receipts...nobody
receipts ... nobody isis ever
everdetained,
detained,urn...
urn ...
its more of
against Walmart
Walmart recently
recently
c There wasn't a lawsuit against
ffII couldn't speak to
Weare
arespeaking
speakingabout,
about,
H What is the relevance? What is the relevance to this line of inquiry. We
loss prevention
prevention officer
officer and
and his
his observations
observationsand
andaagreeter
greeterand
andwhat
whatthe
the
as I understand it, loss
Do you
you see
seethose
thoseas
as exactly
exactlythe
thesame
samething?
thing?
greeter can do. Do
policy on
on Walmart's
Walmart's part
part to
to condition
condition whether
whetheror
ornot
notthey
theyare
aregoing
going
C I see them as an overall policy
whether aa customer
customerisis consenting
consentingto
toimpermissible
impermissible
based upon
upon whether
to take retaliatory action based
seizures.
searches and seizures.
H Alright. I don't see them as the same or even similar. Its
Its not
notrelevant.
relevant.
C Yes, Sir, I'll move on.
H It's not relevant, ask
ask another
another question.
question.
some discussions
discussions between
between the
the Indian
Indian Colony
ColonyOfficers
Officersand
andthe
the
C You say that you overhead some
the accused
accused failure
failure to
to consent
consent to
to aa search....having
search.... havingaaconsequence
consequenceofofthe
the
accused with regard to the
accused being arrested for
for not
not consent....
consent....
f;
Sir. you were not placed under
under arrest
arrest until
until you
you asked
asked for
for aa lawyer.
lawyer.
f: No. Sir,
C Okay,
asking for
for aa lawyer
lawyer was,
was, uh,
uh, mentioned
mentionedby
bythe
theOfficers
Officersasas
Okay, so you are saying the accused asking
having a consequence...
consequence ...
r Objection, calls for hearsay
c I'm
... uh ... excited utterance
utterance
I'm...uh...excited
r Your Honor, that's not
not an
an excited
excitedutterance.
utterance.
H Sustained.
C Mr.
they Officers
Officers have
have said,
said, at
at length,
length, previously.
previously.
Mr. Frontino has testified as to what they
H well...uh
...just because the prosecutor
prosecutor has
has chosen
chosen not
not to
to objectd
objectdatatcertain
certaintimes
timesand
andhas
hasnow
now
well...uh...just
objected to what the Officers have
have said
said based
based upon
upon hearsay,
hearsay, you
you still
still have
have to
toget
getover
overthat
thathurdle,
hurdle, and
she
have even
even indicated
indicated relevance
relevance. once again.
but in any
event.I Iam
amsustainin
sustaining
her
she may
ma have
a. ain but
an event
. her
objection.
C Can I just
pattern and
and practice
practice argument,
argument, habit,
habit, hearsay
hearsay
just enter, respectfully, Your Honor, aa pattern
objection?
HMove
H Move on!
28
-- 60/94
60/94--
1386
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SO, just
just to
to be
be clear,
clear, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, II can
canask
askMr.
Mr. Frontino
Frontinoabout
aboutwhat
whathe
heheard
heardthe
theOfficer
Officersay
sayinin
C So,
regard to
to whether
whether or
or not
not they
they were
were conditioning
conditioningarrest
arrestupon
uponfailure
failuretotoconsent
consentto..
to ..
regard
Objection, calls
calls for
for hearsay
hearsay
rr Objection,
If you can,
can, ififyou
you can...provide
can ... provide me
me with
withaahearsay
hearsayexception,
exception,number
numberone,
one,and
andnumber
numbertwo
twoprovide
provide
H If
relevance as
as to
to why
why that's
that's relevant,
relevant, yes,
yes, absolutely,
absolutely, so
sogo
goforward.
forward.
me with aa relevance
is relevant,
relevant, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, because
becausethe
theresults
resultsofofthe
thesearch,
search,the
thefruit
fruitofofthe
thepoisonous
poisonoustree,
tree,
C I feel itit is
..
.!
don't
know
factor in
in heavily
heavilyininthe
theReno
RenoCity
CityAttorney's
Attorney'scase,
case,without
withoutthat..
that...their
case
rests
on
.their case rests on.. .1 don't know
whether or
or not
not these
these cough
cough drops..
drops ..
what.. and whether
before you
you go
go on,
on, your
yourargument
argumentisisthe
thefruit..
fruit...!
it...what are
are the
the fruits
fruits here?
here?
H So, before
.1 take it...what
report they
they mention
mention that
that the
the search
search incident
incidentto
to arrest
arrestyielded
yieldedsome
somecough
coughdrops,
drops,
C Well in their arrest report
in aa container
container or
or some
some packaging,
packaging, but
butjust
justsome
somecough
coughdrops..and...
drops .. and ...
not cough drops in
if you were succesful
succesful and
and you
you Got
Got that
that thrown
thrown out,
out, on
onwhat
whatbasis
basiswould
wouldthe
thecase
casefall?
fall?
H So, if
C Well, its....
its ....
of the poisonous
poisonous tree?
tree?
H As fruit of
the physical
physical evidence,
evidence, would
would
the actus
actus reus
reus would
wouldbe
belacking..
lacking ....the
the property
property itself..
itself....the
C Well, I believe the
extent its
its alleged
alleged to
to be
be physical
physical evidence,
evidence, that
thatwould
wouldnot
notbe
beavailable
available
not be there to the extent
understand ....now
now give me the response
response to
to the
the hearsay
hearsayobjections
objections
H Alright, II understand..
statement against
against interest
interest to
to the
the extent
extentthat
that this
this Walmart
Walmartisisrented
rentedout
outby
by
c: I believe one is that its a statement
to Walmart,
Walmart, the
the property
property Mr.
Mr. Frontino
Frontino testified
testifiedearlier,
earlier,that
thatthere
thereisisaaclose
close
those Officer's employers to
with these
these Indian
Indian Colony
Colony Police,
Police, so
so much
much so
sothat
thatthey
theyare
areable
abletotosit
sitand
andhave
have
working relationship with
conversation and
and laughter
laughter for
for approximately
approximately 45 minutes prior to trial. They
Theyall
allmay
maypotentially
potentially
jovial conversation
ofaction
action for
for aa wrongful
wrongful arrest,
arrest, as
as such,
such,there
thereisisaapossibility
possibilitythat
that
1983 cause
cause of
face a giant liability for a 1983
they are acting in concert
concert and
and that
that any
any statements
statements made
made by
by Indian
Indian Colony
ColonyPolice
Policeare
arenecessariliy
necessariliy
imputed to Walmart
Walmart and
and therefore
therefore are
are aastatement
statementagainst
againstinterest.
interest.
H; Okay, alright, any response from
from the
the City?
City?
of all, Your Honor, Mr. Frontino
Frontino testified
testified that
that he
he witnessed
witnessedthe
the defendant,
defendant,IIbelieve,
believe,consume
consume
R First of
of whether there
there were
were any
any cough
cough drops
drops found
foundininhis
hispocket,
pocket,
some of the cough drops, and regardless of
that that
that observation
observation is not negated...we
negated ... we may not
not be
be able
able to
to ascertain
ascertain the
the value
value of
ofthe
the cough
coughdrops
drops
in addition,
addition, even
even ififthe
the cough
cough drops
drops and
andthe
theevidence
evidencerelated
related
because we wouldn't have the package...
package ... in
to the cough drops was excluded
excluded that
that would
would not
not apply
apply to
to the
the candy
candybar
baror
orthe
thechocolate
chocolateitem
itemthat
thatMr.
Mr.
Frontino referred to. Regarding
Regardingthe
thehearsay
hearsayexception,
exception,I Idon't
don'tbelieve
believethe
thefact
factthat
thathehemay
maybebeeven
even
of the Officers makes or
or meets the
the hearsay
hearsay objection,
objection, itit doesn't
doesn'tmeet
meetany
anyof
of
best friends with one of
exceptions under the hearsay rule, there is
is no
no such
such thing
thing as
as fear
fear of
ofliability
liability and
and the
the Officer
Officerisisnot
notaa
notthe
the
litigant in this matter, maybe a future litigant
litigant at some
some poitn
poitn with
with Mr.
Mr. Coughlin,
Coughlin, ititcertainly
certainlyisisnot
case today.
C:
C: Your Honor,
H No,
any hearsay
hearsay objection,
objection, nor
nor do
do II find
find this
this particularly
particularlyrelevant,
relevant,
No, nothing further. I haven't found any
its
question.
its sustained ask another question.
objection for
for the
the record
record that
thatits
its not
notbeing
being
C:
C: Alright,
Alright, Your Honor, and I will just preserve the objection
offered
that it
it does
does hae
hae indicia
indicia of
ofreliability
reliability given
giventhe
the
offered to
to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that
contemporaneous nature of the statement, particularly with regard
regard to
toit
being aa performative
performative
it being
utterance.
26
27
Howard off,
off, to
to the
the point
pointwhere
wherehe
he
(Oh,
(Oh, man,
man, did
did that half court shot at the buzzer piss Judge Howard
has
leverage technology)
technology)
has to
to bash
bash someone just for having the industry to leverage
28
-- 61/94
61194--
MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1387

11
22
33
44
5
66
77
88
10
10
11
11
12
13
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
Ask another
another question! IIgave
gaveyou
youevery
everyopportunity
opportunitytotogive
giveme
meyour
yourargument.
argument.What
Whatyou
youhave
have
H: Ask
now itit say
say "well,
"well, you
you know
knowwhat?
what?IIhave
havegone
gonetotomy
mylittle
littlelaptop
laptopand
andI've
I'vegot
gotsome
someadditional
additional
done now
information that
that II want
want to
to present..."
presenL." and
andIIhave
haverepeatedly
repeatedlyindicated
indicatedtotoyou:
you:one
oneshot,
shot,I Imake
makethe
the
information
ruling, we
we move
move on...
on.....and
and ONCE AGAIN, you've gone behind my ruling
ruling and
and added
added additional
additional
ruling,
Askthe
thequestion,
question,Sir!
Sir!
information. Ask
C: Okay,
Okay. and
and also
also just
just to
to the
the extent
extentthat
thatcommands
commandsare
arenot
nothearsay.
hearsay. Mr.
Mr.Frontino,
Frontino, did
did you
you make
make
C:
hegave
gaveyou
youback
back
any statements
statements to the
the accused
accused that
that you
you would
wouldbargain
bargainwith
withthe
theaccused
accusedand
andthat
thatififhe
or that
that item
item you
you would
would let
let him
him go...
go ...
this or
did not.
not.
ffNo,
No, II did
such statements?
statements?
C Do you ever make such
are referring
referring to
to the
the fact
fact that
that after
after IIhad
hadalready
alreadyhad
hadthe
thepolice
policethere
thereI Ihad
hadsaid
saidthat
thathad
had
F I believe you are
you cooperated then they would not have been involved. Per
Perpolicy,
policy,we
wecould
couldhave
haveallowed
allowedyou
you
upon putting
putting your
your information
information into
into our
oursystem.
system.
leave the facility upon
Note:Frontino
Frontinouses
usesthe
theword
wordchoice
choice"allowed
"allowedyou
youtotoleave",
leave",which
whichclearly
clearly
(4:36:26 p.m. Note:
not being
being there
there entirely
entirely voluntarily)
voluntarily)
indicates the accused not
C How is that different?
different?
F How is what different?
was: Did
Did you
you make
make any
any statements
statements that,
that, "if
"ifyou
youcooperate
cooperateand
andyou
you
C It seems as though my question was:
let you
you go..."
go ... " and
and you
you said,
said, no,
no, and
andthen
thenyou
yousaid,
said,"basically,
"basically,no,
no,I Itold
toldyou
you
gives us this back, we will let
would have
have let
let you
you go"
go" and
andititseems
seemsas
asthough
thoughyou
youare
aresaying
sayingthose
those
if you would have cooperated, we would
are different
different thing...
thing ...
f had you not removed stuff
stuff from our
our facility
facility we
we wouldn't
wouldn't have
have detained
detainedyou?
you?Its
Itsaa"if
"ifyou
youhadn't
hadn't
have ... "
done this, we wouldn't have..."
H: stop, stop, stop...
stop ... Go
Go ahead.
C My question to
fundmentl difference
difference between
between your
your
to you,
you, Sir,
Sir, is:
is: can you explain to
to me
me how there's fundmentl
stuff back" then
then you'd
you'd let
let the
the accused
accused
assertion that you did not say "If you
you cooperate and give the stuff
go, and your subsequent assertion that "they
"they accused
accused was
was only
only arrested
arrestedbecause
becausehe
hedidn't
didn'tcooperate
cooperate
and give the stuff
stuff back"?
R Your Honor, that's not what
what he said.
said.
H I'll let him respond.
Go ahead.
ahead.
respond. Overruled. Go
if!I tried to bargain
bargain with
with you...and
you ... and II never
never
F So, what I...uh
..I believe your question was asking me if
I...uh..I
tried to bargain with
with you..
you ....the
the difference to me was that
that II was
was stating
statingthe
thefact
factthat
thathad
hadyou
youdone
done
per Walmart
Walmart policy
policyunder
underthe..
the ....under
under what
what we
we had
hadin
in
this
had you
this......had
you simply
simply given us identification, per
front ofus
we could
facility by
by just
justputting
puttingyou
youinto
intoour
oursystem...
system...
of us......we
could have
have allowed you to leave our facility
C And
"had you
you simply
simply given
given the
the items
items back"
back"
And did you
you also make the statement that "had
f!
"had you
you simply
simply given
given the
the items
items back"...no...I
back" ... no .. .Ibelieve
believeI Iwas
was
f I don't believe I made the statement that "had
raL ..
pretty explicit by stating
stating that
that had
had you
youcooperated..
cooperated ....we
we wouldn't
wouldn't have
havegiven
givenaarat....
c By "cooperated" did you mean both:
both: give
give your
your identification
identification AND
AND given
giventhe
theitems
itemsback?
back?
FF Um
... I...primarily just
information ...
Urn...I...primarily
just wanted your information...
f:f: I am
you what
what you
you said.
said.
am not asking you what you wanted, Sir, I am asking you
.... "cooperation"
... um ... had you not given the items
F Um
Um....
"cooperation" means
means "cooperation in whole"
whole"...um...had
back
.. .it wouldn
It have changed
....
back...it
wouldn't
changed....
(4:38:52
p.m)
(4:38:52 p.m )
cc Okay,
... "cooperation"...
"cooperation" ...
Okay, that seems incongruous
incongruous...
-- 62/94
62/94-MOTION
117 PETITION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
PETITION
1388
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
rr Well. objection. Your Honor,

Honor. how's he
he going
going to
to give
give the
the items
items back
backthat
thathe's
he'salready
alreadyeaten?
eaten?
line of
of questioning
questioning anyway
anyway
So. I mean,
mean. 1I think its a ridiculous line
H It's not relevant, but he
he continues
continues on
on this
this path.
path, ask
askanother
anotherquestion!
question!
PRETTYRELEVANT,
RELEVANT,THOUGH....One,
THOUGH.... One,the
thebig
big"smoking
"smokinggun",
gun",
(4:39:03 p.m. OH,
OH,ITS
ITSPRETTY
report is
is that
that the
the fruit
fruit of
ofthe
the poisonous
poisonous tree,
tree,the
theone
onefoil
foilsheet
sheetofof66Duract
Duract
allegedly, in the police report
Cough melts, exacty one half
half of
of aa package
package like
like those
those sold
sold at
at Wal-Mart,
Wal-Mart,was
wasculled
culledfrom
fromthe
the
Fourth Amendment
Amendment violating search
search of
ofCoughlin's
Coughlin's pockets...a
pockets ... asearch
searchwhich
which-Frontino
-Frontinoadmits
admits
only took place immediately after Coughlin indicated he wanted an attorney. So,
So,crafty
craftyvet
vet
non-sequitur about
about how
how "what's
"what's the
the point
point ififhe
he already
already at
atthe
thestuff
stuffanyways";
anyways";
Pam Robert's non-sequitur
And Judge
Judge Howard
Howard was
was only
only
aside, clearly, Frontino wanted some Duract Cough Melts back. And
that Roberts
Roberts point
pointwas
was such
suchaagood
goodone,
one,despite
despitethe
thefact
fact
his assessment
assessment that
to eager to chime in with his
prosecutions whole
whole case
case came
came down
down to
to one
onesheet
sheetof
of6
DuractCough
CoughMelts
Melts
that pretty much the prosecutions
6 Duract
Further, the
the search
search extended
extended to
to all
all sorts
sorts of
ofcargo
cargo
being found in Coughlin's short's pockets. Further,
There
pockets, arguably well beyond the scope allowable for such a search incident to
to arrest.
arrest. There
A body
body cavity
cavity search
search would
would have
have been
been impermissible,
impermissible, right?
right? Then's
Then's
has to be a line somewhere. A
there's Frontino's whole...
whole... "I
"I was
was primarily wanting to get
get the
the identification...tip
identification ... tip toeing
toeing around
around
whether he bargained
bargained with the
the old
old "give
"give us
us the
the stuff
stuffback,
back, and
and it's
it's all
allgood"
good" and
and especially
especially
outofofyou,
you,under
underthe
theguise
guisethat
that
wanting to stay away
away from
from the
the whole,
whole, let
let us
us coerce
coerce aa confession
confessionout
we will let you go,
go, only
only to
to reneg
reneg on
on the
the deal
deal once
once you
you incriminate
incriminateyourself....Then
yourself.. .. ThenFrontino
Frontinotrips
trips
up by admitting he
he views
views "cooperation"
"cooperation" to
to mean
mean"cooperation
"cooperationininwhole",
whole",ie,
ie,giving
givingthe
the
Clearly, with
with Frontino,
Frontino,
identification and
and giving the stuff back, or at least, giving a confession. Clearly,
consenting to
to aa search,
search, and
and giving
giving something
somethingback
backisistantamount
tantamount
anything less than confessing, consenting
to being non-compliant, and
and failing
failing to
to cooperate...at
cooperate... at which
which point
pointhe
hecalls
callshis
hisbuddies
buddieson
onthe
the
Tribal Police Force ot come in
in and
and do
do the
the impermissible
impermissible searching)
searching)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c So do know whether or not

not the
the items
items that
that were
were on
on the
the receipt
receiptthe
theaccused
accused got
gotupon
uponpaying
payingfor
for
on that
that receipt?
receipt?
items what was on
"no".
F 1I believe I1 already
already told
told you
you "no".
(4:39:39 p.m.)
p.m.)
don't know
know whether
whether or
or not
not three,
three, four,
four, or
or five
five
C 1I believe you did, Sir. So
So my
my question
question is,
is, so
so you
you don't
boxes of cough drops were on it.
it.
up because
because II was
was in
in plain
plainsight.
sight.
F Um...there
Um ... there was no cough drops
drops rung
rung up
am not
not talking
talking about
aboutthe
the receipt
receiptof
ofthe
the
C There was no cough drops rung up on the receipt? II am
items ... I am
am talking
talking about
about the
the receipt
receipt for
for somewhat
somewhatfor
for$70
$70or
or$80
$80around
aroundthere,
there; .
allegedly stolen items...I
accused paid
paid for.
for.
for the items the accused
F I couldn't speak for every...
every ...
H Stop! You have already answered the question, I know it. Asked
Asked and
and answered,
answered, ask
askanother
another
question.
no cough
cough drops
drops on
on the
the receipt,
receipt, that's
that's correct?
correct?
C Okay, he just said there was no
f:f: Cough drop...
drop ...
H Stop! I have ruled! Ask
Ask another
another question.
question.
C Okay..
Okay ....Do
Do you
any statements
statements to
tothe
thecashier
cashierwhich
whichresulted
resultedininthe
the
you know
know whether
whether the accused made any
cough drops being put on the receipt?
F She would have had to hand key them
them in,
in. so
so type
type in
in the
the receipt,
receipt. so...in
so .. .interms
termsof
ofverbal
verbal
communciation I would not have been
been able
able to
to hear,
hear. but
but she
she would
would have
havehad
hadto
tohand
handkey
keyininthe
the
- 63/94
63/94-
1389
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
items ... um ... based off

offof
ofaa UPC
UPC that
that she
she would
wouldhave
havehad
hadto
tohave
havememorized
memorizedororthat
thatyou
youwould
wouldhave
have
items...um...based
had
to
have
memorized
..
had to have memorized..
p.m.)
(4:40:41 p.m.)
c Okay,
Okav. but
but ifif she
she had
had rung
run!! up
UD one
onepackage
nackapeof
ofcough
couphdrops.
drons she
shecould
couldhave
have*ust...if
iust... ifone
onehad
hadhave
hav~
runguup.
andthen
then.sasay
accused
said.
"oh,
there
was
a couple
more",
been purchased
lurchased and run
s and
thethe
accused
said
"oh
there
was
a cou
le more"
just hit
hit the
the times
times 2,
2, times
times33button
buttonfor
forquantity...
quantity ...
she could
could have
have just
then she
...I don't
don't believe
believe the
the cash
cash registers....whether
registers ....whetheror
ornot
notthey
theystill
stillallow
allowthat
thator
ornot...its
not.. .itsagainst
against
ffUm
Um...I
that though.
though.
for them
them to
to do
do that
policy for
"whether they STILL
STILL allow
allow that"...so
that" ...so does
does that
that indicate
indicatethat,
that, to
toyour
your
C Okay, so you say "whether
that, in
in the
the past,
past, such
such aa practice
practice had
had occurred?
occurred?
knowledge that,
they could.
could.
F Yes, they
instance, ifif someone
someone bought
bought four
four packages
packagesof
ofdiet
dietcokes,
cokes,12
12packs,
packs,and
andthey
theydidn't
didn'twant
wanttoto
F For instance,
of those
those heavy
heavy packages
packages up,
up, they
they say:
say: "I
"I had
had four
four of
ofthese",
these", then
then the
thecashier
cashiercould
couldscan
scan
lift each of
of them and they
they could
could say:
say: "okay,
"okay, and
and there's
there's three
three more"
more" and
and cashier
cashierwould
would hit
hit"quantity
"quantity
one of
something like
like that...?
that. .. ?
'
times 3" or something
but not
not in
in that
that order,
order, but
but yes
yes they
they could...
could...
f Yes, they could, but
today is
is you
you do
do not
not know
know whether
whetherany
anysuch
suchstatements
statementswere
weremade
made
c And your testimony today
regarding
of the
the communication
communication that
that you
you guys
guys had,
had, as
asII stated
statedearlier...
earlier...
f No, 1I was not in earshot of
is what
what you
you stated...so
stated...so you
you are
are saying
sayingthat
thatyou
youwere
werenot
notwithin
withinearshot
earshot
c Oh, II didn't realize that is
of the transaction between the
the accused...
accused ...
that previously,
previously, MOVE
MOVE ON!
ON!
H He testified to that
C Okay, was anybody that you are
are aware
aware of
ofat
at Walmart...?
Walmart... ?
answered ...
R Not, asked and answered...
H Not...asked
Not... asked and answered and
and its
its not
not relevant,
relevant, 'nother
'nother question!
question!
certainly is
is helpful
helpful to
to prosecutor
prosecutorRoberts,
Roberts, constantly
constantly
(4:42:40 p.m., man, Judge Howard certainly
chiming in with objections of
of his
his own
own like
like the
the above
above relevancy
relevancy objection,
objection,although,
although,its
itshard
hardtoto
understand how that would not be
be relevant,
relevant, given
given itit could
could potentially
potentially go
godirectly
directlyto
towhether
whetheror
or
not the accused made an indication to
to the
the cashier
cashier as
as to
to the
the quantity
quantity of
ofcough
cough drops
dropspurchased,
purchased,
etc
....).
etc....).
accused not
not only
only bought
bought aa package
packageof
ofthe
thevery
verycough
coughdrops
dropsthat
thatare
are
c Do you know whether the accused
alleged to be stolen here but also made statements to
to the
the cashier
cashier with
with respect
respect to
toan
anadditional
additional
quantity of the same item being purchased?
H
Do you
you
H Now, he indicated that he could not hear the discussion between you and
and the cashier? Do
Yet, you
you turn
turn right
right around
around and
and ask
ask him
him that
that question
question once
once again...
again ...
recall
recall thatiestimony?
that testimony? Yet,
c Because, I see...
see...
hh Ask another question!
C
see..
C Your Honor, its because 1I see..
H
H Ask another question!
C
between the
the cashier
cashier and
and the
the accused?
accused?
C Did
Did you earlier say you could hear what was said between
FF No, II did not.
C
C Okay, so aa review of the tape won't show that.
FNo.
F No.
c So,
... and just to clarify...you
clarify ...you said you don't
don't know
know what's
what's on
on the...let's
the.. .let'sclal
clalisis
So, is
is it possible that
that...and
the $80 receipt
...you don't know what items were
were on
on that?
that?
receipt...you
28
-- 64/94
64/94-
MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1390
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
purchased at
at the
the facilit
facility.nono
I do
knowwhat
whatitems
itemswere
were
F on the receipt
recei st for
forthe
the$80
'.80 of
of items
itemsyou
ou surchased
I do
notnot
know
that
on that
Oh,man,
man,here
hereJudge
JudgeHoward
Howardsees
seesititcoming
comingand
andreally,
really,really
reallywants
wantstototry
trytoto
(4:43:54 p.m. Oh,
try to
to bully
bully defendant
defendantout
outof
ofpointing
pointingout
outanother
anotherininaaline
lineofof
happening .... must try
stop it from happening....must
salient incongruities in
in Frontino's
Frontino's testimony,
testimony, here,
here, ititconcerns
concernsthe
thefact
factthat
thatFrontino
Frontinotestified
testified
he knew
knew no
no cough
cough drops
drops were
were rung
rung up
upby
bythe
thecashier,
cashier,yet
yetjust
justabove
abovehe
hetestified
testifiedthat
that
earlier that he
what items
items were
were on
on that
that receipt...only
receipt. .. onlyto
toturn
turnaround
aroundand
andassert
assertthat
thathis
his"spidey
"spidey
he didn't know what
whatever enable
enable him
him to
to discern
discern from
from the
thewomen's
women'sclothing
clothingsection
sectioneach
eachand
andevery
every
vision" or whatever
up)
item rung up)
know whether
whether or
or not
not there
there isis
c So you don't know
know what
what items
items are
are on
on the
the receipt
receipt
h He doesn't know
he testified
testified that
that he
he knew
knew that
thatthe
thereceipt
receiptdidn't
didn'thave
havean
anentry
entryfor
foraabox
boxofof
c Okay, but earlier he
cough drops
H Ask another question!
question! ASK ANOTHER QUESTION!!#@$#@$#@4
QUESTION!!#@$#@$#*4
Okay. earlier,
earlier. did you testify
testify that
that you
you knew
knew aa box
box of
ofthat
that same
same UPC
UPCfor
forthose
thosecough
coughdrops
dropswas
was
C Okay,
on the $80
$80 receipt?
receipt?
NOT on
transaction and
and II did
did not
not see
see the
theidentical
identicalcough
coughdrops
dropsrung
rungup
upon
onyour
your
F I watched your transaction
receipt..
c You watched
watched the transaction...you
transaction ...you were
were able
able to
to see
see itit closely
closely enough...yet
enough ...yetyou
youweren't
weren'table
abletoto
of the transaction?
transaction?
hear any of
is correct?
correct?
F That is
C Do you have some hearing problems?
problems?
F No, I do not.
C Do you have super powerful vision?
F I can simply see farther than
than II can
can hear
hear people
people speaking
speaking atatnormal
normalvoice.
voice.
C About how far where you from the
the point
point of
ofringing
ringing up
up the
the items
items on
onthe
the$80
$80receipt?
receipt?
about thirt
thirt feet
feet behind
behindyou...
you .....behind
behind the
the registers...
registers ...
F Uh...probably
Uh ... probably about
c Okay, so, where you...
you .....when
when you say behind the registers,
registers, isis that..
that...would
that put
put you
you closer
closerto
tothe
the
.would that
of the store or the front
front of
ofthe
the store?
store?
back of
the front
of the store..
store ..
F Urn..
Um ....the
front of
c Near the entrance...
entrance ...
f Uh
... no, by back of
of the store/front
store/front of
of the
the store,
store, your
your talking
talking about
aboutfront
frontto
to back
backits
itsnot
notrelevant
relevanttotothe
the
Uh...no,
exits.
of the
the store
store isis where
where the
the exits
exitsare?
are?
C I guess its...is
its .. .is it fair to say the front of
F Yes.
C Entrance and the exits
exits at
at the
the front
frontof
ofthe
thestore/
store/
fYes.
f Yes.
C Okay, so, can you give me some indication
indication where
where you
you were
were located
locatedatatthe
thetime
timethe
theitems
itemswere
were
being rung up?
in women's
women'sapparel,
apparel,which
whichisis
F at the time you were specifically being
being rung
rung up,
up, II was
was standing
standing in
directly behind the registers, its
its about
about twenty
twenty feet
feet away
away from
from the
the registers...
registers ...
c You said you were about thirty feet away
away
in women's
women's apparel.
apparel.
f Correct, I was in
but then
C So
So..... .but
then you
you said twenty feet?
28
- 65/94
65194--
1391

11
22
33
44
5
66
77
88
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
Your Honor,
Honor, he's
h e's really
really being
beingargumentative,
argumentative,he
heexplained
explainedwhere
wherehe
hewas,
was,that
thatthen...um...he's
then ... um ... he's
R Your
splitting
hairs
...
t
he women's department
department was
was twenty
twentyfeet
feetaway,
away,but
butthen
thenhe
hesaid
saidhehewas
wasthirty
thirtyfeet
feet
splitting hairs.. .the
there'sno
noinconsistency..
inconsistency ...1.! don't
don't think
thinkthere
thereisiseither..
either....here's
here'sthe
thedeal,
deal,Mr.
Mr.Coughlin,
Coughlin,we
westarted
started
away, there's
ofthis
the testimony
testimony of
the
this witness
witness atatapproximately
approximately2:40,
2:40,and
andnot
notititisisapproximately
approximately4:44
4:44pm,
pm,I Iwant
wantyou
you
to expedite
expedite your
your cross
cross examination,
examination, which
whichhas
hasbeen
beenquite
quiteextensive,
extensive,and
andthe
thecourt's
court'sgranted
grantedyou
youa a
of leeway,
lee way, and I want you to move towards wrapping this up. IIdon't
don'twant
wanttotohear
hear
great deal of
have already
questions that
that have
already been
been addressed
addressedpreviously,
previously,with
withthat
thatyou
youmay
mayproceed.
proceed.
sorry Your
Your Honor,
Honor, would
would itit be
be possible
possibleto
to help
helpme
mefind
findmy
myplace
placeon
onwhether
whetherthe
thelast
lastobjection
objection
C I'm sorry
on ....oh
oh yeah,
feet II was
was seeking
seeking clarification
clarificationwith
with
was ruled on..
yeah, I remember is was about twenty to thirty feet
regard
to
regard to
objection was
was sustained.
sustained.
H the objection
from your
your vantage
vantage point
pointfrom,
from, in
inyour
yourwords,
words,about
aboutthirty
thirtyfeet
feetaway
awayfrom
fromwhere
wherethis
this
C Mr. Frontino, from
was being
being rung
rung up,
up, when
when you
you were
were located
locatedininthe
thewomen's
women'sapparel
apparelsection
sectioncompared
comparedtotothe
theregister
register
maybe ...
number 17, maybe...
Uh .. .! believe ititwas
17 because
because itit was
was the
the cigarette
cigarette isle
isleifif!
remembercorrectly..
correctly ..
f Uh...I
was 17
I remember
saying you
you were
were able
able to
to discern
discern each
eachand
andevery
everyitem
itemthat
thatwas
wasrung
rungup
upon
onthat
that$80
$80receipt
receipt
c You were saying
yo urself that
that none
none of
ofthose
those items
items had
had the
the same
same UPC
UPCas
asthe
thecough
coughdrops
dropsororthe
the"candy
"candy
and verify to yourself
bar" ...
bar"...
(4:48:31 p.m.)
)::ou that every
every single
single item
item was
was verified,
verified, however,
however,II had
hadthe
thepackaging
(!ackagingtotothe
the
ffII couldn't tell you
cough drops,
dro(!s, and
a nd I was specifically
s(!ecificall):: looking
looking for
for the
thecough
cough drops
dropsbeign
beignpurchased...um...I
(!urchased ... um .. .Ididn't
didn't
was other candy
cand):: items
items being
being purchased
(!urchased because
becausethey
the)::did
didnot
notmatch
matchthe
thecough
cough
care if there was
m):: hand...
hand...
.
dro(!s
had in my
drops that I had
c So you say you
yo u were not
not able
able to
to discern
discern every
every item
item purchased,
purchased,while
whileat
atthe
thesame
sametime
timeyou
you
to discern
dis cern that
that none
none of
ofthe
items purchased
purchasedhad
hadthe
thesame
sameUPC
UPCas
asthe
thecough
coughdrops?
drops?
were able to
the items
F None of
of them had
had the same
same packaging
(!ackaging therefore
therefore II could
could make
makethe
theobservation
observationthat
thatthey
the)::could
could
not have the same
sa me UPC,
Upc,so
... no II could
could not
not read
read the
the UPC
UPC but
butthey
the)::were
werenot
notthe
thesame
sameitems
itemsas
as
so...no
the)::
had
they one's I had...
c Oka)::,
th eaccused
wasable
abletotoI (!resent
the80
$80recei
recei(!t
andit ithad
hadthe
theexact
exactsame
sameUPC
UPCasas
Oka sosoififthe
accused was
resent the
it and
the cough drops,
dro(!s, that would directly
directl):: contradict
contradict what
what you
)::ou are
aresaying,
sa)::ing,wouldn't
wouldn'tit,
it,Sir?
Sir?
F Yes, it would.
(4:49:35 p.m.)
c So, just to be clear, you have testified here
here today,
today, that
that you
you are
are absolutely
absolutelysure
surethat
thatthe
the$80
$80
receipt does
no
t
have
the
item
with
any
entry
with
the
same
UPC
and
therefore
the
same
does not
item with any entry with the same UPC and therefore the same
packaging, as tthe
he cough drops, and that
that ifif such
such aa receipt
receipt isis presented,
presented, with
withthe
thesame
sameUPC,
UPC,then
then
your testimony would necessarily
necessarily be
be impeached
impeached
rr Objection, th
at's now calling for...uh...legal
for ... uh .. .Iegal conclusion
conclusion regarding
regarding whether
whetherhe's
he's impeached
impeachedor
or
that's
not.
H
H Sustained.
C
at aspect with regard to whether
whether he
he is
is impeached
impeached or
or notThen...your
not ... Then ...your testimony
testimony
C Withdraw th
that
would be inacc
urate?
inaccurate?
FF II would
receipt from
from that
that exact
exact transaction,
transaction,then,
then,yes,
yes,iti
would say if you were able to provide aa valid receipt
would
cAnd
on that
that transaction?
transaction?
c And do you know who the cashier was on
FF II do not kno
w
who
the
cashier
was,
no.
know
no.
28
28
-- 66/94
66/94--
MOT
ION FOR LEAVE
MOTION
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1392
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
or anyone
anyone you
you are
are aware
aware of
ofat
atWalmart
Walmartask
askthat
thatcashier
cashierwhether
whetherany
anystatements
statementswere
were
C Do you or
made
by
the
accused
with
regard
to
whether
there
were
a
quantity
to
add
on
any
purchase?
made by the accused with regard to whether there were a quantity to add on any purchase?
Not to
to my
my knowledge,
knowledge, no.
no.
F Not
make any
any attempts
attempts to
to query
query that
thatcashier
cashierin
inthat
thatregard?
regard?
c Did you make
FNo.
F No.
nobody else,
else, to
to your
your knowledge,
knowledge, at
atWalmart
Walmartdid?
did?
c And, nobody
FNo.
F
No.
that seem reckless
reckless to
to you?
you?
C Does that
p.m.)
(4:51:28 p.m.)
Objection
r Objection
Sustained
H Sustained
rules on
on the
the objection
objection before
before Roberts
Roberts even
even state
stateher
herbasis,
basis,again
againand
andagain,
again,inin
(Judge Howard rules
her favor)
favor)
said, with
with respect
respect to
to your
your discerning
discerningfrom
from thirty
thirtyfeet
feetaway
awayininthe
the
C Just a moment ago you said,
what
clothing isle,
isle, what
women's clothing
purchased at
at aa particular
particular cash
cash register,
register, from
from behind
behindaasix
sixfoot
footfour,
four,two
twohundred
hundredand
andfifty
fifty
was purchased
were standing...you
standing ... you were
were able
able to
to see?
see?
pound man, where you were
um ... um .. .is there
there aa question...um
question ... um II was
was behind
behindthe
thecash
cashregister,
register,IIwas
wasnot
not
ffII was not behind, um...um...is
... I was standing in
in women's
women's apparel,
apparel, so
so unless
unless you
you were
werestanding
standingon
onthe
theconveyor
conveyor
behind you
you...
my view..
view ..
belt, you wouldn't be blocking my
(4:52:09 p.m.)
p.m.)
were directly
directly behind
behind the
the conveyor
conveyor belt?
belt?
c So would you say you were
F I would say that I was...probably
was ... probably not
not 90
90 degrees
degrees behind
behind it...I
it... I didn't
didn'tmeasure,
measure,but
butIIwas
wasbehind
behind
it, and I could see
seethe
being purchased...
purchased...
the items that were being
of them
c Each and every one of
fYes
f Yes
c And you were able to remember each and
and every
every one
one of
ofthose
those items
items for
for which
whichand
and$80
$80receipt
receipt
was made?
f Absolutely not. 1I...I...I
...1...1 am not
not saying that
that II remember
rem em ber currently every item that you
purchased .. .! know that you did
did not
not have
have items
items that
that our
our purchased
purchased that
thatmatched
matchedthe
theitems
itemsyou
you
purchased...I
selected and consumed.
C
"I didn't discern
discern or
or verify
verify whether
whether you
you had
had
C Well, that brings up, earlier you said that "I
purchased the same candy items, I was focused
focused on
on making
making sure
sure you
you hadn't
hadn't purchased
purchasedan
anitem
item
with the same UPC as the cough drops...that's
drops ... that's what
what you
you said
said earlier,
earlier,correct?
correct?
R
... um ... uh ... Objection, again, he's not restating
restating the
the testimony
testimonyaccurately.
accurately.
R Uh
Uh...um...uhObjection,
H
H Is that what you testified?
FF II testified that I watched and I was primarily
only looking for the items that I had seen you
primarily only
select and conceal or consume
C
to say
say that
that your
your testimony
testimony earlier
earlier was
was that
that you
you were
were primarily
primarily only
only looking
looking
C Isn't
Isn't it accurate
accurate to
for
... and then you made a statement
statement about
about not
not caring
caring whether
whetherthe
thecandy...
candy ...
for the cough drops
drops...and
H
ASK A
A QUESTION.
QUESTION.
H Is
Is this
this aa complex question
question once
once again?
again? ASK
to what
what you
you were
were primarily
primarily concerned
concerned with,
with,did
did
C
C Okay, earlier your statements with regard to
they
the cough drops?
drops?
they not specifally limit your concerns to the
FF They were primarily concerned with the
the cough
cough drops
drops because
because the
the chocolate
chocolateitem
item was
wasstill
stillleft
left
and
hidden
in
the
cart.
and
in
28
-- 67/94
67/94-
MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1393
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
C
not your
your state
state of
ofmind
mind about
aboutwhat
what
C II am
am just asking you, Sir, about your earlier testimony, not
you, what you feel about the events
events or
or your
your recollections,
recollections, just
just what
whatyou
youtestified
testifiedto
toearlier...is
earlier.. .isitit
fair
"I was primarily
primarily only
only concerned
concerned about
about
fair to
to say that what you testified to earlier was that "I
making
purchased" ... to
making sure
sure that
that the
the cough
cough drops
drops or
or an
an item
item of
of the
the same
same UPC
UPC was
was not
not being
being purchased"...to
the exclusion
Did you
you
exclusion of not caring whether or not similar candy items
items were being purchased?
purchased? Did
not say that on the record today?
F
concerned with
with the
the items
items that
that you
you had
had selected
selectedand
and
F II believe that 1I said earlier that I was concerned
consumed
...
um
....
the
cough
drops
were
a
primary
concern,
but,
you
also
did
not
ring
up
consumed...um....the
a primary concern, but, you also did not ring up
anything that included the chocolate item.
item.
C Yet, earlier, didn't you testify
testifY that aanum
ber of
of candy
candy items
items were
were selected
selected and
and later
later
number
purchased?
F Yes.
FYes.
C
able to
to verify
verifY and
and discern
discern from
from thirty
thirtyfeet
feet
C But,
But, now your are saying, that your were somehow able
away that that particular candy item
item was not...the
not... the UPC
UPC for
for that,
that, was
was not
notalso
alsoincluded
includedon
onthe
the
$80 receipt.
F II was primarily only concerned with the
the cough
cough drops,
drops, II was
was watching
watching for
forthe
thecandy,
candy,the
the
wrapper
... the candy was still
still in
in the
the cart.
cart.
wrapper...the
c And that's where I have an objection, non-responsive.
H Are you done?
Evervtime he
he
C No
No, Sir
Sir, I am
am not
not. I iust
just obiected
objected to
to the
the fact
fact that
that he
he didn't answer
answer the
the auestion
question I asked.
asked. Everytime
gets cornered he starts
starts talking
talking about
about irrelevant
irrelevantstuff.
stuff.
(4:55:43 p.m.)
H If your tendering that objection to
to the
the Court,
Court, its
its overruled.
overruled.
C Were you able to verify, from your
your position
position of
ofsome
some thirty
thirty feet
feet away,
away,that
thatthe
thecandy
candyitem
item
alleged to have been stolen...and
stolen ... and the
the UPC
UPC for
for that
that candy
candy item,
item, was
was not
notincluded
includedon
onthe
the$80
$80
receipt?
other than
than the
the fact,
fact, that
that itit was
was not
not hand
hand keyed
keyed in,
in,ititwas
wasnever
never
F I was unable to verify, other
scanning ...
presented for scanning...
c Okay, but similar to the cough
cough drops,
drops, you
you were
were not
not able
able to
to verify
verifY that
thatthe
thesame
sameitem
itemwas
waskey
key
in, or an item with the same UPC was
was key
key in,
in, and
and upon
upon that
that aa quantity
quantity number
numberwas
wasadded
addedtoto
the receipt to reflect the purchase
purchase of
ofthe
the item,
item, the
the chocolate
chocolate item,
item,you
you are
arealleging
allegingwas
wasstolen?
stolen?
F You selected
two
Dackal!es
of
coul!h
droDs
and
one
candY
bar.
and
...
and
...
one
of
that
identical
selected
lacka es of con .11 dro s and one cand bar and...and... one of that identical
had ... there where
where no
no other
other items
items for
for her to be able to ring up
chocolate item, and
and no more, so had...there
(4:56:56 p.m.)
that aa number
number of
ofchocolate
chocolate items
items were
werepurchased?
purchased?
c Well earlier you testified that
specific ones.
ones.
F Those specific
had no
no idea,
idea, specifically,
specifically, what
whatwas
was on
onthe
the$80
$80receipt?
receipt?
C Well you also testified that you had
not know
know what
what was
was on
on your
your $80
$80 receipt.
receipt.
F Correct, I do not
or something
something from
from high
high school,
school, the
thetransitive
transitiveproperty
propertyofofthis
thisand
and
C Well, 1I think its geometry or
that would suggest that how
how could
could he
he not
not know
know whats
whats on
on the
the
H ITS ARGUMENTATIVE!
him ..
C Well, I am asking him..
OA A #$ OA $#@ OA
HITS
ARGUMENTATIVE!%A#$%$#@%
H
ITS ARGUMENTATIVE,
Sir. how
how can
can ou
youknow
knowsomethin.
somethingwas
wasnot
noton
onthe
the recei
receipt
testified that
that ou
youdon't
don'tknow
knowwhat
what
c Sir
et if you
ou testified
was on the receipt?
how many
many of
ofthe
the items
items you
you selected.
selected.
F Because I saw how
- 68/94
68/94--
117 PETITION
1394
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
give us
us aa specific
specific number
numbernow
nowand
andspecifically
specificallyidentify
identifyininsome
someway
waywhat
whatthose
those
C Okay, can you give
were?
items were?
p.m.)
(4:57:59 p.m.)
selected the
the two
two packages
packages of
ofcough
cough drops
dropsthat
thatIIhave
havepictures
picturesofofan
anaareceipt
receiptfor,
for,and
andyou
you
F you selected
the chocolate
chocolateitem.
item.
selected the
of cough drops...BUT
drops ... BUT WOULDN'T THAT MAKE 3 BOXES IF
(NOTE: he says two packages of
ONE ON
ON THE
THE $80
$80 RECEIPT?)
RECEIPT?)
YOU ADD THE ONE
then theres
theres was...I
was ...1selected
selected another
another$80
$80worth
worthof
ofstuff?
stuff?
c Okay, and then
other candy
candy items,
items, yes,
yes, and
and you
you paid
paidfor
forsome
someof
ofthem
themand
andyou
youleft
leftsome
someofofthem
them
ffYou
You selected other
register.
at the register.
know that
that amongst
amongst those
thosepaid
paidfor
forwas
wasnot
notan
anitem
itemwith
withthe
thesame
same
C Okay, and how do you know
UPC?
(4:58:20 p.m BAM JUDGE
JUDGE HOWARD
HOWARD SLAMS
SLAMS SOMETHING
SOMETHINGDOWN
DOWNON
ONHIS
HISBENCH)
BENCH)
don'tknow
knowwhy
whyyou
youcontinue
continueto
tobeat
beatthis
thishorse,
horse,II
H Asked and answered a hundred times. II don't
Askanother
anotherquestion.
question. Mr.
Mr.Coughlin,
Coughlin,you
youhave
haveten
tenminutes
minutesremaining
remainingininthe
the
really truly don't. Ask
thinkthat's
that's where
whereyou
you are
areheaded
headed in
in any
anyevent.
event. Argue it
cross examination of Mr. Frontino. II think
Andcurrently
currentlylet
letthe
therecord
recordreflect
reflectthat
thatititisisnow
nowfive
fiveminutes
minutestotofive
fiveand
andthat
thatfive
fiveminutes
minutes
on appeal. And
testimony, or
or cross
cross examination,
examination, rather,
rather, will
willbe
beterminated.
terminated.
after five Mr. Coughlin's testimony,
guessyou
yousaid
said"we"
"we"and
andthen
then
any statements
statements to
to the
the Officer
Officer about...
about... "we"...I
"we" .. .1guess
C Okay. Did you make any
speculated about
about whom
whom you
you meant
meantby
by "we"
"we"about
abouthow
how"we've
"we'vebeen
beenwatching
watchingthe
theaccused,
accused,and
andwe
we
we speculated
orworried..
worried ....took
took notice of
ofhim
...
when
he
took
a
photograph
of
a
television,
first became aware
aware of,
of, or
him.. .when
photograph of a television,
and ... " then
thenyou
younamed
namedspecifically
specificallyaamanager,
manager,a ablond
blondhaired
hairedlady
ladyininher
herlate
lateforties..
forties ...
Didyou
youmake
make
and..."
.Did
such statements?
F Never have I made such
such statements.
statements.
(5:00:25 p.m.)
c Did you make statements to
to the
the Indian
Indian Colony
Colony Officers
Officers with
withrespect
respectto
to previous
previousinteractions
interactionswith
with
elicited your
your consternation?
consternation?
the accused that elicited
F Uh...watch
Uh ... watch does "consternation"
"consternation" mean?
mean?
of him,
him, so
so you
you were
were watching
watching him?
him?
C It means your were suspicious of
ffYes.
Yes.
C Can you specify in detail what
what those
those statements
statements were?
were?
F That we had had issues with the
the Defendant
Defendant in
in the
the past
pastthat..
that...we
trespass him
him for
for
.we had been hoping to trespass
suspected activies in
in the
the
thatnature..
nature ...1J had
had previously
previouslyseen
seen
store for suspected hardware
hardware swapping
swappingwith
withlaptops
laptopsand
andthings
thingsofofthat
.. .1was
was
you and followed you
you before,
before, but
butdid
didnot
notdetain
detainyou
youbecause
becauseI Iwas
washonestly
honestlyhoping
hopingforformore..
more.1
hoping there would more than a package of
ofM&M's.
So, IIhad
hadmy
myown
own reasons
reasonsto
to follow
followyou
youbefore
before
M&M's. So,
the incident in question.
C Okay, so you're saying you made no
no statements
statements to
to the
the Indian
Indian Colony
ColonyOfficers
Officerswith
withrespect
respecttoto
suspicion being aroused by either
either you
you or
or someone
someone you
you work
work with
with at
at Walmart
Walmartincluding
includingaaManager
Manager
to the taking
taking of
ofaa photograph
photograph of
ofaaflat-screen
flat-screentelevision?
television?
who is a female related to
F I personally know nothing of the photograph. This
This isis the
thefirst
firstthing
thingIIhave
haveheard
heardof
ofit.
it.
C I am not asking you what you know
know about
about the
the photograph,
photograph, II am
am asking
asking you
you about
aboutthe
thestatements
statements
you made to the Indian Colony Police.
Police.
(5:02:13
Check to
to see
see Police
Police were
were asked
asked about
about the
the photograph)
photograph)
(5:02:13 p.m.
p.m. Check
f Uh
...
no,
I
did
not
make
a
statement
about
a
photograph.
Uh...no,
statement about a photograph.
28
- 69/94
69/94--
1395
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C Okay, so if
if someone
sorne one had been
been tape
tape recording
recording that
that interaction
interaction between
betweenyou
youand
andthe
theIndian
IndianColony
Colony
Police, and it revealed
revealed that
that you
you did
did make
make such
such aa statement,
statement, would
wouldthat
thatmean
meanthat
thatyou
youare
arelying
lyingnow?
now?
if that was the case,
F Yes, if
there was
was video
video evidence,
evidence, that
thatwould
wouldbe
bethe
thecase.
case.
case, ififthere
C Or audio, okay....So,
okay .... So, you say,
say, at
at some
some part
part of
ofthe
the store,
store, you
you witnessed
witnessednot
notonly
onlythe
thecough
coughdrops
drops
being opened, but
but then concealed?
concealed?
F Correct.
eve r witness the cough
C Did you ever
cough drops
drops being
being consumed?
consumed?
of them
the m were consumed
F Some of
consumed in
in the
the store.
store.
(5:03:10 p.m.)
H And his response
response was "some
ofthem
them were
were consumed
consumedininthe
thestore".
store".
"some of
does n't specify
specify whether
whetherhe
he"witnessed"
"witnessed"them..
them ...it
.itmight
mightbe
bespeculation..
speculation ...its
.its aa curious way to
C Which doesn't
phrase it
h Did you observe
obs erve him to consume
consume the
the items
items within
within the
the store?
store?
di d.
F Yes, Sir, I did.
C So,
to be
be clear,
clear, on
~ouare
arenot
notsaying.
sa~ing,that
thatyou
~ouobserved
observedthe
theaccused
accusedconsumed
consumedthe
thecough
cough drops
dro~s
So to
in the store?
(5:03:38
TIME FRONTINO
FRONTINO DECIDES
DECIDES TO
TO SAY
SAY HE WITNESSES
(5:03:38 ~.m
p.m THIS IS THE FIRST TIME
THECOUG
H DROPS BEING CONSUMED.
THE COUGH
CONSUMED. AT ALL
ALL OTHER TIMES HE STOPPED
SHORT OF SAYING
WITH "SELECTED
"SELECTEDAND
AND
SAYING "CONSUMED"
"CONSUMED" AND
AND INSTEAD WENT WITH
CONCEALED", WHEREUPON HE ALSO MADE MENTION OF THE ACCUSED
CONCEALED",
ENTERING THE RESTROOM
RESTROOM AND
AND HOW WALMART POLICY
POLICY DID
DID NOT ALLOW FOR
FOR
HIM TO FOLLOW
FOLLOW IN TO THE RESTROOM)
c So,
So, to
to be cle
clear,
ar, you are
are now
now saying
saying that you observed the accused
accused consume
consume the
the cough
coughdrops
dropsininthe
the
store?
Sir, I am.
a m.
F Yes, Sir,
C Where did that
that occur?
occur?
F Throughout the store.
store.
C Specifically,
Specifically, where?
where?
F You were....in....um...household
were .... in .... um ... household cleaning
cleaning chemicals...electronics....you
chemicals ... electronics .... youwere
werethroughout
throughoutthe
thestore
store
domestics
yo u were throughout
the store..
store ....consuming
consuming food.
food.
domestics......you
throughout the
C Okay, now you are saying
saying "consuming food"
~.m. )
(5:04:08 p.m.)
f Cough drops
You were
were consuming
consuming cough
cough drops...
drops ... you
you were
were consuming
consuming the
the chocolate.
drops.. You
C Are you sure
sure which was being consumed?
consumed? ItIt sounds
sounds as
as though...
though ...
fI
bo th were being
f I am sure both
being consumed.
consumed.
C And how are
are you sure?
sure?
F I watched you
you do
it.
do it.
C How many were consumed?
F I didn't count.
count.
C So you were
were able to watch, but
but you
you weren't
weren't able
able to
to discern
discernhow
howmany?
many?
R Objection, he said he didn't
didn't count,
count, Your
Your Honor.
Honor.
H Sustained.
C So, how rna
many
ny cough drops were
were recovered?
recovered?
.
F Uh....part
Uh .... part of
ofone
one package..
package .. .it was approximately
approximately six
six out
outof
ofone
oneof
ofthe
thepackages
packagesthat
thatwere
wererecovered?
recovered?
C Okay,
Oka~, so how
h ow many
man~ are
are in
in each
each package?
~ackage?
~.m)
(5:04:59 p.m)
- 70/94
70/94--
M
OnON FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
MOTION
1396
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
F I would have to
to look..
look .. II don't
don'trecall
recallhow
howmany
manywere
wereinineach
eachpackage..
package ...
Theywere
wereattached..
attached ...
they
.They
.they
were in blister packs
c. Not enough to make two packages?
packages?
F No, not enough to make two packages?
packages?
C Well then how are you able
able to assert
assert that
that two
two were
were stolen?
stolen?
oftwo.
two.
and you
you concealed
concealed the
the contents
contents of
ffBecause
Because you opened two, and
is .....what?
what? You
You said
said something
something about
aboutaabathr000m
bathrooomand
andnot
notbeing
beingable
ableto...
to ...
C And your store's policy is.
h Asked and
and answered..
answered ....go
go on
on
store's policy
policy that
that ififyou
you aren't
aren't able
able to
to recover
recoverthe
theitems,
items,you
youstill
stillassert
assertand
and
c Okay, so, is it your store's
affect an arrest charging that the items
items were
were stolen?
stolen?
F Will you ask the question
question again?
again?
youonly
onlyrecovered
recovered part
partof
ofone?
one?
C Yeah.
How do
do you
youknow
know two
two packages
packages were
were stolen
stolen ififyou
Yeah. How
F I made an assumption that
that both
both were
were stolen.
stolen.
ofthat
that assumption?
assumption?
C And did you have any evidence
evidence of
and concealed
concealedthe
thecontents
contentsofoftwo
twopackages..
packages ....that
that was
was my
myassumption.
assumption. The
F You selected and
packages were thrown
thrown in
in the
the garbage,
garbage, which
which would
would render
renderus
usunable
unableto
toaccount
accountfor
forthem...
them ...
(5:06:27 p.m. THIS IS INTERESTING
INTERESTING BECAUSE
BECAUSE HERE
HERE FRONTINO
FRONTINOCLASSIFIES
CLASSIFIESHIS
HIS
TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY AS BOTH AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF COUGH DROPS BEING
CONSUMED, ONLY TO THEN CHARACTERIZE THE DECISION TO CHARGE FOR
FORTHE
THE
COUGH DROPS AS TO BE PREMISED UPON HIS "ASSUMPTION" THAT HE MADE, THAT
THE COUGH DROPS WERE CONSUMED IN THE RESTROOM
... SO, WHICH IS IT,
RESTROOM...SO,
FRONTINO, DID YOU ACTUALLY PERCEIVED THE CONSUMPTION WITH YOUR OWN
EYES, OR DID YOU HA
VE TO "ASSUME" THEY
THEY WERE
WERE CONSUMED WHILE
WHILE THE SUSPECT
SUSPECT
HAVE
WAS IN THE RESTROOM?)
16
17
18
19
(5:06:50 p.m.)
c Well, if
if the contents
contents of
oftwo
packageswere
werestolen,
stolen,even
evenififsome
someofofthem
wereconsumed..
consumed .surely
... surelyyou
you
two packages
them were
some wrappings
wrappings or
or something
something that
thatwould
wouldadd
addup
uptototwo
twopackages
packagesincident
incidenttoto
would have recovered some
thatpossible
possibleto
to say
say"two
"two were
were
the impermissible search, wouldn't you? Yet,
Yet,you
youdidn't.
didn't. How
Howisisthat
concealed.
yet
only
part
of
one
was
recovered
upon
a
full
search".
concealed,
part of one was recovered upon a full search".
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(5:07:11
NEXT, IT
ITIS
IS INTERESTING
INTERESTINGTO
TO NOTE
NOTE THAT
THATFRONTINO
FRONTINO SAYS
SAYS "WHETHER
"WHETHER
(5:07:11 p.m.
p.m. NEXT,
THE REST WERE EATEN OR THE REST WERE FLUSHED IN THE TOILET..."
TOILET ... " WHICH
INDICATES A LACK OF CERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER THEY WERE EATEN OR
CONSUMED
YET JUST
DEDUCING
CONSUMED......YET
JUST A
A MINUTE
MINUTE AGO
AGO FRONTINO, AFTER APPARENTLY DEDUCING
THA
T THE CASE WOULD BE MUCH STRONGER IF HE WOULD JUST SAY HE SAW THE
THAT
COUGH DROPS BEING CONSUMED, DID, IN FACT, TESTIFY THAT HE WAS AN EYE
CONSUMED .... WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION:
WITNESS TO THE COUGH DROPS BEING CONSUMED....WHICH
AND
WHY DOES FRONTINO THEN TALK ABOUT HOW HE MADE AN "ASSUMPTION" AND
THEN GO ON TO POSTULATE AS TO "WHETHER THE REST WERE EATEN OR THE REST
.. WALMART LOST THAT PROPERTy
... ")
WERE FLUSHED IN THE TOILET.
TOILET...WALMART
PROPERTY....")
eaten or
or the
the rest
rest were
were flushed
flushed in
inthe
the toilet,
toilet,Walmart
Walmartlost
lostthat
thatproperty.
property.
f Whether the rest were eaten
C So,
So. on what basis
basis do you call
call the
the State
State down
down to
to arrest
arrest somebody?
somebody?
- 71/94
71194--

117 PETITION
1397
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
p.m. Y
Ylike
like instances
instances like
like)
(5:07:29 p.m.
)
FFBased
upon the
the chocolate
chocolatebar.
bar. II made
madethat
thatstatement
statementclear
clearearlier.
earlier.
Based upon
Okay, but
but you
you still
still charging
charging two
two packages
packagesof
ofcough
coughdrops
dropswhere
whereyou
youhave
have nothing but
but an
an
C Okay,
assumption
,assumption to
to speak
speak to
to one
one and
and aahalf
halfpackages
packagesworth
worthof
ofthe
thecontents
contentsofofthe
thecough
coughdrops.
drops.
Question?
H Question?
when you only
Yes.
C Yes
cdo you have anything
_lo
wyou
anythingto
to support
support what
what was
wascharged.
charged.that
thattwo
twowere
werestolen
stolenhei
fullsearch
searchwhat
whatyou
youallege
allegeto
tobe
behalf
halfthe
thecontents
contentsof
ofone?
one?
,recovered after full
recovered
objection asked
asked and
and answered
answered
Roberts objection
can respond
respond please
please do
do
Howard ifif you can
have II believe
believe II stated
stated earlier
earlierII assumed
assumedyou
youhad
hadremoved
removedboth
bothfrom
fromthe
the
,fronting
no I mostly have
fronting no
.facility
to both
both away and concealed both
both. um
urn.you
youdid
did
facility because you threw
threw the
the packaging
packaging to
;consumed
some in
in the
the facility
facility II didn't
didn't count
count how
how many
manythat
thatwas
was
consumed some
you ever
ever made
made aware
aware or
orhave
have any
anyknowledge
knowledgeof
ofany
anyarguments
argumentsbetween
betweenthe
the
Coughlin okay were you
customer service
service counter
counter with
with respect
respect to
to the
the enforcement
enforcementof
ofthe
thereturn
returtipolicy
policy
accused and the customer
Roberts objection
objection relevance
relevance
and at
at this
this point
point it's
it's 55 min.
min. after
after five
five and
andso
sowe
wewill
willend
endcross
crossexamination
examinationyou
you
Howard relevance and
could save that issue for appeal
appeal or
or make
make aa record
record that
that this
this inquiry
inquiryhas
hasbeen
beenreplete
repletewith
withnon-relevant,
non-relevant,
in Wigan
Wigan and
and at
at this
this point
point thank
thank you
you very
very much
much
repetitious inquiry in
Howard Call you next witness
justdismissed
dismissed
Coughlin Can I just preserve my objection that I have more questions for
for the
the witness
witness just
Crawford as
as aa witness
witness
Roberts I call Ofc. Crawford
thatnot
notthe
thecase
casenuclear
nucleartoto
five? isisthat
Coughlin Your Honor was my understanding court hours end at five?
have prior commitments
Howard we are going to continue on
on II think
think II told
told you
you earlier
earlier when
when IIsaid
saidwe
wewere
werecan
canhave
havethis
this
matter resolved tonight
could we possibly
possibly be
be here
here tonight
tonight
Coughlin so are we how long could
Howard till we finish
Coughlin well I was relying upon posted
posted court
court hours
hours that
that say
say court
court ends
ends atatfive
five
Howard will continue will continue
Honor
Coughlin I don't know that I can state
state Your
Your Honor
Howard proceed with your case
forthe
record
Roberts officer Crawford please please state
state your
your full
full name
name and
and spell
spell your
yourlast
lastname
namefor
the record
Crawford Kameron Lane Crawford
Coughlin Your Honor may I use the restroom in
in
Howard will take it you've got until 510
510 don't
don't be
be late
late
Coughlin my
clock
says
it's
a
time
now
my
Howard Sir, you better get going and
and you've got
got until
until five
five ten
ten on
on this
this clock
clockright
righthere
herewe
weare
aregoing
goingtoto
proceed at that time the court will remain
remain on
on the
the bench
bench (5:10:52
(5:10:52 p.m.)
p.m.)
511 and
and we
we will
will proceed
proceedMs.
Ms. Roberts
Roberts
Howard we are back on the record it is approximately
approximately 511
Roberts officer Crawford what is your job
Crawford IMO tribal police officer for the Reno Sparks
Sparks Indian
Indian colony
colony
Roberts and how long have you been employed with the
the Indian
Indian Colongy
Colongy
Coughlin
with regard
regard to
to anything
anything officer
officer
Coughlin just
just quickly I will enter my objections for the record with
Crawford
may
wish
to
testify
with
under
the
exclusionary
rule
objections
are
Crawford may wish to testify with under the exclusionary rule objections are
Howard I can't hear you sir
28
-- 72/94
72/94-MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1398

11
22
33
44
5
6
7
88
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
sorry Your
Your Honor
Honor II am
am very
very light-headed
light-headedand
andIIthink
thinkIIneed
needto
toeat
eatsomething
somethingmy
myblood
blood
Coughlin I am sorry
am very
very tired
tired and
and lightheaded
lightheaded IIprobably
probablyneed
needto
toeat
eatsomething
something
sugar is I'm having trouble II am
can hear
hear you
you now
now go
go ahead
ahead
Howard II can
my objections
objections for
for the
the record
record that
that we've
we've gone
gone over
oversome
somelink
linkwith
withMr.
Mr.Frontino
Frontinobut
but
C I was restating my
now wish to apply
apply them
them to
to officer
officer Cameron
Cameron Crawford
Crawfordyou
youknow
knowall
allthe
theexclusionary
exclusionaryrule
ruleobjections
objections
thecity
cityimposed
imposedand
and
having difficulty
difficulty understanding
understanding what
whatyour
yourobjection
objectionisisthe
Howard Sir II am having
of exclusion
exclusion II granted
granted that
that so
so what
whatisis your
yourcheck
checkshims
shimsto
tothis
thiswitness
witness
requested the rule of
ofexclusion?
exclusion?
requested aa role
role of
Coughlin the city requested
Howard:
Honor II requested
requested
Robert Your Honor
incarcerated their
their goals?
goals? They
They want
want aarule
rule of
ofexclusion?
exclusion?
Coughlin I'm confused II which incarcerated
is your
your objections
objections Sir?
Sirl
Howard what is
seeking to exclude
exclude from
from being
being entered
entered into
into evidence
evidence fruit
fruitof
ofthe
thepoisonous
poisonoustree
tree
Coughlin well I am seeking
the alleged fruit
is denied
denied overruled
overruled go
go ahead
ahead please
please
Howard that request is
Roberts officer Crawford
Crawford how
how long
long have
have you
you been
been employed
employed by
by the
the Reno
Reno Sparks
Sparksin:
in:eight
eight
Crawford a little over three months now
now
Roberts on September 99 of
of2011
reviewing training
training
2011 reviewing
Crawford I was yes
yes
Roberts and Hoosier training officer
officer
Crawford officer Donnie Braun worth
worth
Roberts and his CD officer
officer that
that some
some hallway
hallway
Crawford yes
Roberts and were UN officer
officer Braunworth
Braunworth dispatch
dispatch to
to 2425
2425 E.
E. 2nd
2nd St.
St. the
the Walmart
Walmartlocated
locatedthere
there
Crawford yes
Walmart in
in the
the city
city of
ofReno
Reno (5:17:47
(5:17:47 p.m.
p.m. IT
IT IS
IS INTERESTING
INTERESTING TO
TO NOTE
NOTE
Roberts and is that Walmart
THAT ROBERTS DOES NOT REQUEST HERE FOR THE COURT TO
TO TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE AS TO JURISDICTION, AND THERE IS A SALIENT POINT IN DISPUTE WITH
RESPECT TO WHETHER THE CITY NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT COUGHLIN HAS NO
NO
INDIAN OR TRIBAL BLOOD OR AFFILIATION AND THAT TRIBAL COURT IS NOT THE
APPROPRIATE.FORUM
WHERE, AS HERE, IT occurred ON TRIBAL
APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR SUCH AN ARREST, WHERE,
LAND)
Crawford yes, it is.
is.
Roberts and when you arrived there with officer
officer Braunworth
Braunworth did
did you
you come
come in
in contact
contactwith
withthe
thesuspect
suspect
for shoplifting
Crawford yes we did
Roberts where was that suspect located
located when
when you
you first
first make
make contact
contact with
with him
him
Crawford will in the Walmart security office
Robertsand you remember Mr. Fontenot
Fontenot was
was present
present at
at that
that time
time that
that you
you make
make
contact with the suspect
Crawford yes he was
Robert since you recognize the suspect that
that he made
made contact
contact with
with on
on September
September99isisthe
thepress
pressininthe
the
courtroom today
Crawford yes he is
Roberts would you please state what he is wearing
wearing and
and ratesetting
ratesetting
28
-- 73/94
73/94--
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

TO FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1399
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
Crawford is wearing a dark colored

colored soup
soup with
with the
the dark-colored
dark-colored shirt
shirtand
andaasetting
settingwhere
wherethe
thedefendant
defendan
would be sitting
Howard the record will
will reflect
reflect that
that Crawford
Crawford identified
identifiedMr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlin
Roberts when you first
first make
make contact
contact with
with Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinhad
hadyou
youon
onwas
washe
hestanding
standingsitting
sittingororwhat
what
Crawford he was sitting down on
on aa bench
bench
Roberts okay and itit was any
any kind
kind handcuffs
handcuffs restraints
restraints
Roberts
roberts and when you approach
approach the
the suspect
suspect you
you have
have to
to ask
askhim
himany
anyquestions
questionsororhave
haveaadiscussion
discussion
with him
crawford I did ask him questions
questions
what questions
questions should
should you
you ask
ask him
him
Roberts and what
was there
there that
that Walmart
Walmart had
had called
calledbecause
becausethey
theysuspected
suspectedhe
hehad
hadtaken
taken
Crawford I advised him why II was
him that
that itit was
was my
my decision
decision to
to either
eitherwrite
writeup
upthe
thecitation
citationorortake
takehim
himtotojail
jailand
and
property I then told him
that I would prefer
prefer to write
write him
him aa citation
citation so
so II didn't
didn'tjam
jamup
upour
ourBoulevard
Boulevardwith
withunnecessary
unnecessarypeople
people
going up there(5:19:28 p.m.) II asked
asked him
him specific
specific questions
questions because
becausehe
hedid
didnot
nothave
haveID
IDon
onhim
himatatthe
the
ofbirth
birthwhere
wheredo
doyou
youlive
liveso
soIIcould
couldrun
runthem
them
time I asked him questions
questions like
like what
what Richard
Richard date
date of
herefused
refusedtoto
through dispatch to make
make sure
sure he
he didn't
didn't have
have any
any warrants
warrantsalso
also to
tofill
fillout
outthe
thecitation
citationofofhe
provide those provide
provide that
that information
information
(THIS WHOLE BUSINESS ABOUT PREFERRING TO WRITE A CITATION SEEMS ALL THE
MORE PHONY IF WRITING A CITATION WOULD NOT TYPICALLY ENTAIL
SEARCH INCIDENT
INCIDENT TO
TO ARREST)
ARREST)
CONDUCTING A SEARCH
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Robert so in order to cite

cite summonsed
summonsed arrest
arrest you
you need
need out
outcertain
certaininformation
informationtotofill
fillout
outthe
thecitation
citation
Crawford guest muskrat
Roberts and what pieces of
ofinformation
information you
you need
need to
to have
have
of employment,
employment, contact
contact phone
phone number
number stuff
stuff
Crawford date
date of birth,
birth, Social
Social Security
Security number,
number, place of
like that
Roberts their full name?
their full
full name,
name, yes
yes
Crawford their
ofthat
that to
to you
you when
when you
you asked
asked
Roberts and did he provide
provide any
any of
Crawford he did provide his full
full name
name yes
yes
Roberts so other than his full name he didn't provide you with any other information
informationfor
foryou
youto
tofill
fill
out the citation?
Crawford I believe he may have provided
provided his
his address
address or
orthe
the city
cityyou
youlive
liveIIapologize
apologizemay
mayprovide
providethe
the
city he lived another one that
that he
he refused
refused all
all questions
questions
Roberts said there was insufficient
insufficient information
information to
to issue
issue aacitation
citation
maam
Crawford no maam
or officer
officer Braunworth
Braunworth conduct
conduct aa search
searchof
ofthe
thesuspect?
suspect?
Roberts did you or
had any
any weapons
weapons on
onhim
himhe
hesaid
saidhe
hedid
didnot
notwe
weasked
asked
worth asked
asked him
him ififhe
Crawford officer Braun worth
he had
if we could go ahead and
and make
make sure
sure that
that he
he did
did not
nothave
have any
anyweapons
weaponson
onthem
themhe
hesaid
saidwe
wecould
could
him if
Roberts okay let me ask you and let me stop you just right there, atatthis
this point
pointyou
youknow
knowhe's
he'sthere
therefor
for
of charge
what type of
larceny
Crawford Petty larceny
Roberts and is that routine
routine for
for you
you to
to ask
ask about
about whether
whetheror
ornot
notififyou
youare
aregoing
goingtototake
takesomeone
someoneinto
into
custody ask whether not they
they have
have any
any weapons
weapons
- 74/94
74/94--
117 PETITION
1400
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Crawford yes itit is

is
Roberts and is
is itit routine for
for you
you to
to confirm
confirm assuming
assuming they
they consent
consentto
toPat
PatDonna
Donnamake
makesure
surethat
thatthey
they
don't have any weapons
is
Crawford yes itit is
Roberts and that's what
what you
you do
do with
with this
this particular
particularsuspect?
suspect?
to go
go into
into his
his pockets
pockets but
but that
thatII could
couldsearch
searchfor
forweapons
weaponsso
soI Isearch
search
Crawford correctly told me not to
of his
his pockets
pockets to
to make
make sure
sure he
he didn't
didn'thave
haveany
anyweapons
weaponshe
hedid
didnot
nothave
haveweapons
weapons
the outer clothing of
Roberts so he limited
limited his
his consent
consent
Crawford yes he did
Roberts any respect to that
that limitation
limitation
Crawford yes ma'am
ma'am
Roberts did that happen before
before or
or after
after you
you were
were asking
asking him
him questions
questionsconcerning
concerningthe
theinformation
information
you needed to fill out
out the
the citation?
citation?
(5:21:51 p.m.)
Crawford after
after
did you
you continue
continue to
to try
try to
to get
get information
informationso
sothat
thatshe
shecould
couldfill
fillout
outaacitation
citation
Roberts at some point did
Crawford I believe I asked him several
several times
times for
for information
information and
and tried
tried to
toexplain
explaintotohim
himthat
thatthe
the
to take
take aa citation
citation than
thangoing
goingto
tojail
jailall
allhe
hehad
hadtotodo
dowas
was
citation would be better that itit would
would be
be better
better to
provide me this information.
information. His
His argument
argument was
was that
thatititwas
was the
thesame
sameexact
exactcharge
chargeand
andthat
thatI Iwasn't
wasn't
to go
go to
to jail
jailyou
youcould
couldgo
gohome
hometonight
tonightand
andhe
he
helping him and all. I said
said well
well itit you
you wouldn't
wouldn't have
have to
still refused to answer
answer any
any questions
questions and
andasked
askedfor
foran
anattorney.
attorney.
(5:22:11 p.m.)
lying under
under oath.
oath. He
Heisisattesting
attestingthat
thatheheoffered
offeredtotosimply
simplywrite
writea acitation,
citation,
( Here, Officer Crawford is lying
only the
the ACCUSED
ACCUSEDWOULD
WOULD"PROVIDE
"PROVIDEHIS
HIS
and thus spare the accused the custodial
custodial arrest,
arrest, ififonly
INFORMATION", AND SPECIFICALLY, OFFICER CRAWFORD IS INDICATING THAT HE
DID NOT PREMISE THE DECISION BETWEEN ISSUING A CITATION
CITA TION OR EFFECTING A
CUSTODIAL ARREST (AND, OF COURSE, CONDUCTING A SEARCH INCIDENT THERETO
THAT ARREST) UPON WHETHER OR NOT THE SUSPECT ADMITTED GUILT AS TO THE
HOWEVER, THAT
THATIS
ISEXACTLY
EXACTLYWHAT
WHATHAPPENED
HAPPENEDON
ON
PETTY LARCENY CHARGE. HOWEVER,
SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2011
BOTH FRONTINO
FRONTINO AND
AND CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
2011 AT WALMART. BOTH
SPECIFICALL
Y INDICATED TO THE
THE ACCUSED
ACCUSED THAT
THAT IF
IF HE
HE WOULD
WOULDONLY
ONLYADMIT
ADMITHIS
HIS
SPECIFICALLY
GUILT, THEY WOULD ISSUE HIM A CITATION, AND, THEREFORE, HE COULD AVOID A
TRIP TO PARR BOULEVARD AND A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST;. THIS
THISIS
ISLIKELY
LIKELY
THE MAIN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE,
CASE. IE,
IE. WHETHER THE POLICE CAN BASE
THE DECISION TO ARREST.
ARREST, RATHER THAN ISSUE A CITATION UPON WHETHER OR
GUILT. RATHER THAN UPON SOME REASONABLY
NOT THE SUSPECT CONFESSES GUILT,
ARTICULATED SUSPICION).)
SUSPICION).)
Roberts okay so once he
he asked
asked for
for the
the attorney
attorney was
was was
was your
yourdecision-making
decision-makingprocess?
process?
Crawford I advised him that
that II could
could no
no longer
longer asking
asking any
any questions
questionsIImean
meanIIcould
couldhave
haveasked
askedhim
him
of birth
birth and
and stuff
stufflike
like that
that but
but II couldn't
couldn'tasking
askingquestions
questionsabout
aboutthe
thecrime
crimeand
and
questions related to date of
then placed him under
under arrest
arrest for
for petty
petty larceny
larceny because
becausehe
herefused
refusedtotogive
givethe
theinformation
informationtotofill
fillout
out
the citation or to run his name
name for
for warrants
warrants and
and he
he was
was placed
placedunder
underarrest
arrestatatthe
thetime.
time.
28
- 75/94
75/94--

117 PETITION
1401
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
THEABOVE
ABOVEREPRESENTS
REPRESENTSWHAT
WHATIIFIND
FINDMOST
MOSTOBJECTIONABLE
OBJECTIONABLEABOUT
ABOUT
(5:22:45 p.m. THE
BAR COUNSEL
COUNSEL PATRICK 0.
O. KING,
KING, COUGHLIN
COUGHLIN
COUGHLIN (ACCORDING
(ACCORDING TO
TO BAR
THIS CASE. COUGHLIN
AND KING
KING THINKS
THINKS ITS
ITS JUST
JUST "TERRIBLE",
"TERRIBLE", SAID
SAID IN
IN A
A
"USED TO BE AN ATTORNEY" AND
IS "NO
MOCKINGIDERISIVE TONE BY KING TO COUGHLIN, THAT COUGHLIN IS
REAL MOCKING/DERISIVE
ATTORNEY" ....KING
KING ALSO HAS MADE A GREAT
GREAT DEAL
DEAL OF
OF FALSE
FALSE AND
AND
LONGER AN ATTORNEY"..
LONGER
MISLEADING STATEMENT TO AND ABOUT COUGHLIN AND REFUSED TO PROVIDE
COUGHLIN COPIES OF MOST OF WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO KING INCIDENT TO THE
BY RICHARG
RICHARG G.
G. HILL,
HILL, ESQ.
ESQ. AND
AND JUDGE
JUDGE DOROTHY
DOROTHY
"GRIEVANCES" FILED
FILED BY
VARIOUS "GRIEVANCES"
(WHOSE BOUNTY OF
OF MATERIALS PROVIDED TO KING
KING INCLUDE ITEMS
ITEMS
NASH HOLMES (WHOSE
THAT HOLME'S FELLOW RENO MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, HONORABLE JUDGE
RECEIVED FROM
FROM HIS
HIS SISTER,
SISTER, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT
WILLIAM GARDNER, RECEIVED
JUDGE LINDA GARDNER, IN THE FORM OF A 3 YEAR OLD SANCTION ORDER ISSUED
BY HON. LINDA GARDNER AGAINST COUGHLIN, FOR WHICH COUGHLIN FILED A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND WAS, ACCORDING TO HIS THEN
EMPLOYER, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, AND ITS EXECTUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL
ELCANO, FIRED FOR, AND ONLY FOR, THE CONDUCT BEFORE JUDGE LINDA
DIVORC
GARDNER THAT LED TO HER ISSUING SANCTIONS AGAINST COUGHLIN IN A DIVORCE
TRIAL WHEREIN HE REPRESENTED A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT TO
HIS POST AS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTORNEY WITH WLS.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
just would like

like to
to interject
interject here
here with
with an
an objection
objectionto
tothe
theextent
extentthat
thatany
anyinformation
information
Coughlin sorry I just
gleaned a recovered for an arrest
arrest for
for aa misdemeanor
misdemeanor that
that did
did not
not occur
occurwithin
withinthe
theofficers
officerspresent
present
allegedto
tohave
haveoccurred
occurredoutside
outsideofof
should be excluded the actus reus
reus involved
involved in
in this
this crime
crime charge
charge isis alleged
presence and
and NRS
NRS provides
provides that
that ififthat
thatisis the
thecase
caseno
nocustodial
custodialarrest
arrestisispermissible
permissibleasas
this officers presence
such any search incident to arrest
arrest any
any such
such custodial
custodial arrest
arrest should
shouldbe
beexcluded
excluded
Howard Ms. Roberts
officer attempted
attempted to
to build
build the
the issue
issue the
thesuspect
suspectaacitation
citationand
andit's
it'shis
hisown
own
Roberts Your Honor this officer
just that
that because
because he
he can't
can'tfill
fill out
outthe
thecitation
citationififhe
doesn't
from doing's
doing's just
actions that prevented him from
he doesn't
know the information that
that the
the defendant
defendant in
in the
the suspect
suspectin
inthis
this case
casewas
wasunwilling
unwillingtotogive
givetotohim
himthere
there
complainant that
that observed
observed the
the misdemeanor
misdemeanoraction
actionand
andwhat
whathe
heisisdoing
doingisisaffecting
affectingarrest
arrest
was a complainant
of an eyewitness
eyewitness that
that was
was right
right there
there II don't
don'tbelieve
believethere
therewas
wasan
anunlawful
unlawfularresi
arres
based upon statement of
by this police officer.
(5:24:02 p.m.)
Howard the objection is
is overruled
overruled Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlin precipitated
precipitatedthe
the need
needto
toarrest
arresthim
himby
byrefusing
refusingtoto
provide the needed information for
for the
the citation,
citation, go
go ahead
ahead
Roberts Ofc. Crawford when you
you after
after you
you
objection that
that that
that is
is aa factual
factual determination
determinationthat
thathas
hasapparently
apparentlybeen
beenruled
ruled
Coughlin on just Internet objection
upon prior to any counter
counter evidence
evidence the
the ignited
ignited or
or my
my being
being given
givenany
anychance
chancetotoso
soadmit
admitsuch
suchcounter
counter
evidence
Howard you will have an opportunity
opportunity to
to cross-examine
cross-examine this
this was
was
long itit way
way before
before II got
got interrupted
interrupted before
beforeIIasked
askedmy
mynext
nextquestion
question
Robert I just wondered how long
(5:24:05 p.m)
Roberts Ofc. Crawford
28
- 76/94
76/94--
1402
2
3
4
Howard let me say and this is for your benefit once again
again we
we will
will have
have aa hearing
hearing in
inregard
regardto
tocontent
content
engage in
in one
one of
ofthese
these unprofessional
unprofessional acts
actsI'm
I'm
once
once this
this proceeding is concluded so every time you engage
ofthis
this trial
trial one
keeping count and we will address them at
at the
the end
end of
one thing
thing has
has nothing to do with the
other I will make a separate and independent decision
decision in
in regard
regard to
to guilt
guilt or
or innocence
innocence but
butIIhave
have
already made a finding in regard to contempt
contempt with that
that go
go ahead
ahead and
and proceed
proceed
Coughlin and I'll enter an objection
objection with
with regard
regardto
tothe
thefact
factthat...
that...
Howard II don't want to hear anything from
from you at
at this
this point
point time!#*&^$$&*A
time!#*&I\$$&*I\!$@%
Coughlin at the possibility of
of jail time exist II have a right
right to
to counsel
counsel
(So,
FALSE
(So, THAT
THAT MAY BE THE
THE EVEN
EVEN BIGGER APPEALABLE
APPEALABLE ISSUE
ISSUE HERE.
HERE. FALSE
IMPRISONMENT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NRS 200.460 Definition; penalty.

1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of
1.
ofthe
the personal
personal liberty
liberty of
ofanother,
another, and
and
consists in confinement or detention without sufficient
sufficient legal
legal authority.
authority.
2. A person convicted of
2.
of false imprisonment
imprisonment shall
shall pay
pay all
all damages
damages sustained
sustainedby
bythe
the
person so imprisoned, and, except
except as
as otherwise
otherwise provided
provided in
in subsection
subsection3,3, isisguilty
guiltyof
ofaa
gross misdemeanor.
NRS 171.126 Arrest by private person.
A private person may
may arrest
arrest another:
another:
1. For a public offense committed or
1.
or attempted
attempted in
in his
his presence.
presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed aa felony,
felony, although
although not
not in
in his
his presence.
presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed,
committed, and
and he
he has
has reasonable
reasonable cause
cause for
for
believing the person arrested to have
have committed
committed it.
it.
City Attorney Roberts offered testimony from
from both
both Frontino
Frontino and
and Officer
OfficerCrawford
Crawford
purporting to establish that Frontino did not make a citizen's arrest. However,
However,Frontino
Frontinodid
didinform
inform
Coughlin in an extremely hostile and
and authoritative
authoritative tone
tone that
that Coughlin
Coughlin "had"
"had"toto"come
"comewith"
with"
Frontino back to the loss
loss prevention
prevention room
room in
in order
order for
for Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart to
to "complete
"completethis
thisinvestigation".
investigation".
to comply
complywith
withFrontino's
Frontino's
Coughlin clearly felt he had no choice
choice in
in the
the matter
matter and
and that
that any
any failure
failure to
ofcitizen's
citizen'sarrest.
arrest.
equivalent to resisting
resisting aa shopkeeper's
shopkeeper's privilege
privilege to
to make
make aatype
typeof
dictates would be equivalent
Wal-Mart and
and Frontino
Frontino are
are viewed
viewed to
to have
have made
made the
the arrest,
arrest,under
underNRS
NRS171.104,
171.104,then
then
To the extent Wal-Mart
of the Interrogation
Interrogation Room
Room videos
videos establish
establish that
thatCoughlin
Coughlinhanded
handedhis
hisState
Stateofof
Coughlin clearly (both of
license to
to Officer
Officer Crawford,
Crawford, despite
despite Officer's
Officer'sCrawfords,
Crawfords,sworn,
sworn,express
expresstestimony
testimony
Nevada driver's license
Inso
sodoing
doingand
andproviding
providinghis
his name
nameand
andaddress
address to
to Officer
OfficerCrawford
Crawford(and
(and
to the contrary. In
indicated on
on his
his driver's
driver's license
license as
as well)
well) Coughlin
Coughlinprovided
providedall
allthe
the
Coughlin's address is clearly indicated
ofaacitation
citationafter
afterarrest
arrestby
byaa
set forth
forth in
in NRS
NRS 171.1774
171.1774 for
for the
the issuance
issuance of
required information set
under NRS
NRS 171.1772.
171.1772.
private person under
25
26
27
28
171.104 Arrest
Arrest defined;
defined; by
by whom
whom made.
made.
NRS 171.104
ofaa person
person into
into custody,
custody, in
in aacase
caseand
andininthe
themanner
mannerauthorized
authorized
is the taking
taking of
An arrest is
by law. An arrest may
may be
be made
made by
by aa peace
peace officer
officer or
or by
by aa private
privateperson.
person.
NRS 171.1772
of citation
citation after
after arrest
arrest by
by private
privateperson.
person.
171.1772 Issuance of
- 77/94
77/94--
117 PETITION
1403
S .
2
3
Whenever any person is arrested by

by aa private
private person,
person, as
as provided
provided in
inNRS
NRS 171.126,
171.126,for
for
of a county, city or
or town
town ordinance
ordinance or
or state
state law
law which
whichisis punishable
punishableas
asaa
any violation of
misdemeanor, such person arrested may be issued
issued aa misdemeanor
misdemeanor citation
citation by
by aa
of being immediately
immediately taken
taken before
before aa magistrate
magistrate by
by the
thepeace
peace
peace officer in lieu
lieu of
if:
.
officer
officer if:
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1. The person arrested furnishes satisfactory

1.
satisfactory evidence
evidence of
ofidentity;
identity; and
2. The peace officer
officer has
has reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested
arrested will
will
keep a written promise
promise to
to appear
appearinincourt.
court.
of citation:
citation: When
When issued
issued after
afterarrest
arrestby
byprivate
private
NRS 171.1774 Form and contents of
person.
1.
171.1772, the peace officer
officer summoned
summoned after
afterthe
the
1. In
In those
those instances described in NRS 171.1772,
the form
formof
ofaa
misdemeanor citation
citation manually
manually or
or electronically
electronicallyinin the
arrest shall prepare a misdemeanor
of "The
"The State
State of
ofNevada"
Nevada" or
orininthe
thename
nameof
ofthe
the
complaint issuing in the name of
respective county, city or town, and
and containing:
containing:
(a) A notice to appear
appear in
in court;
court;
(b) The name and address of
(b)
of the person:
person;
c) The state registration
registration number
number of
ofhis
his vehicle,
vehicle,ififany;
any;
((c)
ofthe
the offense
offense and
and the
the NRS
NRS or
or
(d) The offense charged, including aa brief
briefdescription
description of
ordinance citation;
(e) The time when and place where the person is
is required
required to
to appear
appear in
in court;
court;
(f) Such other pertinent information as may be necessary;
necessary; and
and
of the private person making
making the
the arrest
arrest and
and the
the peace
peace officer
officer
(g) The signatures of
preparing the citation.
citation.
16
ofDrug
DrugEnforcement
EnforcementAdministration.
Administration.
171.124 Arrest
Arrestby
bypeace
peaceofficer
officeror
orofficer
officerof
NRS 171.124
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
Except as
as otherwise
otherwise provided
provided in
in subsection
subsection 33 and
and NRS
NRS 33.070
33.070 and
and 33.320,
33.320, aa
1. Except
ofthe
the Drug
Drug Enforcement
Enforcement Administration
Administrationdesignated
designatedby
bythe
the
peace officer or an
an officer
officer of
Attorney General of
of the United States
States for
for that
that purpose
purpose may
may make
make an
anarrest
arrestinin
him or
or her,
her, or
or may,
may, without
without aawarrant,
warrant, arrest
arrestaa
obedience to a warrant delivered to him
person:
or attempted
attempted in
in the
the officer's
officer'spresence.
presence.
(a) For a public offense committed or
(b)
has committed
committed aa felony
felony or
or gross
gross misdemeanor,
misdemeanor.
(b) When a person arrested has
although not in the officer's
officer's presence.
presence.
171.124(l)(b): "(b)
"(b) When
When aa person
person arrested
arrested has
has committed
committedaafelony
felonyor
orgross
gross
NRS 171.124(1)(b):
misdemeanor, although not in
in the officer's
officer'spresence"
presence"was
wasclearly
clearlyviolated
violatedhere
hereby
byOfficers
OfficersCrawford
Crawford
Thecharged
chargedcrime,
crime,"petty
"pettylarceny"
larceny"RMC
RMC8.10.010,
8.1 0.0 10,isis aasimple
simple misdemeanor,
misdemeanor, and
and
and Braunworth.
Braunworth. The
it was not alleged to have occurred in
in the officer's
officer's presence.
presence. Enter
EnterOfficer
OfficerCrawford's
Crawford'sperjury
perjuryabout
about
Coughlin failing
Enter aa nationally
nationally published
published Associated
Associated
failing to provide Officer Crawford his
his license.
license. Enter
Press story title "Reno Attorney Suspened for Shoplifting". Enter
Entervast
vastdamage
damageto
toCoughlin's
Coughlin's
and personal
personal life,
life, including
including the
the instant
instanttemporary
temporarysuspension
suspensionand
andlooming
looming
professional reputation and
theblood
bloodininthe
thewater
watersharks
sharkslike
likeRichard
RichardG.
G. Hill,
Hill,
Disciplinary Board formal hearing. Then
Thenthere
thereisisthe
Esq. prey upon, leveraging
leveraging to
to their
their advantage
advantage with
with all
all the
the innuendo
innuendothey
theycan
canmuster
muster(Hill
(Hillmade
madetacky
tacky
-- 78/94
78/94--

117 PETITION
1404
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
of finding
finding aa "crack
"crack pipe
pipe and
and aabag
bagof
ofweed"
weed"ininCoughlin's
Coughlin'sformer
formerhome
homelaw
lawoffice,
office,though
though
allegations of
Hill never did
did manage
manage to
to produce
produce aa picture
pictureof
ofsuch
suchitems
itemsor
orexplain
explainwhat
whathe
hedid
didwith
withthem
themororwhy
whyhehe
police to
to report
report the
the crime
crime of
ofpossession...certainly
possession ... certainlyRichard
Richardhas
hascalled
calledthe
theReno
RenoPolice
Police
did not call the police
Department or
or Bar
BarCounsel
Counselatatevery
everyother
otherpossible
possibleopportunity,
opportunity,so...
so ....
Butatatleast
leastHill
Hillmade
madehis
hisfalse,
false,
Department
.But
declasse allegations
allegations against
against one
one whom
whom has
has put
putin
inthe
thehard
hardtime
timeamongst
amongstthose
those
defamatory, and declasse
lawyers (and
(and aa few
few judges)
judges) whom
whom have
have stared
staredthings
thingsdown
downthat
thatsomeone
someoneofof
lawyers concerned for lawyers
Withoutthe
thealleged
allegedcrime
crimebeing
beingcommitted
committedinin
Hill's depth would find to be an unfathomable abyss. Without
these Tribal
Tribal Police
Police Officers
Officers(and
(and Officer
OfficerCrawford
Crawfordwas
wasininhis
hisfirst
firsttwo
twoweeks
weekson
onthe
the
their presence, these
job at
at the
the time
time of
ofthis
this arrest,
arrest, and
andstill
stillaatrainee,
trainee,which
whichisisobvious
obviousby
bythe
theway
wayhe
hegrabs
grabsCoughlin's
Coughlin's
job
shopping bag out
out of
of Coughlin's
Coughlin's lap
lap at
at least
least twice
twice prior
prior to
to the
the technical
technicalpoint
pointof
ofarrest,
arrest,asasevinced
evincedon
on
Interrogation Room
Room videos)
videos) had
had to
to attempt
attemptto
to game
gamethe
thesystem
systemsome
someby
byoffering
offeringperjured
perjured
the two Interrogation
is clearly
clearly contradicted
contradicted by
by the
the two
two Interrogation
InterrogationRoom
Roomvideos
videosthat
thatprosecutor
prosecutorCity
City
testimony that is
Nifong, er,
er, Pamela
Pamela Roberts,
Roberts, Esq.,
Esq., offered
offeredto
to Judge
JudgeHoward,
Howard,despite
despitethe
thefact
factthat
thatSHE
SHE
Attorney Pam Nifong,
WHYDOESN'T
DOESN'TBAR
BARCOUNSEL
COUNSELACCEPT
ACCEPT MY
MY GRIEVANCE
GRIEVANCE
KNEW IS WAS FALSE.
FALSE. WHY
DOESSHE
SHEPLAY
PLAYWITH
WITHSOME
SOMENET
NETTHAT
THATTHE
THEREST
RESTOF
OFUS
US
AGAINST PAM ROBERTS? DOES
SOLO PRACTITIONERS ARE NOT GRANTED? IS
IS SHE
SHE A
A PROTECTED
PROTECTED MEMBER
MEMBER OF
OF SOME
SOME
ESTABLISHMENT, LIKE ALL THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS WHOM ARE SEEMINGLY HELD
TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT THAN ARE
(on
THOSE THE SUBJECT OF THE "GRIEVANCES" FILED BY RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ., (on
behalf of
of former client's
client's that
that Hill
Hill throws
throws under
under the
the bus,
bus, no
noless,
less,and
andof
ofcourse
courseafter
afterhaving
havingextracted
extracted
behalf
.... ) and Judge Nash Holmes? Why
Why isis ititthat
that Bar
BarCounsel
Counsel Patrick
PatrickKing
King so
so
some $20,000 in fees
fees from
from....)
quickly dismisses
dismisses the
the various
various grievances
grievances Coughlin
Coughlin filed
filedafter
afterthe
theinspiration
inspirationprovided
providedby
byHill?
Hill? IfIf
Coughlin's law license is taken away over
over aa candy
candy bar,
bar, allegedly
allegedly stolen
stolen on
onaaSaturday
Saturdaynight
nightand
and
nowhere near the
the practice
practice of
oflaw
then what
what should
should Robert's
Robert's punishment
punishmentbe
befor
foroffering
offeringmaterial
material
law......then
officer that
that she
she knew
knew to
to be
be false
false about
aboutan
anincredibly
incrediblysalient
salientaspect
aspectofofher
hercase
case
testimony by a police officer
in chief?
Clearly, the overly chummy Frontino and
and Officer's
Officer's Braunworth
Braunworth and
and Officer
OfficerCrawford
Crawford(all
(all
who were palling around
around with
with each
each other
other for
for over
over 45
45 minutes
minutes in
inthe
thehallway
hallwayprior
priortototrial
trialand
andall
allwho
who
remained at the courthouse until
until 8:30
8:30 p.m.
p.m. to
to hear
hear the
the verdict
verdict -and
-andFrontino
Frontinowas
wasdone
donetestifying
testifyingby
by
5:10
5:
I 0 p.m., and City Attorney Robert's invoking
invoking the
the rule
rule of
ofexclusion
exclusion prevented
preventedhim
himfrom
frompassing
passingthe
the
time as a spectator) were
were "gaming"
"gaming" the
thesystem,
system,wishing
wishingtotoeffect
effectaasearch
searchincident
incidenttotoaacustodial
custodial
arrest and to cover their tracks afterwards to
to make
make itit all
all appear
appear by
by the
the book,
book, what
whatwith
withtheir
theirconstant
constant
in the least
least natural
natural tone
tone imaginable
imaginable upon
uponthe
thewitness
witnessstand
standininresponse
responsetoto
use of
of buzz words delivered in
City Attorney Roberts prompting (and
(and after
after aa good
good 45
45 minute
minute does
does of
ofcoaching
coachingby
byCity
CityAttorney
Attorney
Roberts immediately prior to trial).)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Roberts Ofc. Crawford when

when you
you place
place aa suspect
suspect under
underarrest
arrestwhat
whatdid
didyou
youphysically
physicallydo
dowhat
whatare
arethe
the
steps that you take to put someone in
in custody
custody
Crawford once we have the suspect in
in handcuffs
handcuffs physically
physically search
search them
them he
he search
searchincident
incidenttotoarrest
arrest
per policy among
Roberts did you do that in this case
Crawford I did yes
Roberts and where the handcuffs put
put in
in front
front of
ofthem
them are
are behind
behind him
him
Crawford behind him
Roberts and once you place them behind
behind his
his back
back you
you did
did conduct
conduct aa search
searchincident
incidentto
toarrest?
arrest?
Crawford yes
-- 79/94
79/94--
1405
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Roberts and what is the rationale

rationale for
for doing
doing that
that
Crawford to protect the officer
officer it's
it's aa safety
safety issue
issue from
from him
him getting
getting into
into the
thepatrol
patrolcar
caror
orprotecting
protecting
himself
any weapons
weapons so
so he
he doesn't
doesn't hurt
hurt an
an officer
officeror
orhimself
himself
himself in case he has any
(5:26:35 p.m.
p.m. ITS FUNNY, BECAUSE SOME MIGHT SAY THE TERRY PAT DOWN
WEAPONS
VE ACCOMPLISHED THE
WEAPONS SEARCH TESTIFIED TO EARLIER SHOULD HA
HAVE
OBJECTIVES OFFICER CRAWFORD JUST MENTIONED, BUT, GUESS NOT
... EVEN
NOT...EVEN
THOUGH AT THIS POINT THE DEFENDANT WOULD HA
VE HIS
HAVE
HIS HANDS CUFFED BEHIND
HIS BACK)
Roberts and when you conducted
conducted aa search
search incident
incident to
to arrest
arrest did
did you
you find
findany
anyitems
itemsrelated
relatedtotothe
the
nature the petty larceny
larceny that
that was
was alleged
alleged by
by Frontino
Frontino
Crawford yes we did
Roberts what did you see
see
Crawford we found cough drops and
and aa wrapper
wrapper of
ofcough
cough drops
drops in
in his
his pocket
pocket
Roberts okay when you are
are there
there prior
prior to
to being
being placed
placed under
under arrested
arrestedthe
thedefendant
defendantmake
makeany
any
his guilt
guilt or
or innocence
innocence
statements to you regarding his
Crawford he did not know
Roberts did the defendant
defendant complains
complains you
you about
about Walmart's
Walmart's treatment
treatmentof
ofthem
them
Crawford yes he did
Roberts was that before or
or after
after he
he was
was placed
placed under
under arrest
arrest
after the
the arrest
arrest long
long after
after
Crawford after
Roberts when you put
put him
him when
when you
you took
took him
him to
to their
their place
place after
afterafter
afteryou
youdid
didthe
thesearch
searchincident
incidenttoto
arrest what did you do next
Crawford I escorted him to the patrol
patrol vehicle
vehicle and
and placed
placed them
them in
in the
the back
back
did you
you transport
transport him
him to
to
Roberts and where did
Crawford Washoe County Sheriffs
Sheriffsoffice
office
Roberts was the transport from Walmart to Washoe County Jail uneventful
uneventful
Crawford uh...it
uh .. .it was
was
Roberts uneventful
uneventful or eventful?
Crawford or eventful I apologize you II was
was eventful
eventful
Coughlin objection leaving the witness
witness obviously
obviously
state that
Howard also state
happen on
on the
the way
way to
to the
the jail
jail with
with aa suspect
suspectin
inyour
yourcar
car
Roberts did anything happen
Crawford before we left Walmart he
he kicked
kicked the
the window
window one
one time
time and
andwas
was told
toldto
tostop.
stop.He
Hedid
didstop.
stop.
(5:28:17 p.m.)
Coughlin objection coaching the
the witness
witness
Howard overruled
Roberts what else to do
Crawford he started throwing himself
himselfaround
around the
the back
back II asked
askedhim
him before
beforewe
wewent
wenttotoWashoe
WashoeCounty
County
Sheriffs Office
Office on
onor
oroff
offhe
hethought
thoughtititwas
wasmore
morecomfortable
comfortabletotohave
haveititoff
offeven
eventhough
thoughour
ourpolicy
policyisis
Sheriffs
to put them into a seatbelt
seatbelt II was
was trying
trying to
to be
be polite
polite to
to him
him because
becausewe're
we'rehaving
havingso
somany
manyissues
issuesI I
didn't actually want to have to reach
reach across
across him
him to
to put
put on
on to
to begin
beginwith
withup
upto
toPark
ParkBoulevard
Boulevardwhen
whenhe
he .
did start turn itself
itself around the backseat
backseat of
ofthe
the car
car saying
saying we
we were
were trashing
trashinghim
himaround
around
record we
we will
will indicate
indicate that
that Mr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinapparently
apparentlyfound
foundthis
thistestimony
testimony
Howard apparently for the record
humorous
Coughlin No, sir, that is not correct
correct
this testimony
testimony humorous...
humorous ...
Howard apparently found this
- 80/94
80194--
1406
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acknowledge that
that characterization
characterizationasascorrect.
correct.
Coughlin I don't acknowledge
yourpatrol
patrolcar
carwas
wasthere
thereany
any
Ofc. Crawford
Crawford after
after he
he threw
threwhimself
himselfaround
aroundininthe
theback
backofofyour
Roberts Ofc.
else that
that happens
happens before
before you
you got
gotthe
thejail
jailinvolving
involvingthe
thesuspect
suspect
thing else
statements he
he made
made about
about us
us trying
trying to
to take
takeadvantage
advantageof
ofthe
theworking
workingman's
man'sdollar
dollarinin
Crawford to statements
and colony
colony thinks
thinks that
that nature
nature just
juststatements
statements
reconstruction and
no further
further questions
questions for
for this
this witness
witness
Roberts I have no
Coughlin cross
cross examination
examinationof
ofOfc.
Ofc. Crawford
Crawford
Howard Mr. Coughlin
realize you're
you're under
under oath
oath center
center
Coughlin Ofc. Crawford you realize
Crawford yes
yes
Crawford
lying when
when you
you said
said you
you offered
offered to
to put
putaaseat
seatbelt
belton
onthe
theaccused
accused
Coughlin so were you lying
sir.
Crawford No, sir.
weren't lying?
lying?
Coughlin You weren't
Crawford No, sir
point out
out to
to you
you during
during the
the freeware
freeware car
carride
ride to
to our
ouron
on395
395atatspeeds
speedsinin
Coughlin did the accused point
of 50 miles an
an hour
hour that
that itit was
was negligent
negligent for
for you
you and
and your
yourpartner
partnerto
tofail
failtotoboth
bothput
putaaseatbelt
excess of
seatbelt
offer to
to and
and further
further negligence
negligence was
was exhibited
exhibited in
inyour
yourfailure
failuretotodo
doso
soonce
oncethe
the
on the accused or offer
requested
- you
accused
accused requested
you do
do if
if so
so put a seatbelt on the accused
on the
the question
question
Crawford sorry I'm confused on
complex question
question
Roberts that's aa complex
complex question
question isis done
done itit repeatedly
repeatedly
Howard is a complex
accused making
making statements
statements to
to you
you during
duringthe
thecar
carride
ridetotopar
par
Coughlin do you recall the accused
yester
Crawford yester
Coughlin to the car right aren't
aren't clued
clued aa trip
trip on
on Highway
Highway 395
395 in
in excess
excess of
of50
50miles
milesan
anhour
hour
Crawford yester
Coughlin did he just make statements
statements with
with regard
regard to
to your
your failure
failure to
to provide
provideaaseatbelt
seatbelt
Crawford yester
if he
he could
could have
have aa seatbelt?
seatbelt?
Coughlin did the accused ask
ask if
Crawford Nosair
(5:31
:20 p.m.)
(5:31:20
Coughlin what statements did he make
make with
with respect
respect to
to the
the seatbelt
seatbelt
Crawford devices that were being
being negligent
negligent with
with respect
respect not
not providing
providingaaseatbelt
seatbelteven
eventhough
thoughhe
hetold
told
us he did want one and
and that
that itit was
was aa violation
violation of
ofstate
state law
law and
andthat
that we
wewere
wereviolating
violatingititeven
eventhough
though
he told a student while on
on
Coughlin are you aware of
of whether any
any recordings
recordings were
were made
made concerning
concerning the
the content
contentof
ofthe
the
conversation between you your partner
partner and
and the
the accused
accused
Crawford no sir we do not have audio
audio in
in our
our patrol
patrol car
car
Coughlin I did not ask you whether
whether you
you have
have audio
audio sir
sir II asked
asked you
you whether
whetheryou
youare
areaware
awarewhether
whetheroror
not any such audio recordings were made
made by
by you,
you, or
or the
the State
State or
or by
by some
somepunk
punkwith
withaasmart
smartphone
phone
Crawford no I cannot
Coughlin and you know you're under oath
oath
Crawford Yes, sir.
Coughlin so you're saying about the accused
accused said
said something
something like
like that
that he
he didn't
didn'tfeel
feel very
verycomfortable
comfortable
traveling in excess of
of speeds 50
50 mi./h
mi.lh on
on the
the freeway
freeway without
without aa seat
seatbelt
belt
Crawford I believe the accused did say that
that
Coughlin did you perceive the loan
Crawford Nosair
-- 81/94
81194-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1407
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not
Coughlin why not
it's not
not policy
policy to
to pull
pull over
overon
on the
the side
side of
ofthe
thefreeway
freewaytotoput
putaaseatbelt
seatbelton
onwith
with
Crawford because it's
did you
you make
make any
any attempts
attempts to
to do
do so
so after
afterpulling
pullingoff
offfreeway
freeway
Coughlin okay did
Coughlin we
we have
have been
been down
downthis
this road
roadbefore
beforebut
butwhat
whatisisthe
therelevance
relevancewith
withregards
regards
Howard Mr. Coughlin
ofwhether
whetheror
ornot
notyou
youare
areprovided
providedseatbelt?
seatbelt?
or innocence
innocence on
on the
the petty
petty larceny
larcenyof
your guilt or
like to
to
Coughlin I would like
ofthe
theshirt
shirtofofpetty
pettytheft
theft
don't interrupt
interrupt how
how does
does that
thatgo
go your
your guilt
guiltor
orinstance
instanceof
Howard sir don't
could ask
ask Ms.
Ms. Roberts
Roberts that
that since
since she's
she's the
the one
one who
who asked
askedthese
thesequestions
questionsininthe
the
Coughlin maybe we could
one who
who brought
brought up
up the
the seatbelt
seatbelton
on the
the ride
ride over
overand
andall
allthe
thestuff
stuff...and
... andI Ididn't
didn'tsee
see
first place she's the one
sua sponte
sponte object
objectto
to her...
her ...
you sua
Howard Ms. Roberts
Roberts
object to
to the
the relevance
relevance the
the testimony
testimony IIlistened
listenedfrom
fromloss
lossof
ofstar
starCrawford
Crawforddealt
dealtwith
with
Roberts grinding object
noncompliant nature
nature and
and attitude
attitude of
ofthe
the defendant
defendantMr.
Mr. Coughlin
Coughlinalso
alsoknown
knownasasthe
theaccused
accusedand
andI I
the noncompliant
the credibility
credibility and
and the
the consistency
consistency in
inthe
the testimony
testimonyof
ofMr.
Mr.Francine
Francinewho
whoalso
also
think that goes to the
about his lack
lack of
ofcooperation
cooperation and
and compliance
compliance
testified about
Coughlin give
give you
you the
the last
last word
word go
go ahead
ahead
Howard okay Coughlin
about the
the objection
objection here?
here? And
And this
this isis your
yourobjection
objectionYour
YourHonor?
Honor?
Coughlin who were talking about
testimony is
is not
not relevant
relevant go
go ahead
ahead and
and go
go to
to another
anotherline
lineof
ofquestioning
questioning
Howard okay the testimony
relevant when
when Ms.
Ms. Roberts
Roberts was
was asking
asking about
aboutseatbelts
seatbeltsand
andstuff
stuffokay
okaysir
siryou
you
Coughlin well it was relevant
accused kicked
kicked the
the window
window
said under oath that the accused
believe yes
yes
Crawford I believe
believe so
Coughlin you believe
Crawford he either... The accused either
either kicked
kicked the
the window
window or
or hit
hit ititwith
withhis
his head
headI'm
I'massuming
assuming
he ... .he
he kicked itit
he..
Coughlin hit it with his head you say?
say?
of the two
two yes
yes
Crawford one of
Coughlin but earlier you said you were
were sure
sure that
that he
he kicked
kicked the
the window
window you
yousat
sathere
hereas
asa
manwith
withaa.
a man
badge under oath and told this
this court
court that
that you
you knew
knew the
the accused
accused kicked
it's you
YOl
kicked a window and now now it's
believe...
believe
... Might've been his
his head...mighta
head ... mightabeen
beenhis
hisfoot...
foot...."Ijust
don't
know"
...
is
that
true?
."I just don't know"... is that true?
Crawford know it was his
his foot
foot
(5:35:25 p.m.)
... But
Butwhich
which isis itit with
with his
his foot
foot II believe
believe itit was
was his
his foot
foot Earth
Earth said
said ititwas
was his
his
Coughlin now you're sure
sure...
foot
Howard question
Coughlin Which is it?
The window was kicked one time extremely
The second
second time
time
Crawford Let
Let me clarify.
clarify. The
extremely hard.
hard. The
either the back window or the
the far
far passenger-side
passenger-side window
window was
was also
also hit
hitand
andmade
madeaaloud
loudnoise.
noise.
The first time it was either kicked with his foot or the accused's head. There
There was
was aa footprint
footprint on
on
the window;
which window
window was
was hit
hit with
with his
his foot
foot or
or his
his head
headisis unknown.
unknown. ItItwas
was
window; however.
however, which
either one of the other
(5:35:58
GOOD GAWD
GAWD WAS
WAS THAT
THAT A
A SHAKEY
SHAKEYDEPICTION
OF THINGS
THINGS THAT
THAT MIGHT
MIGHT
(5:35:58 p.m.
p.m. GOOD
DEPICTION OF
HA
VE HAPPENED MIXED WITH FACTUAL TIDBITS
HAVE
TIDBITS CONNOTING CERTAINTY, DRESSED
DRESSED
CONJECTURE ....A
A Judge can only jump in with sua
sua sponte
sponte
DOWN BY INCONSISTENCY AND CONJECTURE..
somuch...
much ......and
and that's after Officer Crawford
Crawford says:
says: "Let
"Let
objections to save such
such floundering
floundering witnesses
witnessesso
me clarify
... "? Wow.)
clarify..."?
Coughlin Do
footprint itit could've
could've been.
been.
Do you
you ever have
have anyone
anyone else in the
the car whose
whose footprint
-- 82/94
82/94--

117PETITION
PETITION
1408
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
keep my
my car
car clean.
clean.
Coughlin nope II keep
if you keep your car clean, partner.
partner.IIasked
askedyou
youififyou
youever
everhad
hadanybody
anybody
Coughlin I didn't ask you if
else in
in the
the car...
car ...
objection Your
Your Honor
Honor he
he has
has to
to question
questionand
andthen
thenhe
heanswered
answeredininsaid
saidno
noand
andthen
thenexplained
explained
Roberts objection
sustained
Howard sustained
so you keep
keep your
your car
car clean
clean
Coughlin okay, so
Crawford yes
yes
Crawford
ofthe
the day
day did
did you
you clean
clean your
your Windows
Windowson
onthat
thatday?
day?
Coughlin what time
time of
asked another
another question,
question, that's
that's irrelevant.
irrelevant.
Howard asked
what hour
hour did
did you
you clean
clean your
your car
car on
on that
thatday?
day?
Coughlin okay, what
that depends
depends on
on the
the day
day I work graveyard
Crawford oh that
ask you about
about anything
anything II said
said on
on that
that day
day
Coughlin I didn't ask
day what
what kind
kind II clean
clean my
my window
window
Crawford on that day
Coughlin yet
wasn't my patrol car
car
Crawford it wasn't
so you keep
keep your
your car
car clean
clean but
but this
this wasn't
wasn't your
yourpatrol
patrolcar
carso
soIIguess
guesswhen
whenyou
yousay
say
Coughlin go well so
car it's
it's kind
kind of
ofaa non
non sequitur
sequitur because
because we
we weren't
weren'tdealing
dealingwith
withyour
yourcar
carhere
here
something about your car
footprint could've
could've been
been from
from somebody
somebody else
elsegiven
giventhat
thatititwasn't
wasn'tyour
yourcar
carand
andwho
who
were we so the footprint
person whose
whose car
car itit was
was keeps
keeps there's
there's clean?
clean?
knows whether or not the person
I'm objecting
objecting
Roberts Your Honor is there question there? I'm
You are
are running
running out
out of
oftime
time use
use your
yourtime
time wisely
wiselygo
goahead
aheadask
askanother
another
Howard ask a question You
question.
Coughlin you said I had to be the key is footprint because you keep
keep your
your car
car clean
clean correct
correct
Crawford yes
Coughlin then you said it wasn't your car
car
Crawford you said it was my car,
no .....your
your testimony was the car that
that was
was used
used for
for the
thearrest
arrestwas
wasnot
notyour
yourcar
car
Coughlin No, no, no...
correct?
Crawford yes
Coughlin so than how would you know whether
whether or
or not
not the
the footprint
footprint on
on the
the window
windowwas
wasthe
the
accused's?
Crawford it had to of
of been yours
Coughlin On what basis do you say it had to of
of been the
the accused?
accused?
Crawford Because I don't remember somebody
somebody else kicking
kicking that
that car
car window
window within
within the
the time
time the
the
accused was arrested>
ofthe
the
Coughlin Okay,
window for
for footprints
footprints when
when you
you took
tookpossession
possessionof
Okay, but did you inspect the car window
car that
that day?
Crawford No.
Coughlin So how can you be sure that there wasn't
wasn't aa footprint
footprint on
on the
the car
car window
windowalready?
already?
Crawford II guess
I'm
not.
guess
(5:38:09
(5:38:09 p.m.)
Coughlin
of been
been mine
mine right?
right?
Coughlin yeah
yeah but you just
just said you were and that it had to of
Crawford
Crawford you
you kicked it
didn't even
even seem
seem to
to sure
sure of
ofthat?
that?
Coughlin
Coughlin was
was it a head butt or a kick, Sir, because you didn't
Crawford
rear window....
window ....
Crawford itit was
was aa kick
kick to
to the
the driver
driver side
side passenger
passenger or
or rear
(5:38:25
(5:38:25 p.m.)
-- 83/94
83/94--
MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR LEAVE
LEAVE TO
TO FILE
FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION
OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR
SCR 117
117 PETITION
PETITION
1409
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin
Coughlin so
so it's a kick now, and not a head butt?
Crawford possibly ahead but to the passenger side
side rear win in
in our
our windows
windows are
are tinted
tinted you
you can't
can'tsee
see
very well
Coughlin okay did you take any photographs of
of this phone footprint
footprint
ofproperty
property
Crawford neurosurgeon were not church registration property
property nor
nor did
did any
any destruction
destruction of
that's when the photographs were taken
of this
Coughlin okay seven session the relevancy of
you will
willyou're
you'rebeating
beatingaa
Howard I don't find it relevant debated
debated dead
dead horse
horse go
go ahead
ahead and
and write
write ififyou
dead
horse
go
and
ride
it
but
you
have
a
limited
amount
of
time
that
cut
you
off
so
that
once
again
dead
limited amount of time that cut you off so that once again
so you go
go ahead
ahead'
repetitive questions nonrelevant questions so
Coughlin surgeon you make statements the a in
in Fiji and
and consents
consents to
to the
the search
search that
that he
he would
wouldbe
be
arrested
Crawford Yes, sir.
Coughlin you are under
under Oath,
Oath, Sir.
Sir.
Howard you have asked and he answered
answered the
the question
question ask
ask another
another one
one
Coughlin did you make any statements to the accused
accused that
that there
there was
was some
some scenario
scenario under
underwhich
whichhe
he
would not be arrested
Crawford I did I advised him that he can have
have a citation
citation instead
instead of
ofbeing
being arrested
arrested IIthink
thinkthat
thatisiswhat
what
you are asking..
asking ....so
so yes.
Coughlin so what were the conditions for that?
have proper
proper contact
contact information
information
Crawford I just
just need your personal
personal information
information so
so the
the court would
would have
and date of birth
birth and
and stuff
stuffto
to get
get ahold
ahold of
ofyou.
you.
5:40:16 p.m.
.m. So,
So here,
here Officer
OfficerCrawford
Crawfordtestifies
testifiesthat
thatCoughlin
Cou hlinfailed
failedtotoprovide
rovidehis
hisdate
dateofofbirth
birthand
and
(5:40:16
the citation was not possible however
however the
the interrogation
interrogation videos
videos clearly
clearly show
showCoughlin
Coughlinproviding
providinghis
his
to Officer
Officer Crawford,
Crawford and
and all
all drivers
drivers license
licensehave
havethe
thedrivers
driversdate
dateofofbirth
birthlisted
listed
Nevada drivers license
license to
clean l on
of
clearly
onthem
themand
and the
the arrest
arrest resort
report filled out by
OfficerCrawford
Crawford clear!
clearlylists
lists,Coulhlin's
Coughlin'sdate
dateof
b Officer
birth, just as it is listed on Coughlin's driver's license.
Further,Crawford
CrawfordArrest
ArrestReport
Reportand
and
license. Further,
of Probable Cause
Cause clearly
clearly have
have cribbed
cribbed other
other information
information from
from Coughlin's
Coughlin'sdriver's
driver's
Declaration of
license, such as hair and eye color, height,
height. and
and weight.)
Coughlin's you're saying that the accused
accused did
did not
not provide
provide that
that information?
information?
Crawford yes II am saying that.
Coughlin so how did you get the
the accused
accused name?
name?
Vh ... you gave
gave it,
it, Sir.
Sir.
Crawford Uh...
(5:40:20 p.m. Here, Officer

Officer Crawford
Crawford continues
continues his
his astounding
astounding streak
streakof
ofcontradicting
contradictinghimself
himselfand
and
one sentence
sentence to
to the
the next
next by
by indicating
indicating that
thatthe
the "accused
"accuseddid
didnot
notprovide
providethat
that
his stated certainty from one
one sentence
sentence later,
later, admit
admit that
that Officer
OfficerCrawford
Crawfordgot
gotCoughli's
Coughli'sname
namefrom
from
information" only to then, one
What isis the
the obvious
obvious subtext
subtext here
here isis that
that Wal-Mart's
Wal-Mart's Frontin
Frontin isis using
using 'cooperate"
'cooperate"
Coughlin himself.
himself. What
"non-compliant" in
in much
much the
the same
same way
waythat
thatthese
thesetwo
twoTribabl
TribablPolice
PoliceOfficers
Officersare
areusing
using"provide
"provide
and "non-compliant"
"confessyour
yourguilt,
guilt,or
orwe
wewill
willhave
haveyou
youarrested
arrestedand
andsearch".
search".
for aa citation"...ie,
citation" .. .ie, "confess
your information for
to be
be cooperative,
cooperative, compliant,
compliant, and
and to
to be
besaid
saidto
tohave
haveprovided
providedthe
the
guilt to
One must confess their guilt
issue a citation, period. Frontino
Frontinocould
couldbe
beseen
seenthrowing
throwingbuzz
buzzwords
wordsand
and
"information" necessary to issue
coached/crafted phrases
phrases around
around earlier
earlier in
in his
his testimony
testimony when
whenhe
hetook
tookcare
caretotopoint
pointout
outthat
thatitit
carefully coached/crafted
shoplifter to "maintain their innocence".
innocence". Well,
Well,good.
good.Well
Wellgood)
good)
is "acceptable" for the accused shoplifter
Coughlin did Mr. Frontino tell
tell you
you the
the accused
accused name
name
- 84/94
1410
2
3
4
5
6
Crawford he might have, yeah, II don't

don't recall
recall really,
really, but
but he
he might
might of,
of, yeah,
yeah, ififhe
alreadyhad
haditit
he already
(5:40:25 p.m.)
Coughlin do you recall whether
whether he
he had
had aa name
name that
that was
was the
the excuse
excuse
Crawford Jennifer
Jennifer Corbett
Corbett
Coughlin Junior: and Mr. friend
friend tonight
tonight in
in aa paper
paper brought
brought his
his desk
desk
Crawford yes he did have stuff
stuffon
on paper
paper
Coughlin what was said
just his
his notes
notes on
on times
times and
and things
things like
like that
thatand
andaacopy
copyof
ofthe
thereceipt
receiptofofwhat
what
Crawford I think it was just
potentially took
took but
but of
ofnow
now I'm
I'm not
not too
too sure
sure
the accused had potentially
Coughlin today included in
in personally
personally identifiable
identifiable information
information like
like the
the accused's
accused'sname?
name?
7
8
NOTE: the Trial in

in 11
11 CR
CR 22176
22176 in
in RMC
RMC goes
goes on
on for
for about
about22more
morehours,
hours,though
thoughthey
theyare
are
of substantive content,
content, mostly
mostly just
just Officer
Officer Braunworth
Braunworth struggling
strugglingto
toremember
remember
largely devoid of
anything about anything
anything that
that every
everyhappened
happenedever.
ever.
10
11
With respect to the upcoming criminal

criminal trespass matter
matter and
and some
some other
othermatters
mattersbrought
broughtup
upinin
12
the SCR 117

117 Petition (which,
(which, would
would seem
seem to
to of
ofhad
had aa highly
highly prejudicial
prejudicialpall
pallcast
castover
overthe
theinstant
instantSCR
SCR
13
111
year by
by Nevada
Nevada Court
Court Services,
Services, which
whichmay
may
111 Petition).
Petition). Coughlin has repeatedly been harassed this year
14
of law in the eviction services context.

NCS lists
lists Lew
LewTaitel
Taitel
be committing the unauthorized practice of
context. NCS
15
16
as its "Staff
business organization.
organization. Incidentally,
Incidentally,
"Staff Attorney" and indicates he is "associated with" their business
17
Mr. Taitel is also employed by

by the
the Reno
Reno Municipal
Municipal Court
Court as
as an
an in
in house
housepublic
publicdefender..
defender ....which
which is
is
18
interesting because he was appointed to

to represent
represent Zach
Zach Coughlin,
Coughlin, Esq.
Esq. (recently
(recentlysuspended
suspendedfrom
fromthe
the
19
of law and
and the subject
subject of
ofan
an SCR
SCR 117
117 Petition
Petition instigated
instigatedby
byBar
BarCounsel
CounselPatrick
PatrickKing
Kingand
and
practice of
20
Richard G. Hill, Esq (King

(King and
and Hill
Hill were
were opposing
opposing counsel
counsel together
togetheron
onaarecent
recenthigh
highprofile
profilecase,
case,
21
Milsner v Carstarphen, aa published

published decision
decision of
ofthe
the N.
N. S.
S. Ct.).
Ct.). Hill's
Hill'spractice
practicefocuses
focuseson
oncollections
collections
22
23
law, similar to Taitels. King has steadfastly

steadfastly refused
refused to
to provide
provide Coughlin
Coughlinan
anopportunity
opportunitytotoeven
evenview
view
24
copy) of
ofthe
the voluminous
voluminous materials
materials provided
providedto
toKing
Kingby
byJudge
JudgeDorothy
Dorothy
or review (much less obtain aa copy)
25
Nash Holmes (whom

(whom apparently
apparently gave
gave Bar
BarCounsel
Counsel King
KingLinda
LindaGardners
GardnersOrder
Orderafter,
after,by
byhis
hisown
own
26
admission, Judge William

William Gardner
Gardner got
got the
the Order
Order form
form his
his sister
sisterLinda
Lindaand
andgave
gaveitittotoJudge
JudgeNash
Nash
27
was
Holmes. Hon. William
William Gardner
Gardner informed
informed Coughlin
Coughlin in
inApril
Aprilthat
thathe
he"couldn't
"couldn'tremember"
remember"ififhe
he was
28
-- 85/94
85/94--
1411
of Judge Nash
Nash Holmes
Holmes letter
letter to
to the
the State
State Bar
Barof
ofNevada
Nevadaconcerning
concerningCoughlin.
Coughlin.Judge
JudgeNash
Nash
aware of
sentenced Coughlin
Coughlin to
to 55 days
days in
in jail
jail for
for summary
summarycontempt.
contempt.Coughlin
Coughlinwas
wasnever
neverprovided
providedaa
Holmes sentenced
of the Order Judge

Judge Nash
Nash Holmes
Holmes allegedly
allegedly issued
issued on
onon
onMarch
March28th,
28th,2012,
2012,until
untilCoughlin
Coughlinfound
found
copy of
4
5
SCR 117
117 Petition.
Petition. Judge
Judge Nash
Nash Holmes
Holmes allegedly
allegedly delayed
delayedthe
thestart
startof
ofCoughlin's
Coughlin'straffic
traffic
it attached to a SCR
in 11
11 TR
TR 26800
26800 to
to meet
meet and
and confer
conferwith
with Biray
BirayDogan
Doganof
ofthe
theWashoe
WashoeCounty
CountyPublic
Public
ticket Trial in
and Zach
Zach Young,
Young, Esq.
Esq. of
ofthe
the Washoe
Washoe County
CountyDistrict
DistrictAttorney's
Attorney'sOffice
OfficeHill
Hillsigned
signed
Defender's Office and
criminal trespass
trespass and
and had
had Coughlin
Coughlin arrested
arrestedatatCoughlin's
Coughlin'sformer
formerlaw
lawoffice
office
a criminal complaint for criminal
subject to
to aa wrongful
wrongful summary
summary eviction
evictionfrom
from aacommercial
commercialtenancy,
tenancy,
(from which Coughlin was subject
10
arrest and
and conviction
conviction for
for petit
petit larceny
larcenyof
ofaacandy
candybar
barfrom
fromaaWalWalinstituted just prior to Coughlin's arrest
11
12
picked up
up by
by the
the associated
associated press
press and
and has
has run
runin
innewspapers
newspapersas
asfar
faraway
awayasas
Mart, a story which was picked
13
Baker tried
tried to
to steal
steal the
the "rent
"rent escrow"
escrow" of
of$2,275
$2,275which
whichJudge
JudgeSferrazza
Sferrazza
Indiana. Hill and his associate Baker
14
forced Coughlin to deposit in

in a summary
summary eviction
eviction proceeding,
proceeding, in
in direct
direct contravention
contraventiontotoNRS
NRS
15
illegal under
under Nevada
Nevada law,
law, in
in that
thatJCRCP
JCRCP 84
84 requires
requiresthe
theReno
RenoJustice
JusticeCourt
Courttoto
40.253(6), and totally illegal
16
publish and get the Nevada Supreme

Supreme Court
Court to
to sign
sign off
offon
on such
such aarent
rentescrow
escrowininsummary
summaryeviction
evictionrule
rule
17
18
V 44 prior to contravening
contravening the
the express
express dictates
dictates of
ofaa statutory
statutoryscheme
schemelike
likethat
thatfound
foundininNRS
NRS
like JCRL
JCRLV
19
ofrent
rent was
was not
not alleged
alleged and
and the
the only
onlyNotice
Notice served
servedwas
wasaaNo
NoCause
Cause
40.253. where the nonpayment of
20
Eviction notice, see NRS 40.253).
21
Anyways, Coughlin has an upcoming criminal

criminal trespass
trespass trial
trial in
in Reno
Reno Municipal
MunicipalCourt
Courtinincase
case
22
RMC 11
11 CR 26405, to be presided over
over by
by Judge
Judge William
William Gardner,
Gardner, whose
whose sister
sisterisisJudge
JudgeLinda
Linda
23
24
Gardner, with whose April 2009 Order

Order for Sanctions
Sanctions under
under NRS
NRS 7.085
7.085 Patrick
PatrickKing
Kinghas
hasonly
onlyjust
just
25
recently use to form the basis of

of aa grievance
grievance against
against Coughlin,
Coughlin, though
thoughKing
Kingrefuses
refusesto
todivulge
divulgewho
who
26
submitted or filed or why such an old Order

Order for Sanctions,
Sanctions, received
received by
by the
the Bar
Baron
onMarch
March15th,
15th,2012.
2012.
27
Further, Judge William Gardner refuses to recuse

recuse himself
himselffrom
from Coughlin's
Coughlin'sCriminal
Criminaltrespass
trespass
28
-- 86/94
86/94--

THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1412
trial, set for June 18th,

18th, 2012,
2012, (and
(and the
the spectre
spectre of
ofJudge
Judge Gardner
Gardnersentencing
sentencingCoughlin
Coughlintotoan
anextended
extended
incarceration is somewhat necessitating

necessitating this
this filing,
filing, which
which isis not
not as
as polished
polishedas
asititwould
wouldbe
beotherwise)
otherwise)
even though he has a familial relation

relation with
with Judge
Judge Linda
Linda Gardner,
Gardner, whom
whomCoughlin
Coughlinfiled
filedaaMandamus
Mandamus
4
5
action against in response to the April

April 2009
2009 sanctions
sanctions by
by Judge
Judge Linda
LindaGardner
Gardneragainst
againstCoughlin.
Coughlin.
Further, Judge William Gardner

Gardner worked
worked for
for the
the City
City of
ofReno
Reno as
as aaprosecutor
prosecutoras
asrecently
recentlyasastwo
twoyears
years
ago and Coughlin has aa pending

pending litigation,
litigation, anticipated
anticipated future
future litigation,
litigation, and
andor
oraapast
pastmatter
matterwherein
wherein
the City of
of Reno and the
the City
City Attorney's
Attorney's office
office are
are arguably
arguablyparties
partiesthereto:
thereto:
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck..JJublic_qry_doct.cp_
dktrpt_ frames?backto=P&case jd=CVllhttp ://wwvv.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_idCV11-
10
03126&begin
date=&end_ date=
03126&begin_date=&end_date=
11
12
CV11-03126 - ZACH COUGHLIN

COUGHLIN VS.
VS. MATT
MATT MERLISS,
MERLISS, M.D.
M.D. et
etal.
al.
13
Filing Date: Wednesday, October

October 26th,
26th, 2011
2011 Type:
Type: GC
GC -- GENERAL
GENERALCIVIL
CIVIL
14
But, certainly, the Reno Justice Court

Court is
is listed
listed as
as aa party,
party, and
and Nevada
NevadaCourt
CourtServices
Servicesisislisted
listed
15
16
17
as a party, and Lew Taitel is

is listed
listed as
as Nevada
Nevada Court
Court Services's
Services's "Staff
"StaffAttorney"
Attorney" and
and"associated
"associatedwith"
with"
their company, shares
shares aa fax
fax line,
line, apparently
apparently aa receptionist,
receptionist, and
andan
anaddress
addressand
andoffice
officespace.
space.When
When
18
Coughlin was arrested for jaywalking

jaywalking while
while peacefully
peacefully filming
filming Richard
RichardG.
G. Hill,
Hill,Esq.'s
Esq.'scontractor's
contractor's
19
20
21
the owner
owner of
ofNCS,
JeffChandler,
Chandler, drove
droveover
overtotothe
thesite
siteofofthe
the
crew throwing away his heirlooms, the
NCS, Jeff
arrest and watched
watched
22
23
Moet Further, and Judge William

William Gardner
Gardner is
is aware
aware of
ofthis
this an
an has
has failed
failedto
totake
takeany
anyaction,
action,the
the
the and
RMC public defender appointed to Coughlin,

Coughlin, Lew
Lew Taitel,
Taitel, Esq.,
Esq., received
receivedCoughlin's
Coughlin's
24
listed as
as Coughlin's
Coughlin's attorney
attorney of
ofrecord,
record, only
onlyto
tomysteriously
mysteriouslyhave
have
confidential discovery and was listed
25
26
Roberto Puentes, Esq., substituted

substituted in
in as
as counsel
counsel (until
(until Judge
Judge Gardner
Gardnergranted
grantedhis
hiswithdrawal
withdrawalbecause
because
27
the case was "hard"),

"hard"), and
and despite
despite the
the fact
fact that
that Taitel
Taitel violated
violatedRMC
RMCRule
Rule55when
whenhe
hefailed
failedtotofile
fileaa
28
motion in writing requesting

requesting his
his withdrawal
withdrawal as
as attorney
attorney of
ofrecord.
record.
- 87/94
87/94--

117 PETITION
1413
Judge Nash Holmes has recently copied

copied and
and pasted
pasted pretty
pretty much
much the
the entire
entirecontents
contentsof
ofthe
the
of Professional Conduct
Conduct into
into an
an Order
Order in
in 11
11 TR
TR 26800
26800 (a
(a traffic citationtrial)
Rules of
citationtrial) wherein she
alleges she has found Coughlin in

in "criminal
"criminal contempt",
contempt", and
and stopped
stopped the
the proceeding
proceedingpending
pendingher
her
4
4
sending the State Bar of

of Nevada boxes of
ofmaterials
materials she
she feels
feels indicate
indicate Coughlin's
Coughlin's"decompensating",
"decompensating",
materials that included filings from

from the
the criminal
criminal trespass
trespass matter
matter Judge
Judge William
WilliamGardner
Gardnerisispresiding
presiding
Richard Hill
Hill signed
signed the
the criminal
criminal complaint,
complaint, 11
11 CR
CR26405.
26405.Again,
Again,
over involving Coughlin, wherein Richard
Judge William Gardner "couldn't

"couldn't remember"
remember" ififhe
knew anything
anything about
abouthis
his RMC
RMCco-judge
co-judgeJudge
Judge
he knew
Nash Holmes, sending

sending anything
anything to
to or
or communicating
communicating with
with the
the State
StateBar
Barof
ofNevada
Nevadaabout
aboutCoughlin's
Coughlin's
10
Judge Nash
NashHolmes
Holmes did
did scream
scream at
at Coughlin
Coughlin in
in open
open court
courtthat
that she
she would
would
alleged "decompensating". Judge
11
12
have Coughlin arrested if

ifhe
said Richard
Richard G.
G. Hill,
Hill, Esq.'s
Esq.'s name
name one
one more
more time,
time, despite
despitethe
thefact
factthat
thatthe
the
he said
13
issue of RPD Sargent Tarter retaliating against

against Coughlin
Coughlin for
for Coughlin
Coughlin pointing
pointingout
outto
to him
himthat
thatjust
just
14
days before an Reno Police Department

Department Officer
Officer Chris
Chris Carter
Carter had,
had, perhaps
perhapsin
injest,
jest,indicated
indicatedthat
thathe
he
15
takes bribes from Richard G.

G. Hill,
Hill, Esq.
Esq. in
in exchange
exchange for
for "doing
"doing what
whatRichard
RichardHills
Hillssays
saystotodo
doand
and
16
arresting who he says to arrest". Judge

Judge Nash
Nash Holmes
Holmes exclaimed,
exclaimed, on
onthe
therecord,
record, inin11
11 TR
TR26800,
26800,that
that
17
18
she doesn't "care about retaliation, or

or bribery,
bribery, or
or police
police misconduct"
misconduct" (the
(the RMC
RMC has
hasrefused
refusedtotoprovide
provide
19
a copy of the audio of

of that Trial to Coughlin
Coughlin despite
despite at
at least
least 33 written
written request
requestand
andattempts
attemptstotopay
pay
20
being made by Coughlin and the State

State Bar
Bar of
ofNevada
Nevada Bar
Bar Counsel
Counsel Patrick
PatrickKing,
King,whom
whomwas
wasproviding
providing
21
a copy of
of that audio, has similarly rebuffed
rebuffed Coughlin's
Coughlin's requests
requests to
to even
even review,
review, much
muchless,
less,copy
copythe
the
22
audio of that Trial, which is

is a "public
"public record".
record".
23
24
25
26
Incidentally, at that Trial, Judge Nash Holmes suddenly

suddenly demanded
demanded of
ofCoughlin,
Coughlin,following
followingaa
restroom brake wherein she refused
refused to
to allow
allow Coughlin
Coughlin to
to take
take his
his yellow
yellowlegal
legalpad
padwith
withhim
himtotothe
the
restroom, as to whether Coughlin
Coughlin has
has aa "recording
"recording device"
device" and
andwhether
whetherhe
hewas
was"recording"
"recording"atatthat
that
27
time. Pretty much immediately thereafter

thereafter Judge
Judge Nash
Nash Holmes,
Holmes, in
inperhaps
perhapsaapretextual
pretextualeffort
efforttotoeffect
effect
28
-- 88/94
88/94--
1414
a search incident to arrest and allow

allow herself
herselfto
to be
be absolutely
absolutely sure
sure of
ofall
all that
thatwas
wason
onCoughlin's
Coughlin'sperson
person
and whether it may have included a recording

recording device
device that
that was
was recording
recordingatatthat
thattime,
time,decided
decidedthat
that
contempt in
in her
her presence,
presence, and
and sentenced
sentencedhim
himto
to55days
daysininjail,
jail,
Coughlin had committed summary contempt
4
beginning right then, and denied aa stay.

stay. Judge
Judge Nash
Nash Holmes
Holmes also
also kept
keptaa$100
$100bond
bondfrom
fromCoughlin's
Coughlin's
5
mother despite the fact that

that the Washoe
Washoe County
County Jail
Jail did
did not
not release
release Coughlin
Coughlinprior
priorto
tothe
theexpiration
expirationof0
the 5 days.
8
8
RMC Marshall Scott Coppa,

Coppa, whom
whom was
was in
in the
the party
party transporting
transporting Coughlin
Coughlinto
to Washoe
WashoeCounty
County
9
10
Jail with the smart phone and micro sd

sd card
card that
that seemed
seemed to
to disappear
disappearfor
for quite
quiteaawhile
whileand
andtravel
travelback
back
11
and forth between the jail, the RMC, and,

and, perhaps
perhaps the
the WCDA,
WCDA, and
and maybe
maybe some
someothers
othersplaces,
places,only
onlytoto
12
fmally make its way back to Coughlin

Coughlin some
some 37
37 days
days later
later with
with all
all the
the data
datawiped...that
wiped ... thatMarshal
Marshal
finally
13
of Nevada
Nevada aa letter
letter complaining
complaining that
that Coughlin
Coughlin wanted
wantedto
tosee
seethe
thedocket
docketininaa
Coppa, sent the State Bar of
14
RMC case and that Coughlin

Coughlin was
was "asking
"asking questions"
questions" and
and stuff
stuffand
andjust,
just, generally,
generally,not
notgetting
gettingthe
the
15
whole police state thing Marshall Coppa

Coppa and
and Harley,
Harley, et
etal,
aI, like
like to
to get
geton
onwith
withdown
downthere
thereatatthe
theRMC.
RMC.
16
17
18
Coughlin,'s Public Defender, Biray Dogan, Esq., and

and his
his boss,
boss, Jeremy
Jeremy Bosler
Boslerand
andJim
JimLeslie,
Leslie,
to Coughlin's
Coughlin's inquiries
inquiries as
as to
to why
why and
andwhether
whetherDogan
Doganmet
metwith
withReno
Reno
have refused to respond to
19
Municipal Court Judge Dorothy

Dorothy Nash
Nash Holmes
Holmes (whose
(whose staff
staffcould
could not
notlocate
locateher
herfor
foraagood
good40
40minutes
minutes
20
21
Sargent John
John Tarter
Tarter waited
waited for
for the
the 1:00pm
1:OOpmTrial
Trialto
tostart
startinin11
11TR
TR26800,
26800,
while Coughlin and RPD Sargent
22
issued Coughlin
Coughlin three
three traffic
traffic tickets
tickets immediately
immediatelyafter
aftertelling
tellingCoughlin
Coughlintotoleave
leave
wherein Tarter had issued
23
Richard G. Hill's office,

office, where
where Hill
Hill was
was withholding
withholding Coughlin's
Coughlin'sstate
stateissued
issuedidentification
identification(driver's
(driver'S
24
license) and Coughlin's wallett and

and client's
client's files,
files, as
as well
well has
has computer
computerhard
harddrives
drives(at
(atleast
onehard
hard
least one
25
drive was accessed during the 66 weeks itit and

and Coughlin's
Coughlin's client's
client's files
files remained
remainedininHill's
Hill'spossession
possession
26
so, despite
despite the
the dictate
dictate of
ofaa hearing
hearingwithin
within10
10days
daysof
of
(Hill had to go on vacation for 66 weeks, so,
27
28
16th, 2011
2011 filing
filing of
ofaa Motion
Motion to
to Contest
Contest Personal
PersonalProperty
PropertyLien
Lienunder
underNRS
NRS
Coughlin's November 16th,
-- 89/94
89/94--
1415

11
22
hearing was
was not
not held
held until
until December
December20th,
20th, 2011,
2011,atatwhich
whichtime
timeJudge
JudgeSferrazza
Sferrazzamade
made
40.253(7)-(8), aa hearing
"storage fees"
fees" of
ofhis
his personal
personal property,
property, despite
despitethe
thefact
factthat
thatits
itswas
wasonly
onlystored
stored
Coughlin pay $480 for "storage
17 days and would fit

fit in
in aa 10
lOx
30 storage
storage shed
shed that
that would
would normally
normallycost
costabout
about($100
($100per
permonth)
month)
for 17
x 30
44
admitted that
that the
the site
site of
ofCoughlin's
Coughlin's former
former law
lawoffice
officewas
wasburglarized
burglarizedon
on
and despite Hill having admitted
12th, 2012, and

and that
that Hill
Hill was
was not
not sure
sure what
what you
you like
like this
thisgirl
girlhot
hotall
allwas
wasstolen,
stolen,except
exceptthat
that
December 12th,
62 inch
inch DLP
DLP HDTV
HDTV was
was missing
missing as
as well
well as
as some
someother
otherflat
flatscreens,
screens,high
highend
endaudio
audio
he did notice the 62
88
law office
office looked
looked completely
completely torn
tom asunder.
asunder.
equipment, and that the law
With Coughlin's conviction by

by Judges
Judges Gardner
Gardner and
and Nash
Nash Holmes'
Holmes' Reno
Reno Municipal
MunicipalCourt
Courtcoco-
10
Judge Kenneth
Kenneth Howard
Howard (whom
(whomalso
also sentenced
sentencedCoughlin
Coughlintoto33days
daysininjail
jailfor
for"summary
"summary
judge, Judge
11
12
unlike Judge
Judge Nash
Nash Holmes,
Holmes, not
not contempt
contemptof
ofaa"criminal"
"criminal"nature)
nature)inin
contempt, though apparently, unlike
13
11 CR 22176, the incident

incident to
to the
the Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart "candy
"candy bar
barand
and cough
coughdrops"
drops"petit
petitlarceny
larcenymatter
matter
RMC 11
l4
14
for which Coughlin was convicted and

and had
had his
his law
law license
license suspend
suspend recently,
recently, making
makingititinto
intoaastory
storyby
by
15
the Associate Press (AP), published in

in locales
locales as
as far
far away
away as
as Indiana,
Indiana, ititwill
willbe
beinteresting
interestingto
tosee
see
16
whether any of
of the above
above makes
makes aa candy
candy bar
bar look
look aa little
little de minimis.
17
18
19
20
Finally, the undersigned acknowledges

acknowledges that
that this
this submission
submission isis rather
ratherlengthy,
lengthy,however,
however,the
the
undersigned's and
and his
his family's
family's lives
lives were
were negatively
negatively affected
affected in
in the
the extreme
extreme back
back in
in 2002
2002 when
when he
he
took the "advice" of
of the
the Character
Character and
and Fitness
Fitness Committee
Committeeand
andwent
wentwith
with"one
"one.ofofthe
thethree
threepro
probono
bono
21
attorney's we will provide you the names of..."

of..." (only
(only one
one name
name was
was provided,
provided,ititcost
cost$5,000,
$5,000,there
there
22
23
exists a transcript of
of the hearing he attended
attended wherein
wherein he
he mentions
mentions that
that his
his representation
representationwas
waspro
pro
24
bono, then fails to clarify that

that he was actually
actually getting
getting paid
paid $5,000,
$5,000, and
and thereafter
thereafterpassed
passedoff
offthe
thecase
case
25
to
promptly languished
languished until,
until, allegedly,
allegedly, this
this Court
Courtdecided
decidedtoto
to his first year associate, whereupon itit promptly
26
grant Coughlin a license in September of

of2004
(as the
the recent
recent SCR
SCR 117
117 Petition
Petitionstates),
states),however,
however,due
due
2004 (as
27
to that attorney's negligent representation, an

an angry
angry sounding
sounding letter
letter from
from the
the Chairman
Chairmanof
ofthe
the
28
-- 90/94
90/94-THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1416
committee in
in January
January 2003
2003 essentially
essentiallytelling
tellingCoughlin
Coughlintotoquit
quitbeing
beingaasqueaky
squeaky
Character and Fitness committee
and perhaps
perhaps another
another instance
instance of
ofthe
theDirector
Directorof
ofAdmissions
Admissionsdeciding
decidingnot
nottotoforward
forwardon
onsome
some
wheel, and
provided her
her to
to this
this Court
Courtfor
for review
review(as
(as she
shedid
didatatthe
theend
endofofthis
thisCourt's
Court'sdeferment
deferment
key document provided
4
5
period in
in September
September 2003
2003 in
in connection
connection with
withCoughlin's
Coughlin'sapplication
applicationfor
foraalicense
licensetotopractice
practice
law ... ) ....so

so the
herein in
in an
aneffort
efforttotodemonstrate
demonstratehis
hiscompetence
competenceasas
law...)..
the undersigned
undersigned submits the materials herein
extreme desire
desire to
to remain
remain aa licensed
licensed member
memberof
ofthe
theState
StateBar
BarofofNevada,
Nevada,and
andtoto
a professional, and extreme
temporary suspension
suspension set
set aside.
aside.
have the temporary
CONCLUSION
10
11
12
Court, respectfully,
respectfully, to
to consider
considersetting
settingaside
asideits
itstemporary
temporary
The undersigned asks this Court,
of his
his law
lawlicense
license and
andto
to allow
allow the
the undersigned
undersigned additional
additional time
time to
to supplement
supplementthis
this
suspension of
13
edit and
and proof
proofread
read it,
it, and
and respectfully
respectfully apologizes
apologizesfor
forthe
therough
roughdraft
draftquality
quality
Opposition and heavily edit
14
15
exigencies present
present requiring
requiring that
thatititbe
besubmitted
submittedso...
so ...
of this work, but points to the exigencies
16
AFFIRMA
TION Pursuant
Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
239B.030
AFFIRMATION
17
The undersigned does hereby affirm

affirm that
that the
the preceding
preceding document
document does
doesnot
notcontain
containthe
thesocial
socialsecurity
security
18
19
20
of any person.
number of
Respectfully submitted this: June 18th,
18th, 2012,
2012,
/
21
22
/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed electronically

electronically
23
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
24
PO BOX 3961
3961
25
Reno, NV 89505
26
Pro Per Attorney
27
28
-- 91/94
91/94--
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
1417
DEC LARA TION OF ZACH COUGHLIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT

DECLARATION
1. This Declaration is
is made pursuant
pursuant to
to the
the provisions
provisionsof
ofNRS
53.045,IIam
ampresently
presentlyininthe
theState
Stateofof
NRS 53.045,
Nevada and
and II declare
declare under
under penalty
penalty of
ofperjury
perjurythat
thatthe
theforegoing
foregoingisistrue
trueand
andcorrect,
correct,subject
subjecttotothe
the
Nevada
reading, however,
however, the
the exigency
exigencyof
ofthe
the undersigned
undersigned
caveat that this filing needs much more proof
proofreading,
ofhours
hours and
and the
the spectre
spectre of
ofHon.
JudgeLinda
LindaGardner's
Gardner'sbrother
brother
matter of
criminal trespass trial within aa matter
Hon. Judge
William Gardner
Gardner incarcerating
incarcerating the
the undersigned
undersignedatatlength
lengthpresents
presentsaasituation
situationwherein
whereinthis
this
Hon. Judge William
Coughlinwishes
wishesfor
forthis
thisto
toapply
applyto
to the
the SCR
SCR117
117petitoin
petito in as
aswell.
well.
filing is somewhat rushed. Coughlin
3
4
5
6
8
9
in the
the above
above titled
titled action.
action.
2. Declarant is the Attorney in
3. Declarant avers that the

the factual
factual statements
statements set
set for
for above
abovein
inthe
theforegoing
foregoingdocument
documentare,
are,totothe
the
of his knowledge and
and understanding,
understanding, accurate.
accurate.
best of
4. I, Zach Coughlin,
Coughlin, am available
available to
to testify,
testify, ififnecessary,
necessary, as
asto
to these
thesematters.
matters.IIdeclare
declareunder
underpenalty
penalty
foregoing isis true
true and
andcorrect.
correct.
of perjury that the foregoing
D te{fths June 18th,
18th, 2012
pate&thjs
10
11
/s/ Zach pughliri

()U~
12
Zach Coughlin
13
Attorney
Pro Per Attorney
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- 92/94
92/94--
1418
Proof
of Service:
Service:
Proof of
On this date, I, Zach Coughlin electronically

electronically served
served aatrue
true and
andcorrect
correctcopy
copyof
ofthe
theforegoing
foregoing
registered electronic
electronic filers,
filers, and
and to
to those
those whom
whomare
arenot
notIIplaced
placedaatrue
trueand
andcorrect
correctcopy
copy
document to all registered
of the foregoing document in
in the usps
usps mail
mail on
on this
this date:
date:
4
5
Patrick 0.
o. King,
King, Esq.
Esq. Assistant
AssistantBar
BarCounsel
Counsel
9456 Double R. Blvd Suite B
Reno, NV 89521
89521
7
8
10
Susich, Esq.
17.-//J/-
Datedthis
thisJune
June
18th,
Dated
18th,
20 201/ -
-/2----/ - - - - -_
11
12
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin
13
Pro Per Attorney
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 93/94
93/94--

117 PETITION
1419

11
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
22
33
44
1.
1. Exhibit
Exhibit 1:
1: The
The two
two Wal-Mart
Wal-Martreceipts
receiptsfrom
fromSeptember
September9th,
9th, 2011,
2011, one
onefor
for$83.82,
$83.82,representing
representingitems
items
one for
for $14.72,
$14.72, representing
representing items
items allegedly
allegedlyconsumed
consumedwhile
whileshopping
shoppingand
and
selected and paid for and one
ofthe
the exact
exact item
item represented
represented by
bythe
thevarious
variousUniversal
UniversalParcel
ParcelCodes
Codes(UPC)
(UPC)
proofof
not paid for, and proof
the respective
respective receipts;
receipts;four
four(4)
(4)pages.
pages.
indicated on the
5
6
2. Exhibit 2: Discovery
Discoverypropounded
propoundedby
bythe
theCity
Cityof
ofReno
RenoCity
CityAttorney's
Attorney'sOffice
OfficeininRMC
RMC11
11 CR
CR
Officer Crawford's
Crawford's "Arrest
"ArrestReport
Reportand
andDeclaration
DeclarationofofProbable
ProbableCause"
Cause"and
and
22176, including RSIC Officer
Report" and
and Wal-Mart's
Wal-Mart's Thomas
Thomas Frontino's signed,
signed, sworn
sworn Criminal
Criminal Complaint;
Complaint; seven
seven
his "Incident Report"
(7) pages.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- 94/94
94/94--
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

TO FILE THIS
THIS OPPOSITION TO
TO SCR 117 PETITION
1420
EXHIBIT 1I
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT 11
1421
Docket
Document 2012-18963
2012-18963
Docket 60838
60838 Document
nOTE:
NO.:732216300932 APPEARS
APPEARS
ON UPC No.:732216300932
ON THIS RECEIPT FOR $83.82 AS
THIS RECEIPT FOR $83.82 AS WELL
AS
Wirr
-- ON THE NEXT RtCEIPT FOR
$14.72, DESPITE WAL-MART'S FRON____,
AND OFFICER CRAWFORD TESTIFYING
I
0.0.
Walmart
0
Waimart
virair
4TH THAT THAT T.;Save mon.v. LW. better, '
0
11
;11
:
1
,..._
ummomoy
k.
AP
PEARED
aN THE
ON
THE RErpTom
RECEIPT FOR $14.72.
SOPENCENTEN
UNDFP
uNDER
n7NmTT
pc
7
1-
7/21
OPEN 24 NOVAS
8811
NINAIEB
( 775 ) 359 - 0204
$111 2116 8118 18841762 TEl 17 TAI 08288
5.96 0
NED LOAF 807281000281 F
4.74 II
884000826427 F
5.96 8
0872818082N F
NED LSAF
18.54 X
DELSVN 12 NI 036302417565
5.64 I
838431874128
188 LA 28
5.23 X
Ell 60$ BELIE 068113122772
3.68 X
068113129775
El OAS
3.68 1
Et 186
868113129775
873221632853
6.47 X
COLO NE0
7.68 X
OW43011748
80S-I
16.74 I
RAIZ V/NIC 081127501114
DEBIT SNOT 871041030881
2.68 1
79.10
MOIR
4.82
TAX 1 7.725 It
13.82
TOTAL
CABB TEND
188.80
16.18
COANIE DOE
ITEMS SOLD 12
Tee
111111 '11
8378 3288 370! 1931 167
114
"4 1 11
Title to goads or tanoltdo personal Property

parclaiesd herein panes at seller`e plain of
business on Colony trust Ian* at the lime the
mtlier competes the phyelcoi dethiry of such
property, or at a different time If **Daftly
to bowmen WM. and Whir,.
*mad
'Like" Veleert en Wank

mis.feoelmek.aes/esisart
09110111
21;14:48
1422
Sep 10 2011 1024R1 RSIC111tVolice
'en11
IMann
sa
mellINO- 'CO I 24
MI
ging
E
v. m g Mi
"it 4141e t;au II
page ...
4
page
_.
eis
...
<
.-TC {/O
...TC
G.;{
1 /062.7"
;111
"
LIA
a t
ill
'I..
NGTE:
this is
is aa "receipt"
IIreceipt ll for
for the
t.he~~l
egedly stolen
stolen or
or consumed
consumed items
items
NOTE: this
al egedly
prppounded
i ty Attorney
prgpounded in
in discovery
discovery by
by the
the Reno
Reho ity
1423
eWell
Magnum
Information
MagnumIce
IceCream
CreamBar
BarNutrition
Nutrition
InformationII) Well
Scanfoods
foodsto
to get your
111Scan
your nutrition
or in
in the
the store!
store!
nutrition info
info at home or
Get Free iPhone App
App
No
No thanks
thanks III
http://www.shopwell.com/magnum-ice-cream-bar-s-doublehttp://www.shopwell.com/magnum-ice-cream-bar-s-doubleSign In
Sign
caramel/ice-cream-popsicles/p/7756713282
Sign Up
ShopWeli
ShopWell
Browse Foods
Foods
Download iPhone App
NOTE:
for this
this page ends with
NOTE: the URL listed above for
the
this "Magnum
"Magnum Double Caramel
Caramel Ice
Ice Cream
Cream
the UPC of
of this
Baril,
(the "zero"
"zero" at
at the
the start
start of
of that
that
Bar", 7756713282 (the
number on the $14.72 Wal-Mart receipt
receipt is
is
traditionally left off of UPC notations,
notations, as
as here).
here) .
This
item would
would not
not be
be
This frozen or refrigerated item
found
in "the
lithe candy isle"
isle" as Thomas Frontino
Frontino swore
swore
found in
that he "personally
that
IIpersonally eye witnessed"
Coughlin select it from
from "the
lithe candy
candy isle"
isle"
and
and also swore that none of Wal-Mart's
oz
legion
that
legion of
of cameras captured any of that
activity on
on video...
video ...
Magnum Ice
Cream Bar
Bar
Ice Cream
Sf
S, Double Caramel
Caramel 3.38
3.38 oz
Share on email
Tweet
Ingredients:
Ice Cream: Milk,

Milk/ Cream/
Sugar/ Whey,
Whey/ Mono
Mono and
andDiglycerides,
Diglycerides/ Locust
LocustBean
BeanGum,
Gum/Vanilla
Vanilla Bean
BeanSpecks,
Specks/
Cream, Sugar,
Carrageenan/
Natural Flavor,
Flavor/Annatto
AnnattoExtract
Extract(Color),
(Color)/Caramel
CaramelColor,
Color lBelgian
BelgianMilk
Milk Chocolate
Chocolate Coating:
Coating:Sugar,
Sugar/
Carrageenan, Natural
Chocolate Liquor,
Liquor/ Cocoa
Cocoa Butter,
Butter/Milk,
Milk/ Milk
Milk Fat,
Fat/ PGPR
PGPR (Emulsifier),
(Emulsifier)/ Soy Lecithin (Emulsifier),
(Emulsifier)/ Natural
Natural Flavor,
Flavor/
Caramel Sauce: Water,
Water/ Sugar,
Sugar/Corn
CornSyrup,
Syrup/High
HighFructose
FructoseCorn
CornSyrup,
Syrup/Nonfat
Nonfat
MilkSolids,
Solids/Coconut
CoconutOil
Oil
Milk
Modified
Corn
Starch/
Caramel
Color/
Salt/
Mono
&
Diglycerides
(Emulsifier)/
Carrageenan/
Soybean
Oil
Modified Corn Starch,
Color, Salt, Mono & Diglycerides (Emulsifier), Carrageenan, Soybean Oil
Sodium Citrate/
Sorbate (Used
(Used to
toProtect
ProtectQuality),
Quality)/Natural
NaturalFlavor,
Flavor/Chocolatey
Chocolatey Coating:
Coating: Coconut
Coconut
Sodium
Citrate, Potassium Sorbate
Oil/
Cocoa/ Soy
SoyLecithin
Lecithin (Emulsifier),
(Emulsifier)/ Vanilla
Vanilla Extract.
Extract.
Oil, Sugar/
Sugar, Cocoa,
Personalize
Nutrition Label
Label
Personalize this Nutrition
Nutrition
Facts
Nutrition Facts
Serving
Serving Size
Size 1.0
1.0 bar (95 g)
Container 11
Servings Per Container
1424
file:///DI/
... 20ie%20and%20firefox/7756713282%20magnum%2Odouble%20caramel%20single%20ice%20cream%20bar.htm[6/11/20123:07:34
PM]
file:///D)/...20ieW020and%20firefox/7756713282/020magnum%20double%20caramerY020single%20ice/020cream%20bar.htm[6/11/2012
3:07:34 PM]
Duract Max
Max Strength
Strength Cough
Duract
Cough Cherry 8 Hour
Hour 30
30 mg
mg 12Ea
12Ea Buy
Buy 33 and
and Get
GetFree
Free Shipping
Shipping
Professional
AssoCihtiOns
Shipping Policy._
New Search:
IiiiiiiiII
Ili11
V View Shopping Cart
www.AmericanOTC.com >
> Allergy.
Cough. Cold,
Cold. Sore
Sore Throat
Throat && More
More > Duract > Duract Max Strength Cough Cherry
Allergy, Cough,
8 Hour 30
8
30 mg
mg 12Ea
12Ea Buy
Buy 33 and
and Get
Get Free
Free Shipping
Shipping
Duract Max Strength Cough

Cough Cherry 8
30 mg
mg 12Ea
12Ea Buy
Buy 33 and
and Get
Get Free
Free Shipping
Shipping
8 Hour 30
< All
All Items
Items
<
UPC
Allergy
Cough
Allergy,
Cough,
,
_
Cold,,Sore-Throat:&
Cold,
Sore;'throat.'&
"
'Refund Policy,.
More"
'More
Advil Cold
Advil
Cold (2)
Afrin
Afrin (12)
(12)
Airborne
Airborne (8)
(8)
Alavert
Alavert (5)
(5)
Alka-Seltzer
Alka-Seltzer Cold
Cold (1)
(1)
Allegra
Allegra OTC
OTC (s)
(8)
Allerest
AIIerest (1)
(1)
Altamist
Altamist (1)
(1)
Ayr (12)
(12)
Banophen (2)
(2)
Benadryl
Benadryl (19)
(19)
BeraedreX
Benzedrex (1)
(1)
BerIZOden1
Benzodent (2)
(2)
Blairex Saline
Saline
Solution
Solution (3)
(3)
Breathe
Breathe Clear
Clear Nasal
Nasal
Strips (4)
win(4)
Breathe Right
Right (17)
(17)
Brez Nasal
Nasal Strips
Strips (3)
(3)
Broncosan
Broncosan (3)
(3)
Capital
Capital
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceuticals(1)
(1)
Cepacol
Cepacol (22)
(22)
Cepastat
Cepastat (2)
(2)
Cetirizine
Cetirizine(5)
(5)
Cheracol
Cheracol(1)
(1)
Cherry
Cherry Syrup
Syrup(2)
(2)
Chest
Chest Rub
Rub(1)
(1)
Chestal
Chestal (2)
(2)
$8.39
UPC
UPC
Cough 8 Hour
Hour 30
30 mg
mg 12Ea
12Ea
UPCNO.:732216300932
No. :732216300932Mfg.
Mfg.Item
Item NO.:221010
No. :221010 Duract
Duract Max
Max Strength
Strength Cough
Cherry
No :C4394672
:C4394672 Ndc
Ndc 73221630093
73221630093 Generic
Generic Name
Name Dextromethorphan
Dextromethorphan Hbr.As
Hbr.As per
per
Cherry Item No
California's
buy this
this product.
product. This
This Regulation
Regulation of
of
California's Law
Law SB
SB 514
514 (Simitian),
(Sinnitian),you
you must
must be
be over
over 18
18 to buy
Dextromethorphan-Containing
sale of products containing dextromethorphan
dextromethorphan to
to
Dextromethorphan - Containing Products
Products prohibits
prohibits the
the sale
a person
person under
18 in
in an
an over
over-the-counter
Name Duract
Duract Max
Max Strength
Strength Cough
Cough
a
under the
the age
age of 18
- the - counter sale. Trade Name
Additional Description
Description
Have
Question?
Have a question?
Fl
NOTE: THE
THE UPC
UPC IS
IS LISTED
LISTED IMMEDIATELY
IMMEDIATELY BELOW
BELOW AND
AND MATCHES THAT
THAT FOUND
FOUND ON
ON
NOTE:
DESPITE
FOR $14.72
BOTH THE RECEIPT FOR
$14.72 AND
AND THE
THE RECEIPT
RECEIPT FuR $33.8,, DESPITE
THE RSIC
RSIC OFFICER
OFFICER CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD TESTIFYING
TESTIFYING UNDER
UNDER OATH
OATH THAT
THAT THIS
THIS UPC
UPC
FRONTINO AND THE
ONLY APPEARED ON
ON THE
THE RECEIPT
RECEIPT FOR
FOR $14.72
$14.72
1425
file:///DI/downloads%20i0/020and%20firefox/Duract
file:///DI/downloads%20ie%20and%20firefox/Duract%20Max%20Strength%20Cough%20Cherry%208%20Hour%2030%20mg%2012Ea%2OBuy%203%20and%20Get%20Free%20Shipping%20073221630093.htm[6/11/2012
3:07:43PM]
PM]
7020Max%20Strength%20Cough /020Cherry%208 /020Hour%2030%20m0/02012Ea%20Buy%203/020and/020Get%20Free/020Shipping/020073221630093.htm[6/11/2012 3:07:43
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
1426
Document 2012-18963
2012-18963
Docket 60838
60838 Document
MugshotProfile
ProfilePoster
Poster
Mugshot
fb
Page
1
Page1Iofofl
SheriffsOffice
Office
Washoe Count
Count Sheriffs
911 Parr Blvd.,
eno,NV
NV89512
89512
911
Blvd., eno,
Mugsh Profile
Profile
Mugsh
COUGtiUN,ZACHARY
ZACHARY
COUGHLIN,
Nickname:
Nickname;
006:
DOB:
SSN:
SSN:
Booking #:
#:
Booking
lID:
)ID:
MNI:
MNI:
Arrest Date:
Date:
Arrest
Booking Date:
Datel
Booking
Sex:
Sex;
Race:
Race:
Heightr
Height;
Weight:
Weight:
Eve Color:
COlor:
Eye
HairCQlor:
Hair
Color:
HaIr Len(lth:
Hair
Length:
Facial Features:
Facial
Features:
Glasses:
Classes:
0111111111
111
OOI::::::~
I
1111111111111.
11..-s
11=1113
79
''-79
Pc
1~
1,2111211111111
09-09-2011 22:13:00
22:13~OO
09-09-2011
MALE
MALE
WHITfi
WHITE
604
604
220
GREEN
GREEN
BROWN
SHORT ABOVE
ABOVE EAR
SHORT
Marks &
& TattoQs;
Sears
Scars Marks
Tattoos:
Charges:
Charges:
Booking
COUGH UN
Booking Last
Last Name:
Name: COUGHLIN
Booking
First
Name:
ZACHARY
Booking First Name: ZACHARY
Booking Middle Name:
Name: BARKER
BARKER
fiIe:/IC;\PhotoManager\MUGVBPrt.htm
file://CAPhotoManager\MLIGVBPrt.htm
9/9/2011
919/2011
1427
IIGe~~17~
rCiIO(~~7-
OF THE CITY
CITY OF RENO
IN
IN THE
THE MUNICIPAL COU 1T OF
COUNTY OF
OF WASHO
VVASHO ,STATE
, STATE OF NEVADA
.......... ""'"
CITY OF
OF RENO,
CITY
)
)
)
V S.
vs.
Z{AC
ha rtlZ-
',"l''O''''''''''
)
Plaintiff,
CRIMINAL C~~PLAINTf
COMPLAINT s<is~
a,
CRIMINAL
(Petfftn.i~,"fl_.._--,
......
(Petanadriria
(rJv.~(" /l
)
)
Defendant.
Defendant )
Case
Ie .\\k\ ..,.- 0
Case No.
No. IC
DOB:
It.iX1Hi\IGN.'iENT ~
e20 JUDe! ~
l~M~.~;~.
Reno"Sparks
Indian Colony
Colony Tribal
Tribal Police
Reno-Sparks Indian
Police
\0 ~2-:{
--------------------------~)
omplain and
and say that
r, -~~+t-JoC:::.=:..~.t...,WJI+-l-.;...;;..w....--IIr-------- complain
otC..kaf
-~-....::~;;.;.;...t---~~...;..;;.~-___-
has committed
committed the
the crime
crime of
ofPetit
PetitLarceny,
Larceny, .
a violation
ofthe
the Reno
RenoMuntipal
Mun 'palCode,
Code,totowit:
wit:
violation of
ofSection
Section 8.10.040
8.10.040 of
That
or about
That said/Defendant
said Defendant on or
atWalmart
Waimea #2106,
#2106,
20 II ,at
e ~""-"'-'~...............
'iLt 20R.
Nevada,did
did take
take or carry away Walmart
Walmart
2425 E. Second Street, in the City of Reno, 8 eeofofNevada,
tenttotodeprive
deprive Walmart
Said
property. Said
property valued at less than $250.00 with the tent
Waimart said property.
property consisted
consisted of
_ Cot, A A dro <
CAOGOIA
pro~rty
of---.J~Ji!!..IIj...t.!.-~~~f--I-..::;c_A:..::o-=c:;::():.:.;1
fAc..L~...l:h::...t1....:....;;.r
_ _ _ _ __
-1",
!I declare
lawofofthe
theState
StateofofNevada
Nevadapursuant
pursuanttoto
declare under penalty
penalty of perjury
perjuryunder
undertle
t law
NRS 53.045 and NRS 171.102

171.102that
thatthe
the foregoin
forego!n isistrue
trueand
andcorrect.
correct
inant
/Date { lbate
Revised 04/11
1428
Sep
102011
20111024PM
10'.24PM
RSIC*HV"Police 177~,
)1801
Sep 10
RSIC1-1V*Po1ice
177', /1801
page
page 11
ARRESTFIWORT AND
DECLARATION 4F PROBABLE CAUSE
ARRESTING AGENCY
AGKNCV
NEP 0
waD
Nlfl'D
wcsO
ltPD,
,},P
PP0
0
RAD 0
0
DR&
spnOUHl.O
SPD
cAsu
T-5,r85747926 c._
-2
(o (p
~w ________________
IUIlC)ii( .
.AZO
12-4CiC
!NMI
IsItes
on-H
0 Unknown
1 Pcx3 i2 CCI
1CYPATION &
IS ADDRESS
ORIIV UC
X7' Of KIN
ARFI
kRR EST
DATE '11 -a t 1 ( TIME 1 -S
>FFE
D,
NRS/ORD
iVerb (10
LoGAT)O/4 -Zf
1 2.1 L. 1-1. 2Zi

BAIL WARRANT I & DA
HOC
(e.---,v(n>, A
2/k, _sr; Za-Q4 .A
111A0
CHARGE
F.Fo4ony.G.-0rOss MId
P'erX:r Lerrttem -i
(" 4"16.10/ -I 3(P D *-
WRWTIN
AN
PRIVA
THE
ThG unclorilood
Odom tmder pea*
pemonally or upon Information
) AJ Ili if/
UM Moe teamed the telklett
4 AD 07.-
21.2
A.)0, kit/
(8792
To
?"47---1::7-
o 7EG7r1,f_,
WtteflEFORE, 0Gdatant re</uel.lt,4 that a flndlng be M$CII! by a rnagIstra\e thai

felony or gross mlademellnOf) 01' for trial (If ctuu'ge is a misdemeanor).
Page
of,
Act-
.........,.'.4'" prelIminary hellrlng (if charge isIs a
JfZ
tD.I/
REVIEWED
FOR PROBABLE
PRQaA9I.E CAUSE
CAUSe (PC)
0 FOR
PCFOUND
0 a PC
PONOTFOUND
0 0 DATE
DATE PC FOUND
NOT FOUND
DEFENDANT ORDERED FtELEASED,

AEt.EASED, DA
OATE
$-304
tAE\IItI!;I) 9.111)
.
a-satiartEvie
TIME
TIME _
_
I . _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .MAGJSTRATE
, MAGISTRATE
1429
Incident Report #1
Pa(le
Reno Sparks
Sparks Indian
Indian Colony
Colony Police
Police
Reno
moidenl T\'PfI
IndtIatll ClM~#1
Adult A,res~ Property
Ol\
[Reported OA
Theft Shoplift
Shoplift
Theft
Pa.e/Time
Oistentrrte
'Occurred From
0910912011 21:21
09/09/2011
Fri
Time
Time
I carded To
Craterriree
Fri 09/09/2011 21:21
----Repoli
Firrived Titne
Cieared
21:21
21;21
Osteasne
Fri 09/09/2011 22:22
Date
I 22:22
09/10/2011
est of Occurfence
Dist
Reno
ROW Time
Estr
14:36
UCI4.44113RS
Cif!l1ci<l<ln!
incioent
t.c.c.lion of
89502
2424 East Second Sf.
ST, Reno,
Reno, NV
NV 89502
Type Of Pferligg (For Vellirlia State
Grocery/Supermarket
((Crawford 1480, aBraunworth (158
Wow last. Fink Middle
Coughlin, Zachary Barker
httellinknown
Address: $treet, Cay, Stal*, ZIP
121 River Rock sr, Reno, NV 89501

Refused
77107
rpe Level
040 Petit Larceny
isd.
rapid
Weight
Hair
IStaid
220 Normal
tYes
Gree
Brown
rivers Onto
&ate Soctat Security 140.
NV
Otro
HaifT_
tr Try*
Siron
Receding
ibution
ny Attn.,
RIC,I)RDS
2717 09:37
osecuter,
c, 47
t3t:
mcident Repoit 4;
1430

Pnt
--- .
Reno Sparks indbn Colony Police

0
'
T ef S
ft
1C110627
,1 ,
:.
Wal-Mart
a. i
oth&i y Mress: Mr.bel,e-1,-,',..-44,1, .4'
...
Li .,..
77
2425 E Second St, Reno, NV 89502

.. .._
ion
Selma' Addreas
9.8200
te
'Dorm! Fames
<
(B usiness-) (775) 3594200
.,.........___
apor,
Otherwise Known
vic,
'-
, 0.
oft ta.
.
0)1'7'1'9/2011 at approxir,Itely 2121 hours, Officci
1-1.......
ny
--,---
- -
patched to 2425
"'.11"'an
..1'1> and
and I1\4i;:12
were dispatched
2425 East
East Second
Street Reno, NV 89502 for a rrt of a petit larceny.

met with
with Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart Asset
Asset Protec
Yrotecll1Jn Associate Thomas Frontino
Fronnno who
who stated,
stated, he
he observed
observed aa
Upon our arrival we met
adult, identified
identified as
as Zachary
Zachary Coughlin,
Coughlin, wa ng through the store opening various
various items
items and
and
white male adult,
so observed Coughlin eat a candy bar
them in
in the
the garbage
garbage can. Frontino
Frontino stated,
stated,h
bar while
while walking
walking
discarding them
Coughlin passed
passed all
all points
pointsof
ofsale
sale ide of Wal-Mart and exited. Coughlin
Coughlin was
was then
tben detained
the'store.
through the
store. Coughlin
Iarceny. Please refer to Frontine,
inforination.
ternent for further information.
by Frontino for petit larceny.
Officer Braunworth asked Coughlin ififhe
had any
any we
we~llOJtls on his person and Coughlin
Coughlin stated,
stated, he
he did
did not.
not. II
he had
could have
have permission to
to search
search hi person for weapons. Coughlin
Coughlin gave
gave me
me consent,
consent. but
but
asked Coughlin ififII could
into my
my pockets. II searched
searched the
the outer
outer thing of
of Coughlin and found
foUnd no weapons on him. I
stated do not go into
Coughlin questions
questions pertaining
pertainingI ssuing him a citation for petit larceny. Coughlin
Coughlin
then proceeded to ask Coughlin
however.
to answer
answer my
my questions
questions relating
relating to
to aa itation and became uncooperative. Coughlin
Coughlin was
was then
then
however, refused to
placed under arrest for petit
petit larceny. I began my seam
cough drops
drops
ident to
to arrest on Coughlin and found cough
his pockets. Frontino
mntino was
was able
able to
to cot
they
from the
still wrapped in his
ey were the same cough drops that came from
opened cough drop
drop' boxes from
from inside
inside the
the store
store that
that
unpaid
paid for.
At approximately
2200 hours, II transported
transported Coughlin
Coughlin
approximately 2200
for Reno Municipal Code
Code 8.10.040
8.10.040 petit
petit larceny.
larceny.
At approximately 2122 hours, II cleared
cleared the
the incident
incident
he Washoe'
Facility and
and booked
booked him
him
110
er incident.
further
END
END OF REPORT.
derq
,ENDZF.kt4CT-D- .4TT'RE: OftT-
1431
RENO..sPARKS
RENO.SPARRS INDIAN
SUPPLEMENT
SUPPLI~MENT
J..,ONY
ONY POLICE
POUCl~ DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT
ITNESS
ITNESS STATKMENT
STATEMENT
ORM
RUUD
tontino, Thomas L
1 KAM i ETES
Blonde HA
7/09/1985
RESIDENCE A:
RESIDENCE PHONE HO.
2425 E. Second St
$'l"'n
aUSiN$SHf,MEOUCIIOOt.
~OQaW~~M~PN~
ATION
Wal-mart
l-mart#2106
#2106 2425 E. Second S
Reno, NY
mSfN1i$SI'H<IENO
(775)-359>-8200
--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~T~~~~~~~A~m--------+=~~7.~~~~~~u~
1 Ar
osw
w sib
bets%
Wal-mart Asset Protection
Varies
Varies
011
PM 1noticed
noticedaamale
maleccust
On 09/09/2011 at about 8:45 PM!
er who I had previous encounters

encoU1lters with
With who
who we
we had
had
followed for suspicious activities
activities in the past
fotlo eel him around the store he made
made his
his way
way back
backand
and forth
forth
past. As I folio
across the store. He
He selected
selected various
various items
itemssuch
suchas
ascan
can andd cough medicine and some various other food
items,
opened two
two packages
packages of
ofcough
coughdrops
drops and
and
ed the contents inside his pockets. He then threw the
items. He opened
packaging to the
the cough
cough drops
drops in
in two
two different
differentgarbage
garbage
in the store. One in the candy
candy aisle
aisle and
and one
one in
inthe
the
ed to open and eat throughout
soda aisle. He also selected
selected a chocolate
chocolate bar
bar which
whichhe
hepp ceded
throughout the
the store.
store. When
Whenhe
he
was finished shopping he went to register
17
and
paid
the
rest
of
the
merchandise
that
he
had
selected.
He
of
that
he
had
selected.
He
register
did not however
make any
any attempt
attempt to
to pay
pay for
for the
thechoco
choco te bar and cough drops he had selected.
selected, He
Heconcealed
concealed
however make
the wrapper to the
the candy
candy in
in the
the cart
cart and
and covered
coveredititwith
with itizer
mciIity via
via the
the
itizer wipes. He then exited the facility
grocery doors. Once
Once completely
completely outside
outside the
the facility
facilityII a oached
with Stanley
Stanley Cunningham
Cunningham and
and identified
identified
ached him with
myself as Walmart
Wahnart asset
asset protection
protection and
andinformed
informedhim
him t I needed him to reenter
reenter the
the facility
facility so
sothat
thatwe
wewould
would
be able to complete our
our investigation. He was complian this time and followed us to
t-o the
the office. At
At this
this time
time
became non
non compliant.
compliant. The
The police
policearrived
arrivedon
onscene
sceneand
and k over the investigation. When asked
asked by
by the
the officers
officers
if he would consent to a pat down he complied. Also
ifhe
Also a he was placed under
under arrest by the
the officer
officer his
his
of the cough drops that
belongings were emptied
emptied from
from his
his pants
pantspockets
pocketsand
andwe
we ere also able to recover some
some of
that
he had concealed
concealed on
on his
his person.
person. He
Hethen
thenbecame
becamevery
verynn compliant
questioning. He
Hewas
was
mpliant with the officers questioning.
arrested and removed
ruTested
removed from
from our
our facility. He was also tres
tres iassed
assed at
Walmart facilities.
facilities. Video
Video
at this
this time from all Walmart
evidence will also be compiled.
TIM
niviE
HC OF
T'AGJ
tr013~
TS
7 LI PAGES
1432
"
.....
VValmart
*0"
Walmart~"
eI
Sa~
mone,. Live better.
SOPENCERVES
lur9CEITtR
OPEN
24 NsORS .
otEl IRIAN
24 1011
s
SAN1414
.'tA'
'111
(KIRtlE.
rrs) 3S,
- 8281
175 ) 35'lEt a2,.
$it 2104 OPt( 10005875
vs rItt v6I82
srI RES
%101 0'1473221130123
'0005111 TEl !3 Til047
"18%
ritt
X
tIL.101
aE' 071721633413
GJS221SJ.,I'
6141 X
cOLO
6142
teLa
UEI
t'S111&'t1!3
6141
MAISALCIN SS 117723713212 1
1471 Sx
.Af.,LeD n .onSGl1S2IZ
MOTU. r 'lIn
14422 ..
IflI'TlTlL
141111
181 1 7.721
4
Tall
JI"
bIlL
151172
.uraL
15tH
CASS TEO
15172
CAli VIE
TlIJ
15112
all
MIRE
J.,.
. :
I
....
lk
say. money. Live better.
N
0
.....
tNtllt '.E
....
#, ITEMS
ITEMS SOLD
SOLD 33
wwwwwgiwwwwwftws
.................
*-*-.................
$44,
MEM IECEIPT
Mt
******1410*******VMS*****10WWIS*$
"" I1I1LI. IECEiPt ................
'IAlIlIl ' f
.............
mute RVtittrt so WINO
-Ltl.
Vall(r( .1 Ftc
snifxs30114crovwft
.....
......
:.
:t
51
0.
to
o.
....
'
00
0
....
,', ,
'
ruw.f"ltll'Sflflfll's'
6s"
.
(
11
~
1433
141 0011003
07/09/2014 09:25 FAX

_COUGHLIN, ESQ .. BAR NO. 9473.
No. 60975
FILED
APR 23 2014
ORDER OF REFERRAL FOR EXAMINATIO

BY QUALIFIED !vlEDICAL EXPERT
The Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board has petitioned this
court for an order transferring attorney Zachary B. Coughlin to disability
inactive status.
SCR 117(2).
The Board asserts that Coughlin is
incapacitated under the terms of SCR 117 from continuing to practice la w.

In response, Coughlin has filed a "Motion for Leave to File This Opposition
to SCR 117 Petition."l
Having reviewed the petition and its attachments, as well as
Coughlin's motion, \ve conclude that examination by a qualified medical
expert will
assist this court in determining whether Coughlin is
lCoughlin's motion is approximately 90 pages long, not counting

exhibits, and in addition to opposing the petition in this matter, appears to
request leave to file the motion itself and that this court set aside its order
temporarily suspending him from the practice of law, In re Discipline of
Coughlin. Docket No. 60838 (Order of Temporary Suspension and Referral
to Disciplinary Board, June 7, 201:2), 'vVe deny the request for leave as
moot, as Coughlin's motion was filed herein. Further, even if this were the
proper forum for challenging his suspension, Coughlin has failed. to
demonstrate good cause for this court to set aside its order, and we
therefore decline to do so. Finally, to the extent that Coughlin requests
time to file additional documents in this matter, we deny that request as
well.
SUPREME COUAT
OF
NEVADA
1434
07/09/2014 09:26 FAX
[4J 0021003
incapacitated for the purpose of practicing law. Within 30 days from the
date of t.his order, the St.ate Bar shall: (1) arrange for an examination of
Coughlin by a Nevada-licensed medical expert (i.e., psychologist or
psychiatrist) for determinat.ion of Coughlin's capacity to practice law and
(2)
file in this court a status report of its efforts in this regard.

\Ve st.rongly admonish Coughlin that we expect him to fully
cooperate \vith the medical expert chosen by the State Bar, and \\'e warn
him that any refusal on his part to do so will result in this court moving
forward in considering tho other bar matters pending against him,
including t.he recommendation that he be disbancd. In re Discipline of
Zachary Coughlin, Docket

It is so
~o.
62337.
ORDI~RED,
(~'
lin ()
Y/o~
-,4-.:::=._L---=----=--,
R~~--,J.
I
C.J.
/-L ~ "_,
Hardesty
Pickering
~~l~
,J.
,J.
CLk-_"J.
Saitta
SUPREME COURj
OF
Nf:VAD~
1435
07/09/2014 09: 27 FAX
cc:
IgJ 003/003
Zachary B. Coughlin
David A. Clark, Bar Counsel/Las Vegas
Patrick King, Assistant Bar Counsel/Reno
SUPReME COURT
or
N=.v;\O.:<
1436
-----------
--------------------------

COUGHLIN, ES ., BAR NO. 9473.
No. 60975
ORDER
On April 23, 2014, this court entered an order directing the
State Bar to (1) arrange for an examination of attorney Zachary B.
Coughlin by a Nevada-licensed medical expert (i.e., psychologist or
psychiatrist) for determination of Coughlin's capacity to practice law and
(2) file in this court a status report of its efforts in this regard. Our order
directed the Bar to file the status report by May 23, 2014. To date, the
status report has not been filed.
Within 10 days from the date of this order, the State Bar shall
file a report regarding the status of its efforts to arrange for an
examination of Coughlin by a medical expert.
Our April 23, 2014, order strongly admonished Coughlin that
this court expects him to fully cooperate with the medical expert chosen by
the State Bar and warned him that any refusal on his part to do so will
result in this court moving forward in considering the other bar matters
pending against him, including the recommendation that he be disbarred.
In re Discipline of Coughlin, Docket No. 62337. That admonishment is

reiterated.
It is so ORDERED.
C.J.
SupREMe COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947.\ . , . .
1+-/UI!8g
1437

)
3 BAR NO. 8789
)
4
Case No. 60975
--------------------------)
5
6

1.

11
2.
12 (30) days:
13
a.
14
15
16
b.
17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
1
1438
3.
5 hereby informing this Court regarding the status of this matter.
6
4.
9 forwarded immediately to Laura Peters ("Peters"), the OBC's paralegallinvestigator in
12
5.
13 (See attached Exhibit 1, Affidavit alLaura Peters, Paragraph 1).

14
6.
18 Court.
19 III
20 III
2
1439
7.
5
8.
9
9.
14
10.
17
11.
19 III
20 III
3
1440
12.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

DAYID A. CLARK, BAR COUNSEL
1f?vl

Bar No. 4021
Reno,NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4
1441
Exhibit 1
1442

2
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
) ss:
3
4
5
says as follows:
6

7
8
Bar of Nevada;
9
1.
10
11
12

13
2.
14

15
3.
16
17
18
19
4.
20
21
address) via first class mail, certified mail and e-mail.
22
Mr. Coughlin was also sent
copies of both the aforementioned April 23 rd and June 30th Orders for his ready
23
reference.
24
25
1443
5.
Affiant called Mr.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

July, 2014.
~QQlkQ fZJ~
NOTA Y PUBLI
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1444
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
July 9,2014
7012 2920 0002 4909 0520

Las Vegas. NY 89104-1563
phon. 702.382.2200
toU &.:.800.254.2797
u:702.385.2878
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street
Reno,NV 89502
9456 Double R Blvd.. Ste. B

Reno. NY 89521-5977
phon. 775.329.4100
u:775.329.0522
RE:
Supreme Court Case No. 60975/ In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. www.nvbar.org
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

expert and; 2) file a report regardirlg the status of its efforts to arrange for said examination.
Phillip J. Pattee
CJ
(Domestic 'Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
..
ru
U1
CJ
[J'"
PJP/lp

CJ
. . . ..
0 F FI CI
[J'"
Postage
::l"
Enclosure
ru
AL
US E
Certified Fee
Postmark
Here
CJ
Return Receipt Fee
CJ (Endorsement Required)
CJ
Cl
..
Restrfcted Delivery Fee

(Endorsement Required)
ru
[J'"
ru
Total Postage & Fees
~ r:<iA;n:;;"tr,:;O--:-"'~--~~--:-~-",--....-v--.=b-----+--'-1~---~
::2 ;ijf/i::::'~-~--------------h----~;-~-------"Jki-
C~SiBiii:Z1p.;::ii"--------;}.---~-k..........
PS Form 3800. August 2006
1445
-
------------_..._- -- ------------_..
_----------------
Exhibit 2
1446
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
July 9, 2014

70122920000249090520

phone 702.382.2200
toU &ee800.254.2797
fu702.385.2878
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street
Reno,NV 89502
9456 Double R Blvd.. See. B

Reno. NY 895215m
phone 775.329.4100
fu775.329.0522
RE:
Supreme Court Case No. 609751 In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.
WWW.
nvb~r.org
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

Phillip J. Pattee
PJP/lp
Enclosure
CJ
ru
U1
CJ
IT"
CJ
IT"

. ..
. ..
. .
..
'
OFFICIAL USE
.::r-
Postage
ru
Certlfled Fee
CJ
Return Receipt Fea
CJ (Endorsement Requlrad)
CJ
CJ
Restricted Delivery Faa

IT"
Total Poataga & Fees
Postmark
Hera
ru
ru
ru
nt
.....
I _~
t.. ~
~ ;70:::!P~~_0::::~~~~?::- ......
CJtY.SiBie:Z(P+4+~.........Ji.~.
1447
1
2
5
6
7
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno NY 89505
8
9
10
Laura ters, an employee of

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1448
)
3 BAR NO. 9473
)
4
Case No. 60975
-----------------------------)
1.

II
2.
12 (30) days:
13
a.
14
15
16
b.
17 /II
18 /II
19 /II
20 /II
1
1449
5.
Dr. Nielsen's contact infonnation was provided by the aBC to Coughlin
2 by regular and certified mail, email, and a telephone message.

3
6.
An email message from Coughlin was received by the aBC at 9:30 p.m.
4 on July 21, 2014, which stated:

5
DearNVBar,
I have been trading voice mails with Dr. Nielsen and finally just
asked him to tell me a date and time and indicated that I would
be sure to show up ... for the evaluation, and asked if he would
let me know of any releases or records he would like to have in
connection with the evaluation. I left him another message
today.
6
7
8
9
7.
Late this mornmg, the aBC was informed that Coughlin has an
10 appointment scheduled for July 25, 2014, with Dr. Nielsen.
11
8.
Accordingly, it appears that, at this time, Coughlin is attempting to
12 participate in the psychological examination which was ordered by this Court.
13
9.
The aBC shall continue to follow up with Coughlin and Dr. Nielsen
14 regarding the status of receiving a final psychological report, which then would be
15 provided to this Court.

16 III
17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
2
1450
10.
Absent further direction from this Court, the aBC shall, within thirty (30)
2 days, provide this Court with another supplemental status report regarding the progress
3 of this matter.
4
DATED this 22 nd day of July, 2014.
6
7
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

DA VID A. CLARK, BAR COUNSEL
10
11

BarNo. 4021
Reno, NY 89521
(775) 329-41 00
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
1451
1
2

I, REBECCA L. THOLE, certify that I am a citizen of the United States,
over 18 years of age, a resident of Clark County, and not a party to the within
action. That I am an employee of the State Bar of Nevada and my business
address is 600 East Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89104.

That I served a true and con'ect copy of the foregoing STATUS
REPORT BY BAR COUNSEL by placing said copy in a sealed and postage

7
8
fully prepaid envelope for first-class mail and deposited the same in the United
States mail in Las Vegas, Nevada, on July 22, 2014, as follows:
9
10
11
Zach Coughlin, Esq.

1471 East 9th Street
Reno, Nevada 89505
12
13
14
Rebecca L. Thole, An Employee of

15
16
17
18
19
20
1452

COUGHLIN, ESQ., BAR NO. 9473.
No. 60975
FILED
JUN 18 2015
ORDER TRANSFERRING ATTORNEY

TO DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS
The Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board petitioned this court
for an order transferring attorney Zachary B. Coughlin to disability
inactive status.
SCR 117(2).
After reviewing the petition and its
attachments, as well as Coughlin's motion filed in response to the petition,

we directed the State Bar to arrange for an examination of Coughlin by a
qualified medical expert to determine Coughlin's capacity to practice law
and to file a status report regarding its efforts in this regard. Coughlin
has since filed another response to the petition, and the Bar has now filed
a supplemental report containing Dr. Earl S. Nielsen's evaluation
regarding Coughlin's capacity to practice law.
Having reviewed Dr. Nielsen's report and all documents on file
in this matter, we conclude that the relief requested in the petition is
warranted. Accordingly, Zachary B. Coughlin is transferred to disability

inactive status. Coughlin may resume the active practice of law only after
he has complied with SCR 117(4) and (5).
In light of this order, any
pending disciplinary proceedings against Coughlin are suspended.
SUPRIiMI CouRT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ~
1453
The State Bar shall effect notice of this order as required

under SCR 121.1. Bar counsel shall provide this court with proof that
notice has been served.
It is so ORDERED.1
--!.../_~
_ _c.G.._d:_:::t~L---' C.J.
Hardesty
~~J~
?!~~,---
, J.
~:>.c:~:=:P"'''----''-------'' J.
Saitta
_______~__~~_______,J.
--L...ILX.D~~f!---_' J.
Gibbons
cc:
Zachary B. Coughlin
David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
J. Thomas Susich, Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Perry Thompson, United States Supreme Court Admissions Office
IThis order constitutes our final disposition of this petition.

SUPREME CollRT
OF
NI!VADA
(O)I947A ~
1454
2
3
4
5

NV Bar No. 9473
945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro se

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IN RE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT )

)
)
TO ACTIVE STATUS OF ZACHARY
) Case No.:
)
)
BARKER COUGHLIN,
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
KJ:.
15
15
16

AND REOUEST FOR HEARING DATE
17
Petitioner ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully

18
19
20
21
22
files this Petition For Reinstatement to Active Status and requests a hearing date be set at the
Board and Bar's earliest convenience, pursuant to SCR 117(4).
On May 31, 2012 the NNDB filed a Petition pursuant to SCR 117.
Pursuant to and Order by the Nevada Supreme Court, the Bar filed a Pscyhological Evaluation
23
by Earl Nielsen, Ph.D. on September 27,2014. The Nevada Supreme Court entered an Order
24
25
26
27
placing Coughlin in disabled inactive status.

Coughlin has now complied with the recommendations in Dr. Nielsen's
report and will provide evidence and testimony in advance of and at the hearing required by SCR
28
- 1/3
1455
117(4) sufficient to meet his burden to prove that the disability has been removed and that is fit
to resume the practice of law. (SCR 116(2), by analogy: "The chair or vice chair shall promptly
refer the petition to a hearing panel, which shall, within 60 days after referral, conduct a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
hearing. ")
SCR 117(4): " ... The petition shall be filed with bar counsel's office and shall be set for
hearing before a five-member hearing panel, which shall consider whether the attorney
has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney's disability has been
removed and that he or she is fit to resume the practice of law."
have made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Dated this 23rd day of June 2015,
15
/slZ~in ~
16

Petitioner
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2/3
1456
2
3
4
5
6
7
I certify that on June 23rd, 20] 5 I mailed a true and correct copy of this
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING DATE upon State Bar Counsel by mailing it by first class
mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressees:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
State Bar of Nevada 3100 W. Charleston Blvd,
Ste 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102; and
8
9
9456 Double R Blvd, Suite B Reno, NV 8952]
10
11
12
13
Douglas Rands, Esq.

Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board Chairman
Rands, South & Gardner
9498 Double R Blvd., Suite A
Reno, Nevada 8952]
14
Dated this June 23rd, 2015,

15
zZ;in . . /'""--
16
lsi
17

Defendant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3/3
1457
Case No: RI15-0804
2
3
4
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
8
9
INRE:

BARNO. 9473
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent.
10
11
12
ORDER APPOINTING
REINSTATEMENT
HEARING PANEL CHAIR
--------------------------~)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following member of the Northern Nevada
13
Disciplinru:y Boatd has been designated and appointed Chair of the Reinstatement Hearing Panel in
14
this matter.
15
16
17
Caten C. ] enlcins, Esq., Ch~

DATED this
~7,,+-r--
c:f-J
day of _ _--I--M-_, 2015.

ROFNEVADA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1458
Order Appointing Reinstatement Hearing Panel Chair was placed in a sealed
DATED this 2,d day of July, 2015.
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1459
Case No: RI15-0804
2
3
4
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
6
7
8
INRE:
)
)
)
ORDER APPOINTING
) REINSTATEMENT HEARING PANEL
)
)

BARNO. 9473
Respondent.
10
11
12
13
14
15
PLEASE BE ADVISED that a Remstatement Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada

Disciplinary Board has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, 2015, to convene at 8:30 a.m. at the
Reno office of the State Bar of Nevada, 9546 Double R Boulevard, Ste. B, Reno, NV 89521.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following membets of the Northern Nevada

Disciplinaq Board have been designated as members of the screening panel.
16
1. CarenJenkins, Esq., Chair
17
2. Mru:i1ee Bretemitz, Esq.
18
3. Craig Denny, Esq.
19
4. Keegan Low, Esq.; and
20
5. George Furman, Laymember.
21
22
DATED this
r9i1
day of August, 2015.

OF NEVADA
23
24
25
Doug
. Rands, Esq., Chairman
North rn Nevada Disciplinaq Board
1460
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order
Appointing Reinstatement Hearing Panel was placed in a sealed envelope, postage fully
prepaid and sent by first class mail in Reno, Nevada, addressed to:
5
6

945 W. 12th Street
Reno, NV 89503
And was electronically served to:
justcci@gmail.com
10
11
12
13
Marilee@NVLawyers.com
cdenney@swlaw.com
klow@rbslattys.com
geofur@att.net
14
15
16
17
18
lraura Peters, an Employee

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
1461
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
11
In Re: Petition for Reinstatement of
12

State Bar No. 9473
13
)
)
)
) DATE OF HEARING:
) TIME OF HEARING:
August 25,2015
8:30 a.m.
________~P~e~t~iti~on~e~r~.___________)
14
NOTICE OF REINSTATEMENT HEARING

15
TO:
16

945 W. 12th Street
Reno, NV 89503
17
18
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the reinstatement hearing in the above-entitled
19
action has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 25,2015, at the hour of 8:30 a.m. The
20
21
22
23
//I
24
25
//I
-1-
1462
1
2
105(d).
attorney, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence.
Please be further advised that you are entitled to be represented by an
DATED this
14~ay of August, 2015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

Brian Kunzi, Acting Bar Counsel
8
9
10
11
By:
~tt&.)
R. alt Flocchmi, Assistant Bar Counsel

Reno, NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
1463
The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing Notice of
Reinstatement Hearing was deposited in the United States Mail In Reno, Nevada,
postage fully pre-paid thereon for first class mail, and certified mail addressed to:

945 W. 1ih Street
Reno, NV 89503
CERTIFIED MAIL: 70140510000115114290
Dated on this
J!-eay
of August, 2015.
10
aura Peters, an employee of

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-3-
1464
1
2
3 STATE BAR OF NEVADA
4 NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD
5
6
7 In Re: Petition for )
8 Reinstatement of )
9 )
10 Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. ) Case No. R115-0804
11 State Bar No. 9473 )
12 Petitioner. )
13 ===================================================
14
15
16 EVIDENTIARY HEARING
17 Wednesday, January 6, 2016
18 Reno, Nevada
19
20
21
22
23 Job No.: 284611
24 Reported by: CAROL HUMMEL, RPR, CCR #340
25
1465
EVIDENTIARY HEARING - 01/06/2016

Page 2
1
2

3

4

5

6
DISCIPLINARY BOARD

Craig Denney, Esq.
Keegan Low, Esq.
7 ALSO PRESENT:
Kait Flocchini, Esq.
8 Deputy Bar Counsel
9
Zachary Caughlin, Esq.
10 Respondent
11
12
13
14
15 EXHIBITS:
1 - Motion For Reconsideration
16
2 - Opposition to Motion
17
3 - Reply
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

YVer1f
1466

Page 3
1 -oOo2 RENO, NEVADA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2016; 9:00 A.M.

3 -oOo4
5 MS. JENKINS: Good morning. I'm Caren
6 Jenkins. I'm the chair of this panel to consider a
7 reconsideration of the reinstatement of Zachary Coughlin
8 in this matter.
9 On the panel today are Craig Denney, Keegan
10 Low, Marilee Breternitz, and Dr. Furman.
11 Today we're going to start with a procedural
12 presentation by counsel starting with the State Bar, and
13 give Mr. Coughlin an opportunity to place onto the record
14 his argument about procedure. Then we'll go into an
15 evidentiary hearing on the new evidence being submitted by
16 the State Bar for reconsideration today.
17 I hope that counsel won't rehash any
18 evidentiary matters that have already been placed on the
19 record in the last hearing, and we will just consider the
20 additional evidence. So we won't be reopening the
21 evidence already presented on those things that have
22 either been discovered since the hearing or have taken
23 place since the hearing, the hearing that took place in
24 August, I believe.
25 Are we prepared, Miss Flocchini?

YVer1f
1467

Page 4
1 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. Thank you.

2 Thank you for your continued dedication to
3 this. This is an important matter, and I appreciate you
4 being here again.
5 The State Bar felt it was important to file
6 the Motion for Reconsideration, and it was important for
7 the panel to procedurally consider additional information
8 that became apparent or that happened posthearing.
9 The hearing happened on August 25th, and on
10 August 27th additional documents were filed by
11 Mr. Coughlin with the supreme court. We became aware of
12 those documents in September and felt that in lieu of the
13 recommendation for reinstatement to the supreme court and
14 the conditions on that reinstatement that this panel was
15 recommending that the supreme court approve that it was
16 important for the panel to be aware of things that
17 transpired thereafter before it got to the supreme court.
18 These were issues that the supreme court would
19 be aware of when they were considering the panel's
20 recommendation because they received the documents
21 directly.
22 The supreme court defers to the disciplinary
23 panel to hear all of the evidence and to consider all of
24 this information thoroughly so that they may do a review
25 of your consideration and decide whether or not the

YVer1f
1468

Page 5
1 recommendation, where you have considered all this

2 information more thoroughly than they have time to do, to
3 consider whether or not your recommendation is
4 appropriate.
5 And so the State Bar believes it is
6 appropriate to bring this information before this panel
7 pursuant to the Tile Contractors Association case. It's
8 appropriate for this panel to reconsider its decision or
9 its recommendation in lieu of the new information.
10 And just practically speaking, it's important
11 for this panel to have all the information that the
12 supreme court is going to have when they consider your
13 recommendation. So that's why we filed the motion. We
14 believe it's appropriate for you to consider it, and we'll
15 present evidence to you today for further consideration.
16 MS. JENKINS: Is there any rule of appellate
17 procedure or supreme court rule that we should keep in
18 mind in procedure?
19 MS. FLOCCHINI: Sure. The supreme court rules
20 refer, Supreme Court Rule 119 refers us to the Nevada
21 Rules of Civil Procedure and Appellate Procedure for how
22 to proceed when the disciplinary rules don't state what to
23 do. The supreme court rules give us some loose guidelines
24 about how our hearings are supposed to proceed, and the
25 procedures for getting from grievance to recommendations

YVer1f
1469

Page 6
1 to the court or resolution of a matter.

2 We also have the Disciplinary Rules of
3 Procedure that give us a little bit more detail for
4 hearings. They don't give us much detail about
5 reinstatement hearings particularly.
6 So Mr. Coughlin referred to the Rules of Civil
7 Procedure 59. And although your recommendation is not
8 specifically a judgment, I think that it is persuasive
9 authority to allow you to consider this information
10 because the information is important to your
11 recommendation, but it became -- it came about
12 postrecommendation.
13 And again, as I said, the supreme court will
14 see this. The supreme court is going to know this
15 information. And what we specifically intended to avoid
16 was for the supreme court to refer this back down for
17 further consideration to the panel and delay the
18 proceedings, because they do that. We wanted to get
19 everything before this panel so that you would have a full
20 record that would then go before the supreme court.
21 MS. JENKINS: Very good. Thank you.
22 Mr. Coughlin.
23 You don't need to stand but you're welcome to
24 if you wish.
25 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. Thank you for being

YVer1f
1470

Page 7
1 here today. I appreciate it.

2 To reply that Ms. Flocchini's introductory
3 statement in terms of, I guess, the jurisdiction the
4 procedural argument related to being here, they're
5 probably best set out in my opposition. But just to
6 quickly boil them down.
7 One, I think there's an issue with respect to
8 this tantamount -- these two are kind of weaved together.
9 This is tantamount to an investigation of prosecution of
10 something that's alleged to have occurred after the
11 hearing. That is counter to Supreme Court Rule 117(2), I
12 believe it is, which says all investigation and
13 prosecution must stop as I am on disability inactive
14 status.
15 Part of me being on disability inactive status
16 is I can't practice the law in State courts. There was
17 another side of that, and that is that the State Bar
18 cannot prosecute or investigate for anything.
19 What is detailed in the State Bar's
20 reconsideration motion seems to me to be an allegation of
21 some sort of misconduct. I would submit that this hearing
22 is equivalent to a prosecution investigation. There's a
23 correct forum for such things, correct procedure. And I
24 think part of the profession is respecting the procedure.
25 Respecting what it means to be an attorney.

YVer1f
1471

Page 8
1 And these rules relating to procedure and

2 being an attorney are important, particularly when they
3 involve any attorney, I guess, but I would say it's
4 important that the rules aren't ignored. The attorney
5 needs to be strong for the judicial system to work.
6 I would submit that the correct procedure here
7 is if the State Bar feels some misconduct occurred to
8 follow the rules which would entail generating the record
9 within 30 days of this panel's recommendation, and not
10 investigating or prosecuting me for any alleged misconduct
11 until I'm no longer on disability and inactive status, and
12 then proceeding, if it feels appropriate, in investigation
13 at that point.
14 I can appreciate Ms. Flocchini's comments with
15 respect to judicial economy and if the court might remand
16 that back down. But I would hope the court would see it
17 the same way I do in interpretation of there's a reason
18 for the procedure that's laid out. Thank you.
19 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.
20 Anything more, Ms. Flocchini?
21 MS. FLOCCHINI: The brief response that I have
22 is with respect to the issue that this panel's
23 recommendation, which is with respect to whether or not
24 the attorney's disability has been removed, and whether or
25 not he is fit to practice law at this point.

YVer1f
1472

Page 9
1 And so to the extent that these are issues

2 that may be found to be a violation of the Rules of
3 Professional Conduct, that's not what we're bringing
4 before you today.
5 The reason why the Rules of Professional
6 Conduct were referenced in the Motion for Reconsideration
7 is that those are our guidelines for what is appropriate
8 for practicing law. And whether or not someone is fit to
9 practice law is indicated by whether or not they can fit
10 within those guidelines or their behavior would fit within
11 those guidelines.
12 So that is the reason why we reference the
13 Rules of Professional Conduct, not necessarily as a
14 prosecutorial method, but because that's our only
15 guideline for attorney behavior are those rules.
16 So I would submit to you this is an
17 appropriate hearing, and that the supreme court will
18 appreciate the judicial economy in the end.
19 MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Do you have a
20 question?
21 MR. LOW: Ms. Flocchini -22 MS. FLOCCHINI: Flocchini (pronouncing).
23 MR. LOW: Flocchini. Sorry. And I'm also
24 sorry for asking this, because I think you've told us, but
25 I just want to make clear.

YVer1f
1473

Page 10
1 Is it the State Bar's position that the -2 aside from the allegations of misrepresentation in the
3 Motion for Reconsideration, that the motion itself made to
4 the supreme court is inappropriate in this context?
5 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. The motion submitted two
6 days after this panel was considering whether or not
7 Mr. Coughlin should be reinstated was inappropriate. It
8 is not using the judicial system appropriately. This
9 panel was considering whether or not Mr. Coughlin should
10 be reinstated, and two days later he's asking the supreme
11 court to deny the panel's authority to even make the
12 reconsideration, because by submitting a rehearing and
13 saying they shouldn't have suspended him to begin with
14 that would render this panel's consideration moot.
15 So I think that it is appropriate to consider
16 whether or not those documents should have been filed to
17 begin with.
18 The third point or third piece of important
19 information is the way in which the documents were served
20 on the State Bar, and whether or not the State Bar was
21 able to respond or -- ultimately the supreme court
22 instructed us to not respond -- but the ability to respond
23 in a timely manner because the documents were served
24 appropriately is important, that's an important piece to
25 what we do is keeping our opposing counsel informed.

YVer1f
1474

Page 11
1 MR. LOW: Thank you.

2 MS. JENKINS: The panel may note that I've
3 already ruled on the procedural arguments, and we have
4 convened this reconsideration panel. But again, the
5 ruling or the order that I had issued was based upon, you
6 know, an abundance of caution and due process, and that I
7 found that the rules were pretty much silent on this
8 issue.
9 And again, my order was based upon my feeling
10 that it was important to hear the evidence, and to
11 determine whether the recommendation for reinstatement
12 that this panel determined in August should be modified or
13 upheld.
14 The idea behind that order was that the
15 reconsideration motion did not allege additional
16 misconduct that would be punished or considered, and if
17 there were complaints, that that would have a separate
18 panel proceeding, but rather that the allegations or the
19 actions that were brought to light were of enough weight
20 that we should take a look at them in light of our
21 recommendation. And so here we are today.
22 With that, Counsel, is there any reason for
23 opening statements on evidentiary matters? I think that
24 the panel is very well aware of the status of this matter
25 and the reason we're here.

YVer1f
1475

Page 12
1 So with that, Mr. Coughlin, if you will agree.

2 Yes?
3 MR. COUGHLIN: (Nonverbal response.)
4 MS. JENKINS: That head nod didn't make it
5 into the record.
7 MS. JENKINS: And then, Ms. Flocchini, if you
8 would like to begin the evidentiary process now, that
9 would be fine.
10 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. Thank you. We have
11 provided a written copy of all briefing that was submitted
12 in this matter for your reference, and I know that
13 everyone has read it thoroughly so I'm not going to
14 belabor that point necessarily.
15 Of course, because of the function of our type
16 of panel, our type of hearing, if there are questions
17 because you think I've skipped something -18 MS. JENKINS: I will ask that any documentary
19 evidence be attached to the record and introduced and have
20 an opportunity for an objection, what have you. But you
21 understand.
22 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. Thank you. Perhaps we
23 should submit the Motion, Opposition,
24 and Reply briefs for admission with this report as
25 Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

YVer1f
1476

Page 13
1 MS. JENKINS: Is there any opposition to that,

2 Mr. Coughlin?
3 MR. COUGHLIN: No.
4 MS. JENKINS: Then they will be admitted as
5 Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the record.
6 (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were marked for
7 identification and admitted into the
8 record.)
9 MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. My primary
10 presentation has to do with questions to Mr. Coughlin. So
11 with the panel's allowance, if we can have Mr. Coughlin
12 sworn officially.
13 (The oath was administered to Mr. Coughlin.)
14 MS. FLOCCHINI: Mr. Coughlin, you filed a
15 petition for rehearing for motion to set aside the order
16 placing on disability inactive status where no hearing was
17 afforded prior thereto on August 27th; correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did you file that electronically or did you
20 file that by mail?
21 A I submitted it electronically, but I believe
22 it was probably filed by the hard copy I sent to the
23 supreme court as well.
24 Q Did you place the petition for rehearing in
25 the mail to the supreme court on August 27th when you

YVer1f
1477

Page 14
1 signed the document?

2 A Yes.
3 Q Did you then email the document on August
4 28th?
5 A No. I believe I emailed it and mailed it the
6 same day.
7 MS. JENKINS: Excuse me. Email to whom?
8 MS. FLOCCHINI: Email to the supreme court
9 clerk.
10 MR COUGHLIN: Yes. I mailed it to the court
11 clerk and David Clark's email address for the State Bar.
13 Q Why did you pick David Clark as the person
14 that you would email it to at the State Bar?
15 A Because he had been the most recent attorney
16 bar counsel for the State Bar that I had interacted with
17 respect to the case. He was listed as the attorney of
18 record at that point, and still is the last time I checked
19 in November of this (sic) year. That's why I emailed it
20 to him.
21 Q Is there any reason why you didn't email it to
22 me also as the attorney who had been dealing with the
23 reinstatement and the attorney in the Reno office that you
24 had been dealing with since June?
25 A Yes. Because I had never been told you are

YVer1f
1478

Page 15
1 the attorney of record in that matter.

2 Q Did you consult with your attorney mentor
3 before you filed the petition for rehearing with the
4 supreme court?
5 A I believe I did. I know I did for sure with
6 respect to the supplement to it. I believe I did, but I
7 might not have with respect to the original.
8 Q Did you explain to him that you had just had a
9 hearing for reinstatement before you filed the petition
10 for rehearing?
11 A I can't remember. My mentors are all aware
12 that that hearing was going on. I was conversing with
13 them in the days prior to it and in the days after it as
14 well.
15 Q When I'm referring to your attorney mentor, to
16 whom do you think I'm referring?
17 A I don't know at this point, because as far as
18 I know I don't have any attorney mentor in play right now
19 with respect to the terms of the plan at that point. The
20 plan hadn't been in play at that point.
21 Q Who's the attorney that you proposed to be
22 your attorney mentor?
23 A Charles McGee.
24 Q Who is the attorney that you proposed to be
25 your attorney sobriety mentor?

YVer1f
1479

Page 16
1 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm going to object based on

2 relevance with respect to the order in this case indicated
3 this would be limited to what is brought up in the
4 pleadings, I believe. So I don't know where this relates
5 to what's brought up in the pleadings.
6 MS. FLOCCHINI: But it is relevant in that
7 this petition for rehearing was filed only two days after
8 the hearing for reinstatement. And it's important because
9 this panel has advised that Mr. Coughlin should be working
10 with mentors on moving forward. And I think it's
11 important to know whether or not he worked with his
12 mentors in filing these documents and in acting as an
13 attorney.
14 MS. JENKINS: I'll overrule the objection.
16 Q Did you apeak with your AA sponsor before you
17 filed the petition for rehearing about filing the petition
18 for rehearing?
19 A I can't recall.
20 Q When you spoke -- why did you file the
21 petition for rehearing two days after the reinstatement
22 hearing?
23 A I'm not sure. I think part of it was that I
24 was so involved in the preparation for the reinstatement
25 hearing that it wasn't until after that was done -- I know

YVer1f
1480

Page 17
1 I drafted it after the hearing.

2 Q So you drafted the mentoring plan and the
3 petition for rehearing in the two days after the
4 reinstatement hearing?
5 A I can't recall exactly. It's possible I
6 worked on the reconsideration petition.
7 Q The petition for rehearing?
8 A Yes. It's possible I worked on that some
9 before the hearing, but I don't recall exactly. Seems
10 like the bulk of it was done after the hearing.
11 Q And you also filed a personal statement with
12 the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August
13 27th; correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Why did you file that document?
16 A Because I think that was -- it seems to me the
17 rules of the Patent and Trademark Office called for that.
18 I think I might have received some letter, but I can't
19 recall exactly. But it seems to me that I received a
20 letter prompting for a personal statement.
21 Q Why did you send a courtesy electronic copy of
22 the petition for rehearing on September 12th, 2015?
23 A I sent one to Phil Pattee because he had also
24 appeared in the case so, I thought it might be prudent to
25 send a copy to all the attorneys who had appeared in the

YVer1f
1481

Page 18
1 case.
2 Q And this is the disability case which the
3 order putting you on disability that you were seeking
4 reinstatement from; correct?
5 A Yes. The Nevada Supreme Court Case 60975.
6 Q When you sent the courtesy copy you sent it to
7 Phil Pattee?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Patrick King?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And David Clark?
12 A Yes. That was the second time I sent
13 something to David Clark, but yes.
14 Q You were aware that Patrick King was no longer
15 with the State Bar; is that not correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So why did you email it to Patrick King and
18 not to me as the assistant bar counsel in Reno?
19 A Because Patrick King had appeared in the case.
20 I don't know that he ever -- because he had appeared in
21 the case. You had not appeared in the case. You had not
22 told me you were handling the case or that you were
23 appearing in the case.
24 Q And the case being the related supreme court
25 matter?

YVer1f
1482

Page 19
1 A The case being the Nevada Supreme Court case

2 60975, yes. Whether or not that's related.
3 Q I just want to make sure when we read the
4 record we know we're talking about the same case.
5 Did you consult with Judge McGee before you
6 sent the courtesy electronic copy?
7 A No, I don't believe so.
8 Q Did you consult with your other proposed
9 attorney mentor before you sent the courtesy electronic
10 copy?
11 A I can't recall. At this time I was speaking
12 more with Mitch Cobeaga about a lot of these things. But
13 I can't recall.
14 Q Did you discuss sending a courtesy electronic
15 copy of the petition for rehearing to Mitch Cobeaga?
16 MR. COUGHLIN: If I may make a continuing
17 relevance objection.
18 MS. JENKINS: We'll note it for the record
19 that your objection continues.
21 MS. JENKINS: If you would like, I'll respond
22 by saying I believe this is relevant information as to the
23 fitness to practice after the hearing. The actions that
24 you have taken, that you took in that supreme court case
25 may be relevant to the reinstatement considerations of

YVer1f
1483

Page 20
1 this panel.
2 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry. It seems to me the
3 question was with respect to whether or not I consulted
4 with a mentor about sending the copy of the reinstatement
5 rehearing petition to bar counsel, assistant bar counsel
6 Pattee. I don't think I did. I can't recall for sure.
7 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
8 Q And we're specifically talking about
9 Mr. Cobeaga at that point. You didn't talk about sending
10 the courtesy copy to Mr. Cobeaga, did you?
11 A I can't recall.
12 Q What motivated you to send the courtesy copy
13 on September 12th, 2015?
14 A I remember that Phil Pattee had appeared in
15 the case, and that I had corresponded with him about the
16 case.
17 Q Did you mail the petition to the State Bar of
18 Nevada?
19 A If I may back up on that.
20 Plus, it seems to me that I knew David Clark
21 was no longer working for the State Bar at that point or
22 pretty sure. While I felt that the State Bar and
23 Mr. Clark would have an obligation to arrange for his
24 cases to be handled and to monitor what was sent to him, I
25 felt that it was extra prudent to send it to Mr. Pattee as

YVer1f
1484

Page 21
1 well.
2 Q Do you remember receiving the notice in lieu
3 of remitter in the supreme court case in July of 2015?
4 A If I may just -- perhaps it's not appropriate.
5 But there was something said earlier about with respect to
6 the State Bar instructed Ms. Flocchini not to respond to
7 my petition for rehearing on the supplement. That's news
8 to me.
9 And it would just -- if I may get some
10 indication. Does the State Supreme Court communicate with
11 the State Bar, which I realize is outside my presence
12 without my knowledge, about my case?
13 MS. JENKINS: That's a question you can ask
14 when it's your turn to ask questions. And I'm not certain
15 that it's appropriate at this point, but you get to ask
16 your questions.
17 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry.
18 MS. JENKINS: The question was pending about
19 whether he received the notice of remitter.
21 MR. COUGHLIN: In which case?
23 Q In the pending supreme court cases that were
24 closed when the disability inactive status order came out?
25 A I believe I did.

YVer1f
1485

Page 22
1 Q And that notice indicated that the files at

2 the supreme court were closed at that point?
3 A I don't know that. And I don't know -- I
4 can't say offhand which cases. It was a number of cases.
5 I would imagine there wasn't one in the original
6 disability case 60975, but I'm not sure.
7 Q I apologize if I asked the question before,
8 but I just want to make sure I cover it and check it off
9 this time.
10 Did you mail the petition for rehearing to the
11 State Bar of Nevada?
12 A I'm not sure.
13 Q Did you mail the supplemental petition to the
14 State Bar of Nevada?
15 A Just to back up. When you say "mail it," I
16 assume U.S. mail. Because I know that I emailed it.
17 electronically sent it to you. Electronic filers is a

18 forum in which electronic filing's been consented to in
19 the Nevada Supreme Court.
20 So I know that I sent it to Mr. Clark and
21 Mr. Pattee. When you say "mailed," just to clarify.
22 know I emailed it to them. That's why I like email,

23 electronic filing so much. It's not -- someone gets that,
24 you put that in the mail, there's actually a verifiable
25 with digital imprint or record of it. Whether or not I

YVer1f
1486

Page 23
1 also placed it in U.S. mail, I'm not sure.

2 I went back and checked the certificate of
3 service. And in the certificate of service I believe on
4 both documents the original rehearing petition and the
5 supplemental it says on this date I emailed and/or mailed
6 by the U.S. mail this document to the State Bar.
7 Q I understand. And that's why I'm asking the
8 clarifying question, because I found the certificate of
9 service to be a little confusing so I wanted to make sure
10 we were clear on whether or not it had been placed in the
11 U.S. mail.
12 Did it get placed in the U.S. mail?
13 A I don't know. From the State Bar's
14 reconsideration motion I noticed -- I looked for some
15 guidance there. It seemed to indicate the State Bar, at
16 least one of the offices had not received it in the mail.
17 So that led me to wonder, well -- I think it said maybe
18 the Reno office didn't receive it in the mail -- led me to
19 wonder whether the Vegas office received it, but I don't
20 know.
21 Q Just to follow up on that question. Did you
22 send the supplemental petition by U.S. mail to the State
23 Bar of Nevada?
24 A I'm not sure. But you said by U.S. mail.
25 Same clarification I made earlier with respect to -- I

YVer1f
1487

Page 24
1 know I sent it by email, electronically served.

2 Q Why did you file the Supplemental Petition for
3 Rehearing on September 21st, 2015?
4 A One, this goes back a bit to some of those
5 thoughts I had with respect to the State Bar's initial
6 statements here. Rather than seeking to subvert this
7 panel's authority or make immaterial the process in the
8 hearing we had, in that filing I gave the State Supreme
9 Court the entire record -- or rather the entire transcript
10 from the hearing in August before this panel because I
11 felt it was useful, and I felt the State Supreme Court
12 might appreciate having that. That was one of the main
13 reasons I sent it to the State Supreme Court.
14 Also, I was pretty -- I felt like I could do a
15 better job, a more thorough job than I did in the initial
16 August 27th filing. So with a bit more time I put that
17 together. I'm probably forgetting some of the incidents
18 behind doing that, but those seem to be the main things.
19 Q You served the supplemental petition for
20 rehearing on assistant bar counsel Phil Pattee; correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Did you serve that document on anyone else?
23 A I don't recall.
24 Q Why did you choose to serve the supplemental
25 petition for rehearing on only Phil Pattee at the State

YVer1f
1488

Page 25
1 Bar?
2 A If that's the case. I don't know that that's
3 the case. It wouldn't surprise me if I also sent it to
4 David Clark or at least his email address for the State
5 Bar. If that's the case. I don't know whether or not
6 that's the case.
7 But I can speak to why I sent it to
8 Mr. Pattee, and that was my earlier answer with respect to
9 Mr. Pattee had appeared in the case. He had filed
10 numerous pleadings in the case. I had corresponded with
11 him by email about the case, and he had appeared.
12 Q Okay. Why did you send a courtesy copy of the
13 supplemental petition for rehearing to Northern Nevada
14 Disciplinary Board chair Doug Rand?
15 A Because the original petition for disability
16 in that case had, I believe, been signed by Mr. Rand or
17 then Chairman Rand. There was always a little confusion
18 in this matter with respect to who the parties were
19 because it seemed as though the State Bar drafted the
20 disability petition and Mr. Rand had signed it. Then the
21 State Bar was listed in the pleading as a party so exactly
22 who were the parties I was never quite sure of so I was
23 trying to be extra cautious there.
24 Q And you didn't serve the supplemental petition
25 for rehearing on me as assistant bar counsel who was

YVer1f
1489

Page 26
1 handling your reinstatement hearing; correct?

2 A No. Well, not directly. I didn't email it to
3 you directly. Perhaps indirectly I could say I did
4 because I served it on a person who had appeared in the
5 case. And if it was your case and had been reassigned to
6 you, then it would theoretically, as it was in this case,
7 be delivered to you as Mr. Pattee did deliver it to you
8 subsequently.
9 Q Did you consult with your proposed attorney
10 mentor before you filed the supplemental petition for
11 rehearing?
12 A I don't think so.
13 Q Did you consult with your proposed attorney
14 sobriety mentor before you filed the supplemental petition
15 for rehearing?
16 A I'm sorry. I thought the previous question
17 was did I consult with somebody before filing the
18 supplemental.
19 Q In your mentoring plan you proposed two
20 different mentors as required by the panel, and an AA
21 sponsor. So I'm asking whether or not you consulted with
22 either of your proposed attorney mentors before you filed
23 the supplemental petition for rehearing?
24 A I'm not sure. I don't have records. I didn't
25 know that this would be up for examination at this

YVer1f
1490

Page 27
1 hearing. I thought this hearing was tailored to the

2 allegations in the pleadings. I'm not sure.
3 MR. LOW: For the record, can we identify who
4 was listed by Mr. Coughlin as his sobriety mentor and who
5 was listed by Mr. Coughlin in his proposed plan as his law
6 practice mentor?
7 MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. I'm looking at the
8 proposed monitoring plan that was submitted. And the
9 proposed attorney sobriety mentor is Judge McGee. And the
10 proposed attorney mentor is Geoffrey Giles.
11 MS. JENKINS: Giles (pronouncing).
12 MS. FLOCCHINI: Giles. Thank you. And then
13 in addition the panel required Mr. Coughlin to identify an
14 AA sponsor with whom he would meet regularly. And I'm
15 reading upside down, but I believe that it is Miles Wash
16 to be the AA sponsor.
17 MS. JENKINS: That's my recollection.
18 MR. LOW: Thank you.
20 Q Did you discuss filing the supplemental
21 petition for rehearing with your AA sponsor before you
22 filed it in September?
23 A I believe I did. I don't mean to belabor the
24 point. The objection is, just state for the record, I
25 think notice and due process are important. I think just

YVer1f
1491

Page 28
1 because I'm an attorney doesn't mean I'm not entitled to

2 them. I think, in fact, for the legal system to work, I
3 must be entitled to them. Otherwise, attorneys like me,
4 particularly solo practitioners, can be done away with.
5 So part of notice and due process is notice
6 and opportunity to be heard. I had no notice that this
7 hearing would be about whether or not I was complying with
8 a monitoring plan that wasn't even in place at that time.
9 So if I can just state that for the record.
10 Perhaps I already have, and I apologize for
11 doing that. But this line of inquiry, from my point of
12 view, is getting further and further afield from what I
13 was noticed on what the hearing would be about.
14 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I will take the
15 comment as additional argument for your objection based on
16 relevancy, and now you're concerned about due process. As
17 you know, I take that very seriously.
18 My understanding is Ms. Flocchini is
19 attempting to flesh out the circumstances regarding your
20 service of the petition for rehearing and the supplemental
21 petition with the supreme court, and that service being
22 improper or faulty in some way. And her line of
23 questioning, as I hear it, is related to what actions you
24 took and what guidance you got regarding service of those
25 documents. And that is notice in a petition.

YVer1f
1492

Page 29
1 So I'll again, if that was an objection, I'll

2 overrule the objection.
3 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry. I'm trying to
4 remember the question so I can respond to it. I think it
5 was whether I consulted prior to -6 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
7 Q Filing the Supplemental Petition for
8 Rehearing?
9 A I think I did.
10 Q I want to respect the relationship of your AA
11 sponsor. At the same time I think it's important to know
12 the level of detail that you discussed filing this with
13 your sponsor, because I think the chair accurately
14 represented that it is important to know whether or not
15 you sought guidance before you proceeded.
16 Did you seek guidance or did you strictly tell
17 him it was happening?
18 A I did seek guidance. I believe I sent him a
19 copy of it. I also sent a copy of it to the Lawyers
20 Concerned for Lawyers coordinator Miss Cobeaga down in
21 Vegas. At this point my relationship with Mitch was
22 developing more, and I reference speaking with him in the
23 transcript of the original hearing. I called him on
24 Sundays, something like that.
25 So at this point my relationship with Mitch

YVer1f
1493

Page 30
1 was going more and more. Subsequent to this hearing it

2 has as well because I went down and lived in Vegas for
3 about seven weeks in September, and I was attending the
4 Lawyers Concerned With Lawyers meetings a couple times a
5 week down there.
6 In fact, at the time that that supplemental
7 was filed on September 21, I believe I was in Las Vegas.
8 And so I did -- I do recall sending it to Mitch and asking
9 for his take on it.
10 Q Did Mitch understand that there was a
11 reinstatement hearing that had taken place in August when
12 you were filing a Supplemental Petition for Rehearing?
13 A Yes. Now I'm remembering more. I do -- I
14 believe I -- directly after this hearing I sent a copy of
15 the rough draft transcript in which this panel announced
16 its decision to Geoff Giles, I believe to Judge McGee, I
17 believe to Mitch, to a number of people.
18 I was enthused by it. I was happy. I wanted
19 these people to know, and I felt they were a material part
20 of that email to occur, helping me get from where I was to
21 that point. So to me that was their victory or sort of
22 victory for them. Now I'm recalling sending this. At
23 least the rough draft transcript of the hearing.
24 Sorry. I got a little far from your question.
25 Q That's okay. I think that you've answered

YVer1f
1494

Page 31
1 that question.
2 A If I may though know what the question was.
3 Q It had to do with what guidance you sought
4 with respect to the supplemental petition, filing the
5 Supplemental Petition for Rehearing. And you answered a
6 question I was going to ask about whether or not you
7 consulted with Mr. Cobeaga separately.
8 The panel filed its recommendation or the
9 recommendation from this panel was entered on October
10 26th, 2015. And do you remember emailing me on October
11 30th, 2015?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Did you consult with your attorney mentor
14 Mr. Giles before you sent the email to me requesting a
15 stipulation in order to shorten the time for the supreme
16 court's consideration of the recommendation?
17 A No, I don't think so.
18 Q Did you consult with your attorney sobriety
19 mentor before you sent the email to me on October 30th?
20 A No. I imagine you're referring to Judge
21 McGee. I believe the answer to that would be I don't
22 think so. Whether I consulted with Mitch Cobeaga who was
23 kind of -- I contemplated perhaps it might be more
24 appropriate to have Mitch Cobeaga as a sobriety mentor
25 given he's not a judge, and there might be some issue with

YVer1f
1495

Page 32
1 that. So that relationship was growing somewhat.

2 I don't recall specifically whether I
3 consulted with him about that email particularly.
4 Q Why did you send the email seeking a
5 stipulation to, quote, make up for the 30 days that you
6 just lost instead of just waiting for the time to run?
7 A Because it seems as though it might aid my
8 client's goal of getting reinstated to practice his chosen
9 profession. And if a stipulation could be had to shorten
10 the length of time it would take to get the supreme court
11 to consider this panel's recommendation, I thought that
12 would be in my client's best interest.
13 If I can, just to make some objection. Some
14 of this is attorney-client privilege.
15 MS. JENKINS: Between you and yourself?
16 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. So I would object on that
17 basis.
18 MS. JENKINS: I don't know that the privilege
19 applies to you and yourself, sir.
21 MS. JENKINS: Because you're not acting as an
22 attorney because you're on disability inactive status.
23 You're here representing yourself as yourself.
25 MS. JENKINS: So your objection is overruled.

YVer1f
1496

Page 33
1 Unless, of course, you want to argue that you're appearing

2 as an attorney, and the State Bar would have an action
3 against you, and I wouldn't recommend that.
4 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
5 Q You indicated that subsequent to the hearing
6 you were in Las Vegas. Are you still residing in
7 Las Vegas?
8 A No.
9 Q Are you residing in San Diego again?
10 A No.
11 Q Where are you residing?
12 A I have been in San Francisco.
13 I object with respect to this is outside the
14 field of what I was noticed the hearing would be on,
15 relevance and due process.
16 MS. JENKINS: I'll grant that objection about
17 your place of residence.
18 MS. FLOCCHINI: I have no further questions at
19 this time. Thank you.
20 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin.
22 MS. JENKINS: Would you like to present any
23 evidence on your own behalf or provide any evidence to
24 rebut that which was adduced by bar counsel?
25 MR. COUGHLIN: Not at this time, your Honor.

YVer1f
1497

Page 34
1 MS. JENKINS: Is there anything further,

2 Ms. Flocchini?
3 MS. FLOCCHINI: No, thank you.
4 MS. JENKINS: Terrific. Then we'll go into
5 recess and consider that which was submitted, both in the
6 reconvening and in the evidence today. And we'll take it
7 from there. If we come to a determination, we'll place it
8 upon the record.
9 Do you want to ask some questions? Let's
10 reopen the evidentiary hearing just for a moment. You're
11 still under oath. The panel, you know, I forget I'm not
12 alone up here.
13 MR. LOW: You would like to be.
14 MS. JENKINS: They are so quiet. Mr. Low has
15 a question or two.
16 MR. LOW: Ms. Flocchini, there's been
17 discussion back and forth about whether you had appeared
18 in the case, and I'm confused about the practice and
19 procedure with the State Bar with regard to appearances in
20 the case. Is it typical that an attorney acting on behalf
21 of the State Bar would file a notice of appearance in the
22 case? How does that work?
23 MS. FLOCCHINI: It is not typical to file a
24 notice of appearance necessarily. In the underlying
25 supreme court matter where the disability board chair at

YVer1f
1498

Page 35
1 the time, Tom Susich, filed the 117 Petition, the supreme
2 court sought the report from Dr. Nielsen, and that was
3 during -- after Mr. King had left the office of bar
4 counsel, so Mr. Pattee handled the filing. And he didn't
5 file an official notice of appearance, he just was the
6 attorney that signed those documents.
7 And so there was a status report indicating
8 that arrangements had been made with Dr. Nielsen, and then
9 there was a subsequent status report indicating that the
10 report had been received from Dr. Nielsen. And in
11 addition, Dr. Nielsen individually filed his report with
13 The status report indicating that Dr. Nielsen
14 had been retained to conduct the evaluation that the
15 supreme court requested was filed on September 5th.
16 started with the office of bar counsel on September 10th,

17 2014. So Mr. Pattee then filed the final status report in
18 the matter on September 29th, 2014. It was shortly after
19 I had started, and so he was still signing the documents
20 in those few weeks when I started.
21 And nothing was filed subsequent to that. The
22 supreme court didn't request any documents from us. So
23 because we don't customarily file a notice of appearance
24 when a different attorney files something or comes into
25 the matter, that wasn't filed in the supreme court matter.

YVer1f
1499

Page 36
1 And then the matter was deemed closed, I

2 believe. And I will confirm that with -- the file I have
3 here is strictly the reinstatement document. The order
4 placing Mr. Coughlin on disability inactive status was
5 issued in June of 2015 and so there was nothing for me to
6 file in the matter thereby indicating an appearance.
7 But I was the one that handled all of the
8 reinstatement issues that came because of the disability
9 status order.
10 MR. LOW: At whose direction?
11 MS. FLOCCHINI: In June of 2015 when the
12 petition for reinstatement was filed or the request for
13 reinstatement was filed, Mr. Clark was bar counsel. He
14 left the office of bar counsel in July of 2015. Brian
15 Kunzi was my supervisor and working with me in responding
16 to the petition and preparing for the hearing in August.
17 And then -- so Mr. Kunzi was the acting bar counsel and
18 had been the deputy bar counsel before. He had made no
19 appearance in the matter, but he was my supervisor for
20 what was happening for the reinstatement hearing and the
21 Motion for Reconsideration.
22 We have subsequently gained a new bar counsel
23 in December of 2015.
24 MS. BRETERNITZ: I have a question relating to
25 that. If you filed something in the disciplinary matter

YVer1f
1500

Page 37
1 with the supreme court, would you then be added to the

2 service list? You wouldn't file a notice of appearance
3 now, would you?
4 MS. FLOCCHINI: No. As a matter of fact, I
5 believe that when this panel's recommendation is submitted
6 to the supreme court it will be under a new supreme court
7 number, which will be filed under my name.
8 MS. BRETERNITZ: Then you will automatically
9 be on that?
10 MS. FLOCCHINI: I would automatically be on
11 that because it was filed under my name, and it wouldn't
12 necessarily have the new bar counsel's name on it or
13 anyone else of any of the other assistant bar counsels in
14 Las Vegas. It would have my name on it.
15 MS. BRETERNITZ: Okay. Thank you.
16 MS. JENKINS: Any other questions from the
17 panel?
18 MR. LOW: I'm sorry. You know me.
19 MS. JENKINS: Please. This is our
20 opportunity.
21 MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, you know at the last
22 hearing we had your father here. He spoke very
23 eloquently, as did Judge McGee. Does Judge McGee know of
24 this Motion for Reconsideration that was made by the State
25 Bar?

YVer1f
1501

Page 38
1 MR. COUGHLIN: I don't know.

2 MR. LOW: He's not here today, so I can place
3 it on the record, nor is your father. Does your father
4 know of this hearing this morning?
5 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, he does. He's read all
6 the pleadings.
7 MR. LOW: Go ahead. I didn't mean to cut you
8 off.
9 MR. COUGHLIN: If I may. There were a few
10 things that I was hoping to get into. I know I said I
11 didn't have anything further. But if I may have the
12 opportunity to present some evidence.
13 MS. JENKINS: Why don't you go ahead and do
14 that, Mr. Coughlin.
16 MS. JENKINS: Then I didn't ask counsel if you
17 had a closing. Is there a need for closing,
18 Ms. Flocchini?
19 MS. FLOCCHINI: I'm happy to submit. Thank
20 you.
21 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, it's all you.
22 MR. COUGHLIN: May I ask questions, put
23 opposing counsel on as a witness?
24 MS. JENKINS: With regard to?
25 MR. COUGHLIN: The issues brought up in the

YVer1f
1502

Page 39
1 pleading, specifically with respect to service.

2 And I don't mean to go back over what you said
3 earlier, your Honor, with respect to my not acting as my
4 own attorney here. But it would seem to me part of the
5 mentoring plan, it would be a mentoring plan applies where
6 I am acting as my own attorney. The crux of all these
7 questions have been about whether or not I've complied
8 with the mentoring plan in a manner where -- you've not
9 ruled I may not act as my own attorney.
10 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I think the panel
11 is very well aware that the mentoring plan was submitted
12 as a recommendation and not as an order to you. It was a
13 recommendation to the supreme court for your
14 reinstatement. And as far as I'm concerned, and I will
15 speak on behalf of the panel, it was not in place until
16 the supreme court ordered it to be.
17 So your concerns about that may be allayed by
18 that statement. And I may be found to be wrong, but
19 that's my position. And I will state for the panel that
20 ours is simply a recommendation to the supreme court, the
21 order that was issued was in direct support for your
22 reinstatement under those terms. That may help you to not
23 have to go into that evidentiary.
24 MR. COUGHLIN: It does, your Honor.
25 appreciate that.

YVer1f
1503

Page 40
1 MS. JENKINS: With regard to service, however,

2 if you feel it's important to have Ms. Flocchini testify
3 regarding her personal knowledge and her receipt of
4 service, I'll allow that.
5 MR. COUGHLIN: I do, your Honor, just shortly.
6 Mr. Low addressed to a great extent the very issue I was
7 hoping to go into. But I have a couple of follow-up
8 questions on that.
9 MS. JENKINS: Feel free.
10 MR. COUGHLIN: If I may have Ms. Flocchini
11 sworn.
12 (The oath was administered to Ms. Flocchini.)
13 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14 Q Ms. Flocchini, were you ever assigned case
15 60975?
16 A It was not officially assigned because there
17 was nothing to be done in the case at the time that I took
18 over the activities in the Reno office of the State Bar.
19 Q Have you ever been assigned that case?
20 A When the petition for rehearing was filed or
21 when the petition for rehearing was served on Mr. Pattee
22 he forwarded it to me as the attorney handling Reno
23 matters and the attorney that had handled the
24 reinstatement hearing that arose because of that supreme
25 court matter. And so to the extent that I was assigned

YVer1f
1504

Page 41
1 the matter at that time because there was something that

2 needed to be addressed, that's when I was officially
3 assigned the matter.
4 Q Mr. Pattee officially assigned it to you?
5 A No. It was just that it was a matter to be
6 handled in the Reno office, and I handle all matters in
7 the Reno office unless I'm conflicted off of them.
8 Q So no one with the State Bar ever specifically
9 told you this case, 60975, was a case you were assigned?
10 A I don't think that conversation happened. But
11 it's a Reno matter. I was aware of the matter. I was
12 aware when the order for placing you on disability
13 inactive status came out. I was aware when you filed the
14 reinstatement petition and handled the reinstatement
15 petition, I know that, everything that was related to the
16 reinstatement petition itself.
17 Q At the time you were bar counsel in say -18 when did you start being bar counsel?
19 A I started as assistant bar counsel September
20 10th, 2014.
21 Q Here the disability order in the supreme court
22 case 60975 came out June 18, 2015; correct?
23 A I believe that's correct.
24 Q So prior to that date, was that your case?
25 A I was aware of it and that nothing needed to

YVer1f
1505

Page 42
1 be done absent instructions from the supreme court. It

2 was on my list for Reno cases, but nothing needed to be
3 done.
4 Q Did you confer with your then supervisor bar
5 counsel David Clark at that time about the case?
6 A I conferred with David Clark about all cases
7 that were pending in the Reno office, yes.
8 Q Was Mr. Clark on that case at that point?
9 A I think to the extent that my supervisor
10 always worked with me on the cases, he would have been on
11 the case. But it would have been my primary obligation to
12 handle anything that the supreme court instructed the
13 State Bar to do in that matter.
14 Q Are you aware of any conversations I had with
15 David Clark throughout say the period, multiple
16 conversations on the telephone, throughout say April of
17 2014 through July of 2014?
18 A No. I was not with the State Bar before
19 September 10th, 2014.
20 Q I'm sorry, I meant 2015. So are you aware
21 there was multiple conversations between myself and
22 Mr. Clark on the phone between, say, including but not
23 limited to those between April 2014 and July 2014, about
24 that case 60975?
25 A I think you're referring to the year 2015?

YVer1f
1506

Page 43
1 Q Yes.
2 A Yes, I was aware that you had spoken to
3 Mr. Clark about that matter, about the supreme court
4 matter and that nothing had come out, no orders or
5 anything had been filed with the supreme court. Mr. Clark
6 left the office of bar counsel in mid July 2015. So to
7 the extent -- I'm not saying I had any conversation with
8 him later than that, but that's when he left the office of
9 bar counsel.
10 I remember specifically having a conversation
11 with you that he had left the office of bar counsel after
12 his termination date.
13 Q Are you aware of any conversation between
14 myself and Mr. Clark where Mr. Clark referenced
15 considering whether or not to have you handle various
16 cases in which I was a party?
17 A Conversation between you and Mr. Clark?
18 Q Yes.
19 A I don't know what Mr. Clark conveyed to you
20 during your conversations. I do know that it was conveyed
21 to me that anything pending in the Reno office that I was
22 not conflicted off of because I had been on the
23 disciplinary board and couldn't handle some matters, that
24 I would be handling them. And I was not conflicted off of
25 any matter related to you that was pending at the time.

YVer1f
1507

Page 44
1 Q Were you on the disciplinary board at any time

2 in which I came before the board?
3 A I believe I was on the disciplinary board.
4 don't believe I sat on any panels related to any matters

5 that were related to you.
6 Q When did you serve on the disciplinary board;
7 what years?
8 A I believe I started on the disciplinary board
9 in 2007 and was released or had to go off the board when I
10 started as assistant bar counsel.
11 Q So that would include the period in which the
12 original disability petition of 60975 was filed?
13 A It may. Yes. It was filed in 2012, yes.
14 Q So is it possible Mr. Clark felt you might be
15 conflicted off that?
16 A No.
17 Q Why do you say no?
18 A Because I didn't sit on any panel that
19 considered the matters related to you.
20 Q Was Mr. Clark handling Nevada Supreme Court
21 case -- I apologize. I might have asked this already.
22 Was Mr. Clark handling Nevada Supreme Court
23 case 60975, the disability case, at that time in which you
24 were employed by the State Bar?
25 A I don't believe so. To the extent that he was

YVer1f
1508

Page 45
1 a primary attorney who was responsible for responding to

2 anything that the supreme court issued or that you filed,
3 no.
4 Q Are you aware that Mr. Clark was listed as
5 attorney of record on the docket in that case throughout
6 such time period, and including on into as recently as
7 November of this (sic) year?
8 A I did not review the attorneys of record in
9 that matter. But I have no reason to dispute that he had
10 filed something and may have been listed as an attorney of
11 record.
12 Q You received -- is it correct to say that you
13 received -- I believe your pleading here makes clear you
14 received the petition for rehearing in case 60975, Nevada
15 Supreme Court case, and the supplemental petition thereto
16 from Mr. Pattee who had forwarded those on to you after
17 receiving them from myself -18 A Yes -19 Q -- is that correct?
20 A -- that's how I became aware of the petition
21 for rehearing and the supplemental petition for rehearing.
22 Q I believe that email he forwarded on to you
23 was two days after he received it on November 14th you
24 would have become aware of this -- I'm sorry. September
25 14th, 2015, you would have become aware of a then pending

YVer1f
1509

Page 46
1 petition for rehearing?

2 A Yes. I believe that's Exhibit 6 to the Motion
3 for Reconsideration. It indicates Mr. Pattee forwarding
4 it to me.
5 Q So at that time did Mr. Pattee indicate that
6 he was no longer going to handle that case?
7 A When I started -- Mr. Pattee handled the
8 majority of Reno cases between the time that Mr. King left
9 the office of bar counsel and I started at the office of
10 bar counsel. Once I started in the Reno office at the
11 office of bar counsel I handled all the matters up here
12 that I was not conflicted off of.
13 Q Do opposing parties get any notice of that?
14 Did I specifically?
15 A I know you were aware that I was handling the
16 reinstatement petition.
17 Q You're referring to case NNDB 2015 dash 0804,
18 that case?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Was I given any indication that you're aware
21 of that you were handling Nevada Supreme Court case 60975?
22 A To the extent that maybe a notice of
23 appearance was filed which I don't believe needed to be
24 done, no, that was not indicated in 60975. It was
25 indicated that I was handling the matter related to you

YVer1f
1510

Page 47
1 with respect to your request for reconsideration for

2 reinstatement from disability status since you filed the
3 petition since the order came out.
4 Q You just indicated request for
5 reconsideration. Would it be more apt to title that a
6 petition for reinstatement?
7 A I apologize. Thank you.
8 Q So just to clarify. You indicated there that
9 no notice of appearance was filed in Nevada Supreme Court
10 case 60975, the disability case. Was any communication
11 made to me by you or anyone else you're aware of that you
12 were assigned the case or handling it or appearing in it?
13 Just to clarify. I'm talking about Nevada
14 Supreme Court case 60975 not Northern Nevada Disciplinary
15 Bar case RI15-0804.
16 A Not that I know of. I don't think that there
17 needed to be any indication made, because it was a closed
18 matter once the order came out.
19 Q Can you explain why -- upon Mr. Pattee
20 informing you of the existence of the petition for
21 rehearing did you have any conversation with Mr. Pattee
22 with respect to who might respond to it, if anyone?
23 A There was an internal conversation among
24 Mr. Pattee, my supervisor Mr. Kunzi, and me about whether
25 or not we needed to respond to the petition for rehearing

YVer1f
1511

Page 48
1 and the supplemental petition for rehearing. And in that

2 conversation it was assumed that if any response needed to
3 happen, it would be filed by me. And I think I even
4 asserted that if a response needed to be filed I would be
5 preparing it.
6 Q Do you wait to be told by a supervisor what
7 case to work on or what case to file, appear in?
8 A Not if it's a Reno case.
9 Q The default setting, if it's a Reno case, it's
10 your case?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Was that ever communicated to me?
13 A I don't know that it needed to be. I don't
14 know.
15 Q So then acting bar counsel Kunzi and
16 Mr. Pattee, is it fair to say they either communicated to
17 you or you three were in agreement that if there was any
18 opposition to be filed you would file it?
19 A If there was any response -- yes. If there
20 was a response necessary for the petition for rehearing or
21 the supplemental petition thereto, I would be filing those
22 documents, yes.
23 Q Is it fair to say you subsequently chose not
24 to file an opposition?
25 A That is true. We were -- because this was an

YVer1f
1512

Page 49
1 unusual document, we contacted the clerk of the court for

2 procedural instructions as to whether or not a response
3 was necessary. And we were told that only upon
4 instructions from the supreme court did we need to file a
5 response. So we awaited instruction from the supreme
6 court and didn't receive that instruction.
7 Q Was that filing characterized as, in essence,
8 an NRAP 40 petition for rehearing?
9 A I believe so.
10 Q Is it your understanding typically that the
11 other party need be informed by the court whether or not
12 to respond to a petition for rehearing?
13 A I believe so.
14 Q So in the normal case when one party files a
15 petition for rehearing the other party need not respond or
16 may not respond until the clerk of the court instructs
17 them to?
18 A My answer would be based off of a reading of
19 Rule 40 right now. Whatever Rule 40 says, that's the case
20 then, yeah.
21 Q Did you have any communication with the
22 justices in the Nevada Supreme Court about this matter?
23 A No.
24 Q So earlier when you referenced you spoke with
25 the Nevada Supreme Court, and they instructed you not to

YVer1f
1513

Page 50
1 file an opposition, you were strictly referencing a

2 conversation you had with the clerk of the Nevada Supreme
3 Court?
4 A Just to be very specific on who had the
5 conversation, miss Peters, the paralegal in this office,
6 contacted the clerk, Miss Ingersoll, with respect to the
7 procedural requirement as to whether or not to respond to
8 the petition for rehearing.
9 Q It's accurate to say Miss Ingersoll informed
10 Miss Peters that the State Bar should not respond to it?
11 A Unless instructed by the supreme court to do
12 so. Unless there was a specific order instructing us to
13 do so.
14 Q Okay. And that was in light of NRAP Rule 40E,
15 I believe, which indicates no answer to a petition or
16 reconsideration for reply to an answer should be filed
17 unless requested by the court. Not some specific dictate
18 specific to this case by the court that no oppositions
19 should be filed, rather it was just -20 A I believe that it was indicated this was being
21 treated as a petition for a hearing consistent with NRAP
22 40 and the rules therein applied.
23 Q So there was nothing specific to this case or
24 any impropriety in the file, rather just the normal course
25 of business any NRAP 40 petition did not require an

YVer1f
1514

Page 51
1 opposition or does not allow for an opposition unless the

2 court specifically so requests one?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you feel there's anything amiss in the
5 State Bar asserting that there's an impropriety in someone
6 filing a petition for rehearing? Just the bare fact that
7 someone chose to file a petition for rehearing in itself
8 you feel it's improper, someone engaging -9 A As a hypothetical?
10 Q -- in the rights under the law to file a
11 petition -- well, in this case?
12 I'm sorry. Yes, it's a hypothetical.
13 A I'm not sure I'm in a position to speak on
14 behalf of the whole State Bar or the office of bar counsel
15 as to whether or not any petition for rehearing is
16 appropriate to be filed.
17 There's a rule of appellate procedure that
18 provides for filing of a petition for rehearing. By that
19 fact I would submit that it is appropriate in certain
20 circumstances to file a petition for rehearing.
21 That general hypothetical position is not what
22 concerned the State Bar and resulted in the filing of the
23 Motion for Reconsideration. The concern was that two days
24 after the hearing for reinstatement on the disability
25 petition there was a petition for rehearing filed to

YVer1f
1515

Page 52
1 reopen the order that created that hearing. And so

2 instead of following that process and allowing the panel
3 to consider the evidence and file the recommendation with
4 the supreme court, the petition for rehearing sought to
5 undermine the panel's authority or to somehow speed up the
6 process rather than just going by the process that was in
7 place and was appropriate given the Petition For
8 Reinstatement that had been filed.
9 Q Was the Petition For Rehearing, did it
10 reference the panel's recommendation?
11 A Well, it referenced statements made at the
12 hearing and imputed intention to the panel which was of
13 concern to the State Bar as well. That's referenced in
14 the motion.
15 Q Did it attach an excerpt of a rough draft
16 transcript of the hearing?
17 A Your petition for rehearing you mean?
18 Q Yes.
19 A Yes.
20 Q So by referencing the panel's statement at the
21 end of the hearing in providing those to the court, and
22 then subsequently by providing the entire transcript of
23 the hearing to the court, is it fair to say you feel that
24 was somehow lessening the importance of the panel?
25 A No. The request for the supreme court to act

YVer1f
1516

Page 53
1 prior to receiving a recommendation or to somehow undo the

2 panel's authority was the problem.
3 Q Did the request seem to leverage the panel by
4 pointing to its statements at the end of the hearing and
5 providing a transcript thereof?
6 A I don't know what the request intended to do.
7 I don't believe that the transcript that was provided to
8 the supreme court reflected the argument that was made in
9 the petition for rehearing.
10 Q Was there a reason the issues and arguments
11 set out in your November 9th, 2015, reconsideration motion
12 were not brought to the panel prior to the panel's
13 entering its recommendation on October 26th, 2015?
14 A Yes.
15 Q What was that reason?
16 A Because if the panel had recommended that you
17 continue to remain on disability and inactive status, it
18 would not have been necessary to bring the posthearing
19 issues to light. And in deference to the panel making
20 their consideration and entering a reconsideration we did
21 not file the motion or submit the posthearing evidence
22 until the recommendation was issued.
23 Q Do you believe Rule 59 applies to your
24 reconsideration motion, NRCB Rule 59?
25 A I think that's the position that the State Bar

YVer1f
1517

Page 54
1 stated in the reply brief was that it was certainly

2 persuasive authority for the panel to reconsider its
3 recommendation in light of the posthearing information.
4 Q In your reconsideration motion do you allege
5 that a misrepresentation was made with respect to the
6 petitioner asserting that the panel had expressly stated
7 its intent to recommend for reinstatement?
8 MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. Was the question her
9 opinion about whether it was misconduct?
10 MR. COUGHLIN: No. It's whether in her
11 reconsideration motion she indicated that I expressly
12 stated the panel misrepresented.
13 MS. JENKINS: I see. Was it misrepresentation
14 to do that?
15 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
16 Q Not conceding that I did that. But rather she
17 alleged -- I don't think expressly stated the word used,
18 but rather affirmatively stated, quote: At Page 3
19 thereof. "In the petition he stated that at the August
20 25th, 2015, hearing, the panel affirmatively stated its
21 intent to recommend his reinstatement once he submitted
22 the requested plan."
23 Did you write that?
24 A Yes, I wrote the motion for reconsideration.
25 Q And therein at Page 3, line 4 through 6 you

YVer1f
1518

Page 55
1 made the allegation that "In the petition he stated the

2 panel affirmatively stated its intent to recommend his
3 reinstatement once he submitted the requested plan"?
4 A True.
5 Q Is that accurate, particularly in light of
6 that found on Page 8 of the petition for rehearing that
7 you attached thereto wherein the phrase "the panel seems
8 to indicate it will recommend reinstatement" is written by
9 myself?
10 A That's on Page 8?
11 Q Page 8 of the petition for rehearing of August
12 27th, 2015, which I attached to your reconsideration
13 motion.
14 A I'm not sure if that's on Page 8. Page 8 is
15 not the citation that I referenced in the motion.
16 Q Okay. But regardless -17 MS. JENKINS: Counsel, I'm going to suggest
18 that the record or the motion and the attachment speak for
19 themselves. If you want to ask about Ms. Flocchini's
20 personal knowledge or even her personal opinion, please do
21 that, if she agrees or disagrees with the statements in
22 the motion. But is that what you're asking?
23 Do you want to make an offer of proof as to
24 what you're getting at with this line of questions?
25 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. If I may.

YVer1f
1519

Page 56
1 What I'm getting at is Ms. Flocchini makes the statement

2 that the petitioner, myself, misrepresented this panel's
3 intent by affirmatively stating to the court in my
4 petition for rehearing, "The panel affirmatively stated it
5 was going to recommend for my reinstatement," and then
6 Ms. Flocchini goes on to attach that document. Wherein at
7 Page 8 of that document I write, "The panel seems to
8 indicate it's going to recommend my reinstatement."
9 So my question is seeking to get at whether
10 she still stands by her assertion that I affirmatively
11 stated the panel -- that I indicated the panel
12 affirmatively stated its intent to recommend
13 reinstatement, particularly in light of that very writing
14 on Page 8 of my rehearing petition wherein I write, quote,
15 "The panel seems to indicate."
16 MS. JENKINS: So is your question of
17 Ms. Flocchini does she believe that you misrepresented the
18 panel's action during the hearing in your petition; is
19 that what you're asking?
21 MS. JENKINS: Why don't you ask her that?
23 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
24 Q Ms. Flocchini, do you believe I misrepresented
25 the panel's -- do you believe that I affirmatively

YVer1f
1520

Page 57
1 stated -- do you believe I indicated the panel

2 affirmatively stated its intent to recommend
3 reinstatement?
4 A I believe you indicated that in your petition
5 for rehearing. And I think the next piece of that, part
6 of the reason for the motion for reconsideration is that
7 it was a misrepresentation of the panel's statement at the
8 end of the hearing.
9 The panel indicated that it would take the
10 matter under consideration, would consider a mentoring
11 plan that was submitted and whether or not it complied
12 with their request for what should be in the mentoring
13 plan, and that it would deliberate to make a
14 recommendation, whatever that recommendation may be, to
15 the supreme court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117.
16 Q And I apologize. I believe I have been
17 misspeaking when I indicate Page 8 of Exhibit 1 to
18 Ms. Flocchini's reconsideration motion. Rather it's Page
19 8 of Exhibit 10, which would be my supplemental petition
20 rather than my original petition for rehearing at Page 8
21 thereof is what I'm referencing wherein the phrase, "The
22 panel seems to indicate it will recommend for
23 reinstatement."
24 MS. JENKINS: Thank you for correcting the
25 record. That will make it a little easier to follow.

YVer1f
1521

Page 58
1 MS. FLOCCHINI: If I may. I think it's

2 Exhibit 7 of the Motion for Reconsideration of the
3 supplemental petition is Exhibit 7.
4 MS. JENKINS: Would you agree, Mr. Coughlin?
5 MR. COUGHLIN: I believe so.
6 MS. JENKINS: Now do we have it right?
7 MR. COUGHLIN: I think so. And I think just
8 for the ease of setting this out. My opposition
9 specifically, I believe it's correct, my opposition -10 MS. JENKINS: Page 5 of the Opposition to
11 Motion for Reconsideration contains the excerpts of that
12 discussion, and your arguments with regard to it.
13 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. This is laid out on Page
14 5 of my Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration.
15 quote -16 MS. JENKINS: I think I just said that.

17 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm sorry.
18 MS. JENKINS: That's quite all right.
19 MR. COUGHLIN: Trying to read too many things.
20 MS. JENKINS: Would we like to take a
21 five-minute break at this point, give you a chance to get
22 your thoughts together, give the panel a moment?
23 MR. COUGHLIN: Sure.
24 MS. JENKINS: Thank you. We'll reconvene in
25 five.

YVer1f
1522

Page 59
1 (Recess taken.)
2 MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, do you have
3 anything further?
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Not of Ms. Flocchini, no.
5 MS. JENKINS: Do you have anything further at
6 all?
7 MR. COUGHLIN: Just brief testimony on -8 MS. JENKINS: Great.
9 MR. COUGHLIN: I'm still sworn.
10 No one with the State Bar ever communicated to
11 me that Ms. Flocchini was assigned Nevada Supreme Court
12 case 60975. I have had conversation with David Clark
13 about the case specifically. He was handling it, as far
14 as I knew, by my communicating with him about the case
15 numerous times on the phone and in email.
16 I think that's it. That's all I have to add.
17 MS. JENKINS: Okay.
18 Ms. Flocchini, do you have anything further
19 for the record?
20 MS. FLOCCHINI: I think it's important to try
21 to put the argument in a concise format for the panel's
22 consideration before you retire to deliberations. And so
23 to some extent this is a reiteration of what's in the
24 Motion for Reconsideration, but I would like to put it in
25 a little paragraph for you.

YVer1f
1523

Page 60
1 The panel is tasked with considering whether

2 or not Mr. Coughlin is fit to resume the practice of law.
3 The concerns for the State Bar that were raised with the
4 posthearing filings are that he is not yet fit because of
5 the conduct that he engaged in.
6 One, we're concerned that the documents were
7 even filed posthearing rather than relying on this panel
8 to make a recommendation following the hearing which
9 Mr. Coughlin has alluded to the fact that he believed it
10 would be a favorable ruling. Bu rather than wait for a
11 favorable ruling, he filed documents with the supreme
12 court.
13 Mr. Coughlin was aware that Mr. Clark was not
14 with the State Bar. He was aware that Mr. King was not
15 with the State Bar. And regardless of whether or not they
16 continued to be listed as the attorney of record in that
17 matter, he did not go and make the reasonable effort to
18 serve the document on a person who might be responding to
19 the document.
20 And that's a concern. When you are in
21 practice you need to take not just the rule into
22 consideration but the practicality of the situation. And
23 if Mr. Coughlin is reinstated he will be having opposing
24 counsel, he will have opposing counsel. And this happens
25 to people all the time in practice. And not providing the

YVer1f
1524

Page 61
1 information to me as the attorney handling the

2 reinstatement matter and any other matters in Reno, we
3 were not aware of the document, we were not able to
4 respond to it.
5 I contacted the supreme court, because we
6 weren't sure if it was being considered a petition or a
7 motion. At the time that I received the document or even
8 Mr. Pattee received the document via the email, the
9 electronic courtesy copy, if it had been considered a
10 motion the response would have already been due at that
11 point, and that's a particular concern.
12 So the idea of going by the formality of the
13 fact that Mr. Coughlin proceeded with what he believes to
14 be the formality rather the practicalities of practice are
15 concerning.
16 The fact that Mr. Coughlin did not -- or made
17 limited consultation about whether or not to proceed with
18 the Petition for Rehearing as opposed to just seeing what
19 happened, what he thought would be a positive result from
20 the reinstatement hearing is of other concern. We're
21 completely aware that he's not required to work with those
22 mentors. Those are proposed mentors, and it would have
23 been a recommendation to the supreme court.
24 But the fact that he was aware that those
25 people were available to him, and he didn't use that

YVer1f
1525

Page 62
1 resource when essentially engaging in practice, in doing

2 something that was practice, is of further concern to the
3 State Bar.
4 And so we want the panel to be able to
5 consider all of that information before you make a
6 recommendation to the supreme court, whatever that
7 recommendation may be.
9 The last word, Mr. Coughlin.
10 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. I appreciate the
11 bar's point here. I think it would have been a good idea
12 to communicate in some way to Ms. Flocchini about filing a
13 Petition for Rehearing, and I apologize for not doing
14 that.
15 It's a little bit of an unusual situation in
16 that I'm essentially acting as my own attorney. I don't
17 know whether technically it amounts to that or not. For
18 instance, if I was acting on behalf of somebody else, my
19 client might not want me to reach out to Ms. Flocchini.
20 My client might say something to the effect of, if you
21 make Ms. Flocchini aware of this, she will bring it to the
22 panel and seek to have me essentially punished for
23 engaging in that which I'm lawfully entitled to do, seek
24 petition for rehearing.
25 I will submit that one shouldn't be seen as

YVer1f
1526

Page 63
1 doing something improper where they file a petition for

2 rehearing. That's one's right under the law. There's
3 that avenue for a reason. But I wasn't an attorney
4 representing another client in this situation, I was
5 myself, representing myself essentially in this scenario.
6 And it just didn't make good sense. It wasn't good
7 judgment not to make sure Ms. Flocchini was aware of this.
8 I think I got kind of cute with the technical
9 niceties of who was attorney of record, and that was a
10 mistake, and I'm sorry for that.
11 I didn't seek to somehow lessen the importance
12 of this panel by filing that petition for rehearing. In
13 fact, I provided the supreme court the entire transcript
14 of this. And in my argument therein I sought -- I
15 encouraged the court to essentially use that hearing as
16 the hearing I was never given in the first place prior to
17 having my right to practice law taken away.
18 Some federal courts find that you cannot take
19 away somebody's right to practice law without giving them
20 a hearing. That's what happened here. I wasn't ever
21 given a hearing prior to being put on disability status.
22 So rather than seek to lessen the importance
23 of the panel, I sought to expedite judicial economy by
24 providing the supreme court the transcript of this hearing
25 referencing what took place at the hearing, and asking it

YVer1f
1527

Page 64
1 to essentially reconsider its original act of taking away

2 my right to practice law without a hearing by viewing the
3 reinstatement hearing of my hearing and reconsidering its
4 original decision, not out of any disrespect to the panel,
5 but rather out of awareness of the realities of
6 reinstatement cases before the Nevada Supreme Court.
7 Say, take one like In re: Tanner, for example,
8 that was filed. From the date his reinstatement petition
9 was filed it was nine months before the court adjudicated
10 on the panel's recommendation therein. So I thought the
11 avenue of filing a petition for rehearing might be a
12 manner of avoiding that nine-month window and instead
13 getting this panel's recommendation to the supreme court
14 prior thereto while at the same time giving me an
15 opportunity to do what I'm entitled to do under the law,
16 which is seek rehearing of an important matter to me where
17 my law license, which is a 14th Amendment protected right
18 under the U.S. Constitution, was taken from me without a
19 hearing. I didn't even get a hearing prior to that.
20 There was a petition filed. And I understand
21 there was a lot of ancillary side stuff. It probably made
22 it make sense. But technically I didn't get a hearing
23 prior to my law license being taken away. And that's what
24 I sought to address.
25 I didn't think they would grant it, but just

YVer1f
1528

Page 65
1 as a matter of self-respect. It was going to be hard for

2 me to wait nine months to get a ruling and know that I
3 didn't take advantage of my opportunity to put forth to
4 the court that I didn't get a hearing prior to taking away
5 my law license.
6 Just as a matter of self-respect, and as a
7 matter of respect to what I'm seeking to do with my life
8 by being an attorney, I felt it was important to take the
9 effort, make the effort. If someone takes away anybody's
10 law license on this panel in this room, I would imagine
11 everyone in this room would file that same petition for
12 rehearing saying I never got a hearing before you took
13 away my law license, and I think under the law I'm
14 entitled to one.
15 So no disrespect to this panel. I think
16 that's evidenced by me providing the transcript of the
17 hearing. And in seeking -- really what I sought to do was
18 leverage what the panel said at the end of this hearing,
19 which would be another reason for waiting to file.
20 Because I got, from my point of view, positive statements
21 from the panel at the end of the hearing, and I wanted the
22 court to see that as soon as possible.
23 It's just impatience, and that's something I'm
24 still dealing with, impatience. Dealing with frustration
25 and disappointment. It's so much better than it used to

YVer1f
1529

Page 66
1 be.
2 Ms. Flocchini not forwarding the record here,
3 which I understand she has reasons for not doing that.
4 The rule, from my reading, which is, admittedly, very
5 biased, is within 30 days of the panel issuing its
6 decision the record must be forwarded to the supreme
7 court. Then I would get a new case number and the nine
8 months' deadline would begin ticking. That didn't happen.
9 In the past when I was on Adderall being angry
10 and doing all this stuff that got me here, I was filing a
11 petition for writ of mandamus or something seeking to
12 force this and that to happen, and I didn't do that here.
13 So I'm glad about that, because I just don't like living
14 that way. It's just not fun.
15 In essence, the original six months' abeyance
16 that Ms. Flocchini sought at the August hearing has taken
17 place now. And that might have been for the best. It's
18 been four months since you've seen me. I've had another
19 four months of sobriety, I've had another four months of
20 holding a steady job, and just having my brain come back
21 to normal, and just getting more and more stable.
22 And this was a good opportunity as well, I
23 think, because, hopefully, I showed in my opposition here
24 that I can present competent legal work that's not crazy
25 and angry and manic in its recommendation. And it's been

YVer1f
1530

Page 67
1 a good sort of red flag to me to recognize the sense of

2 what Ms. Flocchini has said here. That just from a common
3 sense standpoint it was poor judgment, bad business, not
4 to alert her to this or touch base with her on this. The
5 deference that needs to be showed to bar counsel was not
6 shown here, and I'm disappointed in that. I apologize for
7 that. There's no excuse for that.
8 I know in my mind I got caught up in the
9 technical niceties of who is attorney of record, this and
10 that, and would it advantage my client not to have this or
11 that happen. And I can rely on the fact that Mr. Pattee
12 will forward this to Ms. Flocchini if that's what the bar
13 decides to do.
14 But I think just to step back from that.
15 need to realize it's just not a good judgment. You need

16 to have a working relationship with Ms. Flocchini. And
17 anybody I think would be bound to be a bit miffed -- not
18 miffed, I don't think that's the right word. It would
19 bring them concern, it would cause them concern,
20 particularly given all the circumstances here that I went
21 about this the way I did.
22 So I apologize for that. And I will take it
23 as a learning experience. And I would just ask the panel
24 to go ahead and let the original recommendation stand and
25 essentially view this as the six months Ms. Flocchini

YVer1f
1531

Page 68
1 sought originally was granted. We're back here almost six

2 months later, and so kind of a compromise on that. Thank
3 you.
4 MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin. We'll
5 be in recess until the panel completes its deliberations.
6 Thank you.
7 (Proceedings recessed at 11:10 A.M.)
8 -oOo9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1532

Page 69
1 STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss.
2 COUNTY OF WASHOE)
3
4 I, CAROL HUMMEL, a notary public in and for
6 That at 9:00 A.M. on WEDNESDAY, the 6th day of
7 January, 2016, at the offices of Nevada State Bar, 9456
11 That said transcript which appears
15 herein appears;
16 That the foregoing transcript, consisting of
17 Pages 1 through 68, inclusive, is a full, true and correct
18 transcription of my stenotype notes of said proceedings;
19 I further certify that I am not an attorney or
22 financially interested in the action.
23 ______________________
24
25

1533
Case No: R115-0804
3
4
5
6
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
IN RE:

BAR NO. 9473
11
12
13
14
15
Respondent.
)
)
) BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
) OBTAINED AFTER PRESENTATION OF
) EVIDENCE CONCLUDED IN HEARING
-------------)
16
The State Bar of Nevada, through Assistant Bar Counsel, R. Kait Flocchini, requests
17
that the Hearing Panel reconsider its recommendation that Zachary Coughlin, Esq. 's
18
Nevada law license be reinstated to active status.
19
On August 25, 2015, the Panel concluded the receipt of evidence in this matter,
20
except for receiving Coughlin's proposed Reinstatement Plan. The Panel set a deadline
21
of November 15, 2015, for submission of the Plan. The Panel informed Coughlin that upon
22
submission of the Plan it would reconvene at its earliest convenience On August 26, 2015,
23
Coughlin submitted a Monitoring Plan to the Panel.
24
25
Thereafter, Coughlin filed multiple documents with the Nevada Supreme Court
attempting to undo its Order placing him on disability inactive status.
Coughlin made
EXHIBIT
i~1534
misrepresentations in those filings. He also failed to properly serve the State Bar with the
documents filed in the Nevada Supreme Court matter and misrepresented his method of
service on the State Bar. Coughlin also misrepresented the Panel's statements in an e-
mail to Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini. Coughlin's actions evidence that he is still
unable to gauge what are the appropriate bounds of advocacy which violates Rule of
Professional Conduct ("RPC") 3.3 (Candor toward the tribunal) and RPC 8.4 (c) and (d)
(Misconduct).
Supreme Court Rule (USCR") 117 requires that the petitioning attorney show by clear
and convincing evidence that he is Ufit to resume the practice of law." Engaging in conduct
10
which violates the Rules of Professional Conduct is evidence that an attorney is not so fit.
11
The Applicable Rules of Professional Conduct
12
RPC 3.3 requires that "ra] lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact
13
or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
14
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
15
RPC 8.4 provides that U[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
16
17
18
(c) Engage
misrepresentation;
in
conduct
involving
dishonesty,
fraud,
deceit
or
(d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
19
Coughlin's Post-Hearing Conduct
20
On August 27, 2015- only two days after the Reinstatement Hearing- Coughlin
21
filed a Petition for Rehearing, or Motion to Set Aside Order Placing on Disability Inactive
22
Status Where no Hearing was Afforded Prior Thereto (Uthe Petition") with the Nevada
23
Supreme Court. 1 See Exhibit 1. Coughlin also e-mailed Assistant Bar Counsel Kait
24
25
1 Coughlin also filed a Personal Statement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office ofEnroIIment
and Discipline on August 27, 2015. The Personal Statement is very similar to the Petition, but it includes an analysis
1535
Flocchini after this Panel's Recommendation was entered and misrepresented what
happened in the hearing.
A. The Petition
In the Petition he stated that at the August 25,2015 Hearing, the Panel affirmatively
stated its intent to recommend his reinstatement once he submitted the requested Plan.
See id. at 1:24-28, Exhibit 1. This is a misrepresentation of the Panel Chair's statements.
The Chair stated the Panel required "a bit more information from [Coughlin]" in the form of
a reinstatement plan.
(excerpted only) ("Hearing Transcript"), 182:5-9, Exhibit 3. The Chair set a deadline for
10
consideration of the plan and stated that after its submission "[t]his body will reconvene at
11
its earliest convenience ... and issue its order appropriate based upon the hearing today
12
as well as your proposed plan." Id. at 182:9-14, Exhibit 3; see also Id. at 182:22-24 (" ...
13
we will convene in a conference call, finalize our decision, and issue an appropriate order
14
as quickly as possible."), Exhibit 3.
See Transcript of August 25, 2015 Reinstatement Hearing
15
Coughlin's statement to the Nevada Supreme Court was a mischaracterization of
16
the Panel's intent which violates RPC 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and RPC 8.4(c)
17
(Misconduct: conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
18
Coughlin also affirmed to the Nevada Supreme Court that he had mailed (or e-
19
mailed) the Petition to David Clark at the State Bar's Las Vegas office. See Exhibit 1 at
20
pg.9. First, Coughlin knew on August 27,2015, that Mr. Clark was no longer Bar Counsel.
21
Second, the State Bar never received the Petition in the mail.
22
Sanchez-Gibson,
23
27, 2015. See Declaration of R. Kait Flocchini,
See Affidavit of Millie
3, Exhibit 4. Third, the Petition was not received bye-mail on August

~
3, Exhibit 5. Instead, Assistant Bar
24
25
of the Disability Petition as well. Compare Petition, pgs. 1-2,3-4,5-8, Exhibit 1 and Personal Statement (without
exhibits), pgs. 1-2, 5-6, 7-10, Exhibit 2.
1536
Counsel Phillip Pattee received it bye-mail on September 12, 2015. See E-mail String,
dated September 12-14, 2015, Ex.hibit 6. Coughlin e-mailed the Petition to Pattee and
two people that Coughlin knew did not work at the Office of Bar Counsel any longer - Patrick
I
King and David Clark. See id. Coughlin knew that Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini
was handling this matter and he e-l11ailed documents to her on August 26, 2015. Yet, she
did not receive an e-mail from Coughlin regarding the Petition. See Declaration of R. Kait
Flocchini, 113, Exhibit 5.
Coughlin's affirmation of mailing (or e-mailing) was false. This is a violation of RPC
3.3 and RPC 8.4(c). Further, Couflhlin's attempt to e-mail former employees of the Office
I
10
of Bar Counsel and an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel, but not the Assistant Bar Counsel
11
handling his Reinstatement matter, is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Such

I
12
gamesmanship demonstrates that ICoughlin is not yet fit to resume the practice of law.
13
Finally, Coughlin filed a Supplemental Petition for Rehearing with the Nevada
14
Supreme Court on September 21, 4'015. See Supplemental Petition for Rehearing, Ex.hibit
15
7. He served this document on Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee again. See E-mail String,
I
16
dated September 21-22, 2015, I:xhibit 8.
17
rehashed, and elaborated on, the points in the Petition. Compare Exhibit 1, pg. 6, fn. 2
18
and Exhibit 7,4:16-26; compare also Exhibit 1,6:11-18 and Exhibit 7,12:11-14.
19
In the Supplemental Petition, Coughlin
B. Coughlin's E-mail
20
On October 30, 2015, Cou~~hlin e-mailed Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini to
21
request a stipulation to not contest the Panel's Recommendation so as to "make up the 30
22
days just lost to the Panel's taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion to
I
23
issue a Recommendation." See E-mail, dated October 30, 2015, Exhibit 9. Coughlin
I
24
asserted that the Panel Chair "indicated the hearing would conclude when I provided the
25
proposed monitoring plan to the PaneL" This assertion is directly contradicted by the Panel
4
1537
Chair's statements that "if your submission is received tomorrow ... the panel will meet at
its earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude this matter." See Hearing Transcript,
189:8-14, Exhibit 3. The misrepresentation is particularly troubling when the Panel Chair
rejected Coughlin's assertion that the Panel's decision must be issued within 30 days of
August 25,2015. See id. at 187:14-191:10, Exhibit 3.
Coughlin's assertion in his October 30,2015 email is a misrepresentation of
what happened at the August 25, 2015 Hearing. This evidences that Coughlin fails to
understand the statements of a tribunal that do not match what he expects to hear or that
he fails to appreciate an attorney's obligation to make truthful statements. Either way, the
10
result is that, at best, his conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice. There is no
11
reason to believe that he will not engage in similar misconduct on behalf of clients if he is
12
allowed to resume practicing law.
13
Conclusion
14
It is easy to appreciate that Coughlin wants to resume practicing law as soon as
15
possible. However, his fitness to do so must be questioned in light of the means by which
16
he is attempting to get there. Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by making
17
overreaching misstatements and failing to serve documents is not the way to show that
18
one is fit to resume practicing law.
19
/II
20
21
/II
22
23
III
24
25
III
5
1538
1
2
Based on the foregoing, the State Bar respectfully requests that the Panel
reconsider its recommendation that Coughlin be reinstated pursuant to SCR 117.
q~
DATED this
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

STANLEY
5
6
7
8
c.: ~?~' BAR COUNSEL
BY:~)

Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
1539
EXHIBIT LIST
2
3
Title
Exhibit No.
Petition for Rehearing, or Motion to Set Aside Order Placing on

Disability Inactive Status Where no Hearing was Afforded Prior
Thereto
Personal Statement
Transcript of August 25, 2015 Reinstatement Hearing (excerpted)
Affidavit of Millie Sanchez-Gibson
Declaration of R. Kait Flocchini, Esq.
10
Supplemental Petition for Rehearing
11
12
E-mail, dated October 30, 2015
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
1540
Exhibit 1
1541
2
3
4
5
6

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se
7
8
9
10
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Case No: 60975
11
12
13
14
15
PETITION FOR REHEARING, OR, MOTION TO SET

ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO
HEARING WAS AFFORDED PRIOR THERETO
16
17
18

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
1542

2
recommendation by Disciplinary Board with respect to an attorney's petition for
3
4
of Wiederholt, 182 P.3d 1047 (Alaska 2008).
8
9
10
11
12
While Court of Appeals must ultimately determine whether an attorney

meets the criteria for reinstatement after disbarment, the recommendations of the
Board on Professional Responsibility and the Hearing Committee are entitled to
great weight. In re Hollis, 968 A.2d 1037 (D.C. 2009).
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Nevada Disciplinary Board. See, Exhibit 5, Coughlin's 8/21/15 Pre-Hearing Brief.
26
Please see, also, Exhibit 5, Letters of Recommendation from fellow attorneys
27
28
2
1543
2
adopt the recommendation of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board and
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
The undersigned respectfully requests that the Nevada Supreme Court set
13
aside the Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status or otherwise alter
14
15
16
such such that Coughlin could practice law pending the resolution of his
reinstatement proceeding.
17
18
Coughlin was never provided a hearing before anyone, not even a
19
disciplinary panel, much less the Nevada Supreme Court prior to his law license
20
21
22
23
(which is a property right under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus a hearing is
required prior to taking such from Coughlin) being placed on disability inactive
status, which is not a "temporary" designation in the sense that the failure to
24
25
26
provide a hearing before doing so could be justified.

The power of courts to disbar or otherwise discipline attorneys must be
27
28
exercised consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See
3
1544
Schware v. Board of Bar Exam. ofN.M., 353 U.S. 232, 238, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1
2
L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). This means that the attorney must be afforded fair notice of
3
4
5
6
the charge and a meaningful opportunity to respond. See Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550,
88 S.Ct. 1222.
Similarly, see Exhibit 6, 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce showing attorney
7
8
9
fee award in divorce case assessed against attorney Coughlin personally (referred
to in disability petition) was set aside. Regardless, the various orders attached to
10
11
12
the disability petition are not "proof'l or evidence, as they would not be admissible
as such.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the civil contempt order from the traffic citation trial and the attorney fee award in the divorce case), thus
different burdens of proof where utilized therein, as such, no offensive collateral estoppel could apply given the
clear and convicing burden in disciplinary matters ... that is if those orders were not set aside anyways, which they
were) offense may conclusively establish guilt of the offense charged in attorney disciplinary proceedings.[17]
Likewise, a foreign jurisdiction'S adjudication of guilt may be deemed conclusive proof of guilt of the attorney
misconduct charged.[18] The burden then falls upon the attorney to demonstrate why the foreign judgment is not
valid or why the state should not accept it and impose sanctions based thereon. [ 19] While a judgment in a civil
in a prior proceeding, even when it is conclusive of misconduct on the part of the attorney.[ 22]
[FN17] N.J.-In re Boylan, 162 N.J. 289, 744 A.2d 158 (2000). Mass.-Matter ofConcemi, 422 Mass.
326,662 N.E.2d 1030 (1996). Consideration of underlying conduct not precluded A conviction does not
preclude consideration of the actual conduct itself for the purpose of determining the appropriate discipl ine to be
accorded an attorney. Ill.-In re Ciardelli, 118 Ill. 2d 233, 113 Ill. Dec. 94, 514 N.E.2d 1006 (1987). [FNI8] Fla.
-The Florida Bar v. Mogil, 763 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2000). Unsupported finding disregarded A finding by a board,
in an out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, that the respondent had charged an excessive fee would be
disregarded in a disciplinary proceeding within the state, where no basis for supporting the finding could be
found. Mo.-In re Weiner, 530 S.W.2d 222, 81 A.L.R.3d 1272 (Mo. 1975), supplemented, 547 S.W.2d 459
(Mo. 1977). Burden of showing infirmity of foreign proceeding The burden of showing that the respondent was
denied due process and that there was an infinnity of proof in the foreign disbarment proceeding is on the
accused attorney. Neb.-State ex reI. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Dineen, 235 Neb. 363,455 N.W.2d 178
(1990). [FNI9] 100. [FN20] Tenn.-Berke v. Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436 S.W.2d 296
(1968). [FN21] Iowa-Comrnittee on Professional Ethics v. Wright, 178 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1970). Tenn.Tennessee Bar Ass'n v. Berke, 48 Tenn. App. 140,344 S.W.2d 567 (1960). [FN22) Tenn.-Berke v.
Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436 S.W.2d 296 (1968).
4
1545
2
3
4
5
6
Coughlin's "additional response" (titled Notice of Non-Service, etc ... ) to the
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
disability petition of August 2014 and the 5/31/ 12 Disability Petition itself.
Because an attorn~ disciplinary proceeding is quasi-criminal in
advance notice of the charges, and the 0 ortun; to ect;vel res ond to
the char es and con ront and cross-ex mme witnesses. .. .A.
onst. men. . In re eters,.
Ir.
1).
As a general rule, in a proceeding to dIscipline an attorney, he or she
(Fla. 1965).
time and in a meaningful manner, WhICh is satisfied by the Qfovisions for
presuspension notice and a hearing, together with the availabilIty of
postsu~QensIOn reVIew. Mass.-In re Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d
15 (2002).
A license to practice law was a property rightprotected by the due
process clause oftlie Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.CA. Const.Amend. 14.
property nght protected by state and federal constitutional right to
procedural Clue process. Ex parte Case, 2005 WL 2600214 (Ala. 2005).
for seeking his temporary suspension and was a orded both a hear;n
before a smgle justIce ofthe Supreme Judicial ourt, at w IC acts were
presented, and a hearin be ore the ull court prior to effectiveness of an
order directmg IS temporary suspenSIOn. ass.-Matter of Ellis, 425 Mass.
332,680 N.E.2d 11540997).
Appointment Of Counsel For Attorney Facing Disciplinary Charges,
86 A.L.R. 4Th 1071.
"PetItion to determine competency; notice ....
5
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DlSABlLITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
1546

by a ,hearing panel or tlie examination of the attorney by qualified
medIcal experts.
If, ullon due consideration, the court concludes that the
attorney is-mcapacitated for the pl~ose of practicing law, it shall
shall be suspended.
she IS wIthout adequafe representatIOn."
2
3
4
7
8
hearing. It does not seem to be a settled point oflaw2 in Nevada whether SCR
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
merit of such arguments against declaring him disabled. See DCR 13(3); NRAP
31(3)(d).
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Nevada, SCR 102(4)(c) and (d), seem to support the position that a hearing is required before placing
Medical Examiners, 68 Nev. 455,235 P.2d 327 (1951). A state cannot exclude a person from the practice oflaw
without due process oflaw, as respondent readily concedes. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232,
77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). In this instance, however, the risk of erroneous deprivation is minimized by
the provisions ofSCR 102(4)(c) and (d). Under these rules, a temporarily suspended attorney is entitled to
resolution of the matter. The government public interest element is evident. The rule on its face only permits this
court to order temporary suspension ifthere are affidavits to support allegations that an attorney is causing "great
harm" by his actions; i.e., temporary suspension prior to a hearing is only warranted if "exigent circumstances"
exist. Cf. State ex reI. Sweikert v. Briare, 94 Nev. 752, 588 P.2d 542 (1978). We therefore conclude that the rule
case to justify dispensing with a pre-suspension hearing." Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 643 P.2d 120 I (Nev.
1982).
6
MOTION TO SET
ORDER
ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO

1547
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A.L.R.4th 136 (1990 & Supp. 1995).
The court in Laughlin v Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190,95 F2d
101 (applying District of Columbia law), while construing the statute
to include the right to notice and a presuspension hearing, held that it
was invalid as applied to an attorney who was suspended without
notice and a hearing.
declared.
An attorney may be temporarily suspended without a presuspension hearing where the risk of erroneous deprivation is
(1995).
be heard in his own defense. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against
Sanai, 167 Wash. 2d 740,225 P.3d 203 (2009).
Failure to provide adequate opportunity to defend
7
1548
2
3
4
5
6

Albert, 389 Mich. 153,206 N.W.2d 729. (NOTE: this has essentially
been done in Coughlin's case at this point, and the NNDB seems to
indicate it will recommend the reinstatement of Coughlin's law license
in the near future).

9
10
11

practicing iaw, just such newly acquired evidence.
12
13
14
In Conclusion, Coughlin respectfully requests the Nevada Supreme Court
15
16
17
take him off disability inactive status at this time, or at least, temporarily reinstate
him pending the resolution of his recent reinstatement hearing, referenced, supra.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27


Petitioner
28
8
1549
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
copy of this PETITION FOR REHEARING. OR. MOTION TO SET ASIDE
ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO
HEARING WAS AFFORDED PRIOR THERETO upon the following by mailing
it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
DA VID CLARK, ESQ.
BAR COUNSEL
3100 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
11
12
13

Petitioner
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER PLACING ON DlSABlLlTY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
1550
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
3
4
5
6

Hearing of 8/25/15
8/26/15.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Exhibit 6: 6119/09 Finai Decree of Divorce showing attorney fee award in divorce
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
MOTION TO SET ASiDE ORDER PLACING ON DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS WHERE NO HEARING
1551
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1552
Excerpt from RI15-0804 In Re Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. Disability Reinstatement Hearing

before Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel on Tuesday, August 25,2015
MS. JENKINS: Back on the record at 4:12 P.M. the panel has considered the testimony today
and the evidence that was presented, and in very short order came to unanimity about how to address
the circumstances presented in thc petition. First, we considered at great length rule 117 and our charge,
and we found that there was a great deal of evidence that was very pertinent to our deliberations today.
What the panel has determined is that we need a bit more information from you, sir, and that is we
would like to request and give you a reasonable opportunity to propose a reinstatement plan to this
panel before it issues its opinion.
And that reinstatement plan will be due no later than November 15th. This body will reconvene
at its earliest convenience, no reason to delay, and issue its order appropriate based upon the hearing
today as well as your proposed plan. And that plan should be submitted to me as the panel chair and to
Ms. Flocchini. If the proposed plan that you send to us meets the directive that I'm about to give to you,
I'll submit it to the remaining panel members. I'm going to send it to them anyway either way, but with
my determination about whether it meets or does not meet the detailed outline that I'm going to give to
you right now.
And if it does meet the outline, we will convene in a conference call, finalize our decision, and
issue an appropriate order as quickly as possible. I'm hoping to have it all done well before the
Thanksgiving holiday, because I have plans. :rvluch, lTIuch incentive there. \X/e \vould like to hear from
you your ideas about your reinstatement, removal of your disability status, and your return to the
practice oflaw in the following areas:
Number one. Your plan to obtain and determine an appropriate attorney within the 12-step
program to be your sobriety mentor. That's in addition to any sponsor you may have in addition to any
colleague that you might have supporting your sobriety. But an attorney in the program who will agree
to work with you for a two-year period. We would also like for you to identify an attorney who will
mentor you in your law practice in Nevada for that same two-year period. And we will ask those
attorney mentors to work with you closely and support your success and report by letter or email for
that two-year period on a quarterly basis reporting challenges and successes, and they must have been
active in the practice of law for not less than 15 years. Because we feel like having a much more
experienced attorney is not going to let anybody get away with anything, and is going to be able to see
through an awful lot of shenanigans, talking the talk but not walking the walk. So those people we're
asking to report quarterly to the Bar about your progress.
We want to hear from you your plan to attend three meetings a week, as well as an additional
three hours a week with a sponsor or equivalent in the 12-step program that's separate from your
mentor. So adding people to your support network is critical.
We would like your plan to include your ability and your steps toward obtaining independent
therapeutic counseling of not less than twice per month for that two-year period. Someone you're
comfortable with who is licensed in some way. That means while we have testimony that it may not be
a psychologist or a psychiatrist, whatever, an MFT would be fine, but we prefer that it not be a religious
practitioner or some other counselor. We're talking about mental health counseling.
We would like for you to submit to and include in your mentors, who are attorneys, that they
can request that the Bar request your alcohol or drug counseling, as well as the State Bar doing it based
upon any reports or concerns that the State Bar might have.
MR. LOW: You said drug counseling. You mean drug testing.
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. Alcohol and drug testing. We would like to have in your
reinstatement plan how you might achieve that. Pay for it, what have you.
And then we would like for you to identify more substantively in this plan where you hope to
practice? How are you going to support yourself until a practice brings you the financial compensation
required to support yourself?
Identify what triggers there are in your life that cause you to be
1553
either stressed or to want to return to alcohol or substance abuse. And frankly, we want your plan to
include any other information that you think is going to be critical. Not helpful. Not interesting. Critical
to the panel's determination that your plan is a plan for success .....
(CONCLUSION OF HEARING)
1554
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
1555
1
2
3
4

945 W. 12th St.
Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
12
13
Case No: RI15-0804
Petitioner
14
15
16
MONITORING PLAN
17

18
19
20

1.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
and support my success and report to either the Bar, the PaneIINNDB, or both, by
and successes.
28
MONITORING PLAN
1556
2.
2
3
4
either the Bar, the PanelINNDB, or both, by letter or email for that two-year period
8
9

10
11
12
additional three hours a week with a sponsor (currently Miles Warsh, whom
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1557
2
4
5
6

10
11
12

13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

7. I have identified as other infonnation that may be critical to the Panel's
detennination that this plan is a plan for success the following: I am very
24
25
26
27
28
and actions.
MONITORING PLAN
1558
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
VERlFICATION/DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

hereby declare that ail assertions I have made herein are tnle and correct to the best
14
Dated this August 26 t\ 2015,
15
16
17

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1559
2
3
copy of this MONITORING PLAN upon the following by mailing it by first class
mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following addressee:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

and to
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14

Petitioner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MONITORING PLAN
1560
-------------------------
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
1561
..--_ _------~------------- EARL S. NIELSEN, PHD.

8/13/2015
PROGRESS REVIEW
DOB: 9/27/72
AGE: 38
CASE NAME: In the Mattera/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Respondent
CASE #: 60975
PROGRESS REPORT:
alcoholic with recent remission, and a past opiOid addiction in full remission, and
quality psychia.trist for medication management, and an opportunity to
834 WILLOW ST.

RENO, NV 89502 (775) 323-6766 FAX (775) 323-2716 esnphd@hushmaiJ.com
(;0
39'i1d
JINIlJ SHI GJI'J
P(;08-U:S-SLL
1562
-2In June 2015; Mr. Coughlin contacted me and asked me to review his
progress. I explained that 1 could do so without further psychological testing, but I
On June 26,2015 I met with Mr. Coughlin in my Reno office. He explained he
counseling with Bill Martin, MPT on a twice weekly basis. He was also seen weekly
by Charlie Hoar, Ed.D. MFT. In June, MediCal rejected Mr. Coughlin's use of two
issues and personality grov'lfth. She, too, identified positive changes in Mr. Coughlin.
family recently Visited San Diego for a vacation. Dr. Coughlin was touched by his
he had injured in the past (his father; his step~mother; and his 16 year old stepsister).
E0
39\;;1d
:)INIl:) SHI G:)W
p(;08-(;E9-9LL
1563

Among the people I interViewed, Mr. Coughlin has successfully formed a
chalJenges without giving up.
longer believe he is disabled. Mr. Coughlin has also asked in can support his
reinstatement.
remarkable. If the Nevada Bar accepts his request for reinstatement, l would
strongly recommend a dearly structured probationary period to include random
hope this response is sufficient, but ifmore is needed, please contact me. I will be
morning of the 25 th [f needed, I can be contacted by cell phone that morning
RespectfuJly Submitted.
P0
39\;;id
::lINIl::l SHI G::lW
p(,;08-(,;E9-9LL
1564
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
1565
1
2
3
4

945 W. 12th St., Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 9496677402, ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Case No: RI15-0804

Petitioner
12
13
14
15
16
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
17

18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1566
2
3
4

Masochistic Traits.
8
9
10
11
Based on such evaiuation of Coughlin, Dr. Nielsen will tt:stify that he then
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
Coughlinfs case that included a face-to-face interview, opportunity to review the
24
25
26
27
28
1567
2
4
5
6

8
9

10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
has been removed and that he or she is fit to resume the practice oflaw,
27
28
remarkable.
3
PRE-HEARING BRlEF
1568

2
3
I.


5

6
7
8
state and continuing mental health issues. Now, the same Dr. Nielsen l
10
11
fit to resume the practice oflaw.
12

13

14

15
evidence that Coughlin has satisfied the requirements of SCR 117 (4)-( 5)2.
16
17

18

19
20

21
22
23

SCR 117(4).
An
24
25
26
27
28
2 (which the Nevada Supreme Court has mled is all Coughlin must do to have his license to
4
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1569
2
and convincing evidence that the attorney's disabilifJl has been removed and
that he or she is fit to resume the practice of law ... The panel may direct that the
attorney establish competence and learning in lawJ. ... "
...
10
ofthe practice Qflaw will not be detrimental to the integrifJl and standing ofthe
11
bar. to the administration ofjustice. or to the public interest.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
despite the dictate against doing so found in SCR 117(2)4.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1570

2
10
11
SCR 105. 6
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
status is not under "any form of suspension". ("5. Publication of supreme court orders. The
attorney to any form of public reprimand, suspension or disbarment, that transfers an
reinstates an attorney to the practice oflaw to be published ... ". That "or" makes clear being
deposit; of $1 ,000 with his SCR 117(4) Reinstatement Petition, nor may his "reinstatement
injured by the petitioner's misconduct, or allV further conditions deemed appropriate bv the
panel... " as SCR 116(4)-(5) allows for such to be applied only to a "suspended attorney"
Indeed, SCR 117(4) prevents one from even inquiring into if there are any monitoring
1571
As such SCR 102.5(2)(i)(1-4) simply do not come into play here, and, in
2
expressly and clearly departs from SCR 116(2) and SCR 102.5(2)(i)(1-4) and
102.5(2)(m).7
lOa disciplinary suspension) will require he address any alleged misconduct,

11
12
13
14
15
16
thereof.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 SCR 102.5 ." mitigation .... mitigating circumstances may be considered in deciding what
when:
( 1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by chemical dependency or
(3) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is
demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of success fill rehabilitation; and
unlikely; ...
(m) remorse;
7
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1572
2
which must be addressed in an SCR 117(4) hearing, much less to add to that the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ex pmie, unless the undersigned is unaware of a rule or practice allowing for such
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1573

2
attempt to have Dr. Nielsen testify as to what some recommendations he may have for
given an opportunity to be heard in that regard), and a hearing to determine whether to
10
11

Indeed, Coughlin is not currently sllspended from the practice of law in Nevada.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
approach).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner
comply. An attorney barred from the active practice of law, whether by disbannent,
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1574
2
3
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

5
and to
10
12
geofur@att.net
13
14
15
16
17

Petitioner
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
1575
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
Exhibit 1, Certificates for lO4.5 Hours of CLE Completed four (4) pages
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II
PRE-HEARING BRIEF
1576
------
-------
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1577
Avoiding Ethical Violations and Legal Malpractice Claims' An Expert's Perspective
NEVADA (NV)
3.00
Legal Ethlcs:3.00
COURSE NAME
CERTIFIED STATE
Bankruptcy Basics for the Non-8ankruptcy Lawyer
CREDIT HOURS
NEVADA (NV)
CERTIFICATE DATE
100
ACTIONS
6 Steps to Improved Cilent Relationships and CommtJnlcaHons

NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
100
7 Steps for legal Holds: Avoiding Malprnclice and Jail!
NEVADA (NV)
Behind the Cloud and How it Can Be Used in the legal Industry
1.SO
NEVADA (NV)
100
A Guide to IP Protection in the EU for U,S Attorneys
NEVADA (NV)
100
Business Valuation: Theory. Application, Controversies. Recent Developments & Errors
2015{)816
NEVADA (NV)
5.SO
A legal Primer on Nonprofit Law
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Cause Marketing' Special Rules and Regulations For Corporations and For Charities
NEVADA (NV)
100
201S.Q8-14
NEVADA INV}
100
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
NEVADA (NV)
100
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for Non-Bankruptcy Attomeys

NEVADA (NV)
100
2015-08-16
Asset Protectkln Planning

NEVADA (NV)
100
Choice of Entity
NEVADA (NV)
2015-Q8.16
2.00
Or:I:oo Con!Irung Legal Edu;3Iloo fa- Atlaneys _ elf! MCLE
OnilneCCIlIJ"-'rfJLega! Edocm!rofor Attaoeys-CLE I MCLE
1 00
Legal Ethics:HlO
Client Intake, Damages & Expert Witnesses Do You Want to Take This PI Case?
NEVADA (NV)
3.00
NEVADA (NV)
1,00
Legal Elhics:1.00
Collections Law
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
legal Ethics:1.00
Common Issues When Ucensing Intellectual Property

NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
Legal Ethics:1.00
2015-08-14
Common Sensa Rules of Trial Advocacy
NEVADA (NV)
2.SO
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:1 00

NEVADA (NV)
EthiCS in a Web 2,0 World
100
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Legal Ethics:H)Q
2015-0818
NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
2015..Q8-18
1.00
legal Ethics. 1 00
Digital Citizenship in Schools: From Policy to Practlce

NEVADA (NV)
100
Federal Rule 26. Expert Reports

NEVADA (NV)
100
2015..Q818
eDiscovery
NEVADA (NV)
100
Foreign Investment In U S. Rea! Estate

NEVADA (NV)
100
Ellminating Biases You Never Knew You Had
NEVADA (NVI
Forensic Document Examination and The law
1578
8..'20'<'015
Bl2tY2015
NEVADA (NV)
3<50
NEVADA (NV)
100
Fundamentals of Antitrust LltlgaUon
NEVADA (NV)
,<00
Independent ContractorfEmployee Distinctions: Help Clients (And Your Firm) Minimize Uability
NEVADA (NV)
100
Gelling Paid and Slaying Out of Trouble
NEVADA (NV)
100
Legal Elhics:tOO
Indian Gaming; Shared Sovereignty & Tribal Self-Government

NEVADA (NV)
100
Honesty is Best Policy How Far Can You Go in Negotiations
NEVADA (NV)
HlO
Legal Eth!Cs'1 00

NEVADA (NV)
100
Inebriation, Intervention and Insight A Trial Lawyer Finds His Soul

NEVADA (NV)
1,00
Substance Abuse:1 00

NEVADA (NV)
100
How to AVOid Legal Malpractice Claims
NEVADA (NV)
100
Legal Aspects of Forensic Document EXamlnalion

NEVADA (NV)
100
How to Handle Cases With High Media Attention

NEVADA (NV)
Legal Considerat!OnS for Marijuana Businesses
,<00
NEVADA (NV)
UO
How To Prepare Your Cfient for Deposition
NEVADA (N'l)
I ~I Flhk:!; (,;iv!!lty;mn 7MloUB Representation
100
NEVADA (NV)
1 00
I Think I Just Received eDiscovmy: What Now?
NEVADA (NV)
100
Legal Eth{cs,1,{X}
Legal Writing Tips for Advanced Practllioners

NEVADA (NV)
100
2015-D818
litigation in the 21st Century

NEVADA (NV)
100
Mediation Techniques for LiUgators

NEVADA (NV)
100
Practical Ethics: AVOIding Trouole with Clients, Courts and the State Bar
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
Legal Ethlcs:1 00
Pr&lmmigratlon Income Tax Planning

NEVADA (NV)
100
Med;cal and Scientific EvidenCe Used io DUi and Drug Cases
NEVADA (NV)
100
Principla Considerations When Handllng a Divorce Case

NEVADA (NV)
,<00
Moving the Judge from DrtJdgery to Persuasion
NEVADA {NV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
100
Online Security and Risk Basics for Attomeys
NEVADA (NV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
100
ProtecHng Your CHent Against Civil and Cnminal Uabihty for Trust Taxes
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
PersonallnjUlY: A Detailed Examination of liability, Damages and Collectibility
NEVADA (NV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
200
Personal Injury' UabiHly, Damages & CoUeclibilily
NEVADA (NV)
100
SharePoint: Legal DiscoYery & Dala Stomge Issues

NEVADA (NV)
100
Persuasion, The Dangers of Over-Aggressive Lawyenng
NEVADA INV)
100

NEVADA (NV)
1579
8.'21Y2tJ15
1.00
OnIII1eCcrlirunglhJa' Edu:atlonkr AttaaJYs- CLEjMCLE
Substance Abuse:too
NEVADA (NV)
100
Structuring lntemational Joint Ventures
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
1 00
legal Ethics, tOO

NEVADA (NV)
The Umilalions of Persuasion: Know Them and Use Them
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
Substance Abuse:tOO
tOO
Take Five: Edifying and Educalfonal Ethical Exampjes
NEVADA (NV)
The Six Minute Closing: SeI!ing Big Cases In UWe Time
100
NEVADA (NV)
legal Elhics:1,0Q
100
Tax Issues for Attomeys and Law Firms
NEVADA (NV)
1.00

NEVADA (NV)
100
legal Ethics:1.00
Tax Refunds from Poozi Scheme Losses

NEVADA (NV)
Understanding the Impact of Culture and Gender 10 Help Eliminate Bias
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
legal Ethics.too

NEVADA (NV)
United States Taxation of Foreign InvestOfS
1.00
NEVADA (NV)
tOO
NEVADA (NV)
1DO
NEVADA (NV)
100
NEVADA (NV)
15()
Valuing a Business
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
w., !!www.auaneycredil$.eomllllsetCensplw?

NEVADA (NV)
1DO
When Blas Tums to Bullying: Strategies for Dealing with High Conflict People
NEVADA (NV)
1 00
legal Ethics 1.00
Winning on Appeal
NEVADA (NV)
1.00
Working wJth Experts

NEVADA (NV)
2.00
legal Ethics:1 00

NEVADA (NV)
15()
1580
1581
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
1582

(619) 895-2589
mbrennan34@cox.net
August 11, 2015
State Har of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV 89102
Re:
I am an attorney licenced in California in good standing since 2006. I am also the point of
abuse. In this capacity, T also attend weekly meetings of the Other Bar in the San Diego area as I
have done for the past 12 years when I commenced law school.
Zach Coughlin, I have never doubted his sincerity in fully applying hi.mself to making the necessary
changes in his life. He has been forthright and honest with all members of our group, and I have
never entertained the thought that he was 110t stable in his present commitment to recovery. Rather,
Mr. Coughlin has demonstrated insight into his recovety and acquired knowledge to prevent
recurrence of some past poor decisions. He has consistently maintained his cotnmitment to overall
mental and physical health, despite the challenges in his life.
T have 110 reservations about endorsing Mr. Coughlin's character and his reinstatement:.
Sincerely yours,
Moira S. Brennan
1583
WILLIAM M. HENRICH
A.ITORNEY A.T LAW

(858) 576-4484
August 10, 2015

problem associating Zach as co-counselor trusting him with client confidences should the
William M. Henrich
1584
BERNARD M. HANSEN
Attorney at Law

(619) 283-3371
bernan.lmhansen@sbcglobal.net
August 13,2015
State Bar of Nevada
3100 W. Charleston Blvd..
Las Vegas. NV 89102
100
Petition for Reinstatement by Zach Coughlin

Dear
or Madam:
Since 2009. I have regularly attended the Other Bar l'uesday Night Meeting in
State, dedicated to assisting others within the profession \VllO are suffering from alcohol
Perhaps I
become too jaded. but I do not blindly believe that a new attendee
This includes trying to finagle a letter of
supp0l1. When I met Zach at the beginning of this year at the Tuesday night meeting. 1
at our meeting is \vithout secondary
As I listened to
over the months, it became apparent that the message of the
need to live a psychologically healthy me was permeating into his brain. \Vhen he shared,
gave specific examples
he was wrestling with and what he was doing to
cope.
However, one never

what another is truly thinking. Then, I saw Zack at
other 12-step meetings around town. Meetings where there could be no temptation to
EMHi
1585
Damian Sinnott
576 Ridge Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 376-8378
dsinnott.esq!lJjgmail.com
August 21, 2015
State Bar of Nevada
and j ust started a family here. I am a practicing attorney licensed both here and in California. Currently,
I work for the Lyon County District Attorney's Office as a Deputy District Attorney; I have been so
facets of his life.
He has many attributes that lend themselves to being a great attorney. I have reviewed some ofZachfs
that he is now fit to resume the practice oflaw without any further demonstration of his competency or
learning in the law. As a recovering alcoholic myself~ I am confident that Zach is committed to his
outlook.
contact me for more infonnation or with any questions.
Sio:~
1586
August 19, 2015

State Bar of Nevada
Las
, NV 89102
provide cowlsel to senior prin
the Navy's
mes
for m11i
ions and hurnani tar ian relief
efforts. As a
communicator, I must make critical decisions
rega
one's intent and motivation when interact
with
others.
I have known Zach
lin since December 014 when I met
him in a recovery program. From the start, I sensed
kindred
:'030ul and like myself dedicated to ovex;coming setbacks. He J s
demonstrated himself as a
friend, a trusted adviser,
and his
ial and growth has been amazing to witness. I'm
ful
confidont he's committed to making substantial
s in
his life and will one
make a
contribution to the
1egal community. As a testament to his charact,er, he helped me
needs
accompanying me on nurnerous medical
and assist
with a
therapy program for
him. lIe is the person I turn to when I need d support ve ear,
I have
faith and confidence in Mr.
character and
. If you hdvc additional
be reached at (808)-388-3423.
in's
can
Sincere y,
Donnelly
United States
1587

R92 Camino Del Sur, Isla Vista
phoncR05-96R-2620
Is!aVistaUMC(((;gmail.com
August 20,2015
our music ministry as well as our hospitality ministry until the early part of2015.
Respectfully,
1588
8/26/2015
Zachary Coughlin
Miles (mwarsh66@gmail.com)
Mon 8/24/15 11:02 PM
To whom it may concern,

The purpose of this letter is to testify to the significant progress that has been made by
Zachary in the time I have known him. My name is Miles Warsh and I sponsor Zachary in an
anonymous twelve step recovery program. My recovery date is February 11, 2007. I have been
active in my recovery continuously since that time. I met Zachary in early January, 2015 and
invited him to accompany me to a meeting the next day. He came and after the meeting we
sooke for a lona time. hours. I learned that Zachary had been attendinq meetinqs for some
time. After our initial meeting we began to meet regularly, at least once per week, and Zachary
began to work the twelve steps with me. The twelve steps of recovery are a set of principles,
spiritual in nature, which if practiced as a way of life, dispels the obsession to use drugs and
alcohol and renders a person usefully and happily whole. This is an account of my experience
with Zachary. When I first met Zach I liked him. Although he was a bit jittery and detached at
times ( most of us are in early recovery) it was evident that Zach was sincere in his desire to
change his situation and honest in sharing his thoughts and feelings with me. We commenced
on his step work right away. Zach has been active in his recovery. He has admitted his
difficulties to himself and me, identified his part in the trying situations he has ended up in (as
the whole part), begun to make restitution to the best of his ability and has adopted the
tenants of the twelve steps in his actions and responses in daily life. I have had the good
fortune to walk with Zach on this path and witness his progress. I identity progress as moving
from less to more, less negativity to more abundance. Zach has become employed, improved
his living situation, repaired his relationships with family friends and colleagues. Zach has
created new and meaningful relationships with other men in recovery, has become a useful
and integral part of something much greater than himself. The recovery community benefits
from Zach being a part of. Zach is very intelligent, thoughtful, funny and has become very
engaging. It is my opinion that Zach has done his work diligently. We are now on step twelve
where Zach will carry the message of recovery and hope to others. I enjoy what Zach adds to
my recovery and my family. Zach is a transformed encouraged man today. I am proud to have
him as my peer. As a matter of continued progress, I ask you please consider his reinstatement
as Zach has a great deal to offer any community he may participate in. Zach truly desires to
practice law and has worked hard to fit himself to be of service to anyone who is blessed to
make his acquaintance. Thank you for considering this testament, respectfully submitted on
behalf of my dear friend, Mr. Zachary Coughlin.
Miles Warsh. Sent from my iPhone
-I
. . J '
_ _
1/2
1589
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 6
1590
...
F I LED
2
3
4
Electronically
06-19-2009:09:57:23 AM
Howard W. Conyers
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 846216
CODE: 1745
JOHN P. SPRINGGATE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar #1350
203 South Arlington Avenue
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.323.8881
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
IN THE FAMIL Y DIVISION
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

*****
8
9
ASHWIN JOSHI,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
BHARTI JOSHI,
13
CASE NO.: DV08-01168

DEPT. NO.: 14
Defendant.
14
15
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND DECREE OF DIVORCE
16
17
The above-entitled matter came on for trial before this Court on March 11, 2009 and
18
March 12,2009. ASHWIN JOSHI, Plaintiff, was present and represented by his counsel, JOHN
19
P. SPRINGGATE, ESQ. BHARTI JOSHI, Defendant, was present and represented by her
20
counsel, ZACH COUGHLIN, ESQ. The Court issued its Order After Trial which was tiled on
21
April 13,2009.
22
23
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Nevada, and for a period of more than six (6)
24
weeks before commencement of this action has resided and been physically present and domiciled
25
in the State of Nevada.
26
2.
Defendant is a resident of the State of Nevada, and for a period of more than six
27
(6) weeks before commencement of this action has resided and been physically present and
28
domiciled in the State of Nevada.
1591
3.
2
Plaintiff and Defendant were married on May II, 1987 in Bombay, India, and ever
since that date have been, and now are, Husband and Wife.
4.
There are two children of this marriage, both of whom are now adults.
5.
Defendant is not pregnant at this time.
6.
Plaintiff and Defendant have become, and continue to be, incompatible in
marriage, and no reconciliation is possible.
7.
The current address of Plaintiff is 1644 Fieldcrest Drive, Sparks, NV 89434.
8.
The current address of Defendant is 260 Booth Street, Apt. Q, Reno, NV 89509.
9.
The Court adopts, as Findings of Fact, each and every Conclusion of Law below,
10
which by this reference are expressly incorporated herein.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
JURISDICTION. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff and Defendant, and of
the subject matter herein.

2.
GROUNDS. Plaintiff is entitled to a Decree of Divorce from Defendant on the
grounds of incompatibility.
3.
CHILD SUPPORT/ADULT CHILDREN'S EDUCATION. Mr Joshi will not be
held responsible for the continuing education of the adult children of this marriage.
18
4.
COMMUNITY PROPERTY IDEBT.
19
A)
Women's Wealth: The "women's wealth" at issue herein is the sole and separate
20
property of the Defendant. Plaintiff is to contact any and all relatives who may
21
have this property and immediately ask them to return said property to the
22
Defendant as soon as possible.
23
B)
Mr. Joshi's Vehicle: The 2005 Chevrolet Blazer shall be considered as Plaintiffs
24
sole and separate property and Plaintiff shall be responsible for the debt remaining
25
thereon. Since the car is worth about $10,910.00 and there is $15,009.75 due and
26
owing on the vehicle, Mr. Joshi's assumption of this asset is to be considered as
27
an undertaking of community debt of approximately $4,100.00.
28
-2-
1592
C)
Ms. Joshi's Vehicle: Ms. Joshi's car shall be considered as her sole and separate
property and she shall be responsible for any debt remaining thereon. Since no
evidence was presented to the Court as to the value of the auto, either positive or
negative, there is no value for this community asset.
D)
Son's Vehicle: This vehicle is not considered as an asset and will not be divided
among the community.
E)
Daughter's Vehicls;: This vehicle is not considered as an asset and will not be
divided among the community.
F)
10
London Bank Account: There is no factual basis to support that this account exists
and therefore it is not being considered a community asset.
11
G)
Community Bank Accounts: There is no factual basis to support that community
12
bank accounts exist and therefore the same is not being considered a community
13
asset.
14
H)
15
Computer: The computer which was purchased at Best Buy is awarded to Mr

Joshi.
16
I)
Television: Ms. Joshi is awarded the television which was purchased at Best Buy.
17
Said television is currently in Ms. Joshi's possession and shall be deemed her sole
18
and separate property.
19
J)
General Credit Card Debt: There is general debt of approximately $15,650,00
20
which has been expended for community purposes. Mr. Joshi has agreed to be
21
responsible for this debt and the same shall be considered as his sole and separate
22
responsibility.
23
K)
Best Buy Credit Card Debt: There is an approximately balance of $1,314.00
24
outstanding for the purchase ofthe television and computer. Mr. Joshi has agreed
25
to be responsible for this debt and the same shall be considered as his sole and
26
separate responsibility,
27
III
28
III
-3-
1593
L)
Medical Debt: There is a debt due to St. Mary's Hospital for $6,735.00 and a debt to
REM SA for $500.00. Mr. Joshi has agreed to be responsible for these debts and the

M)
Family Debt: There is a debt due to Ashik Nanaby and a $5,000.00 debt due to Rod
and Meena Fowler. Mr. Joshi has agreed to be responsible for these debts and the

N)
General Community Debt: There was no evidence to establish community debt. Mr.
Joshi agreed to take the remaining community debt in his name that is outstanding
and the debt shall be his sole and separate responsibility. It should be noted that Mr.
10
Joshi has likely incurred an unequal distribution of the community debt of the parties
11
and the Court finds his testimony to be a compelling reason for making an unequal
12
distribution ofthe community debt.
5.
13
Spousal Support: The Court has found that Mr. Joshi is 51 and Ms. Joshi is 46; the
14
parties earn roughly equivalent amounts; the parties have been married 21 years but Ms. Joshi has
15
always been employed during that time; Ms. Joshi has a college degree; both parties are able to
16
work; and after consideration ofthe net income, deduction of taxes, and the amount paid in
17
community debt by Mr. Joshi, an award of alimony in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) shall be
18
awarded to Ms. Joshi pursuant to NRS 125.150, Woljfv. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355,929 P.2d 196, and
19
Shydler v. Shydler, 194 Nev. 192, 196,954 P.2d 37,39 (1988).
20
III
21
/1/
22
1/1
23
1//
24
25
26
27
28
///
//1
III
III
//1
-4-
1594
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE OF DIVORCE

2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 1.
Plaintiff, ASHWIN JOSHI be, and he is, tinally and absolutely divorced from Defendant,
BHARTI JOSHI, and that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between Plaintiff ASHWIN
JOSHI, and Defendant, BHARTI JOSHI, be, and they hereby are, dissolved, and the parties hereto
are restored to the status of single and unmarried persons.
2.
There Defendant's name shall be restored to that ofBHARTI R. DAVE.
3.
The matter, as set forthin the preceding Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Decree of Divorce, is hereby ratified, adopted, and approved, and the parties are
9
10
Ordered to comply with the terms of such.
11
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
~~
June~, 2009.
14
15
16
Lin
M. Gardner
District Court Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
1595
Exhibit 2
1596

2 945 W. 12th St.
3 Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 949 667 7402
5 Pro Se
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6
1
OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT AND DISCIPLINE
8
9
10
COUGHLIN, ESQ.
11
Case No: G2676
12
13
14
15
PERSONAL STATEMENT
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1597

2
recOlmnendation by Disciplinary Board with respect to an attorney's petition for
3
4
of Wiederholt, 182 PJd 1047 (Alaska 2008).
The recommendations of the Board on Professional Responsibility and the
Hearing Committee are entitled to great weight. In re Hollis, 968 A.2d 1037 (D.C.
10
11
12
2009).
13
14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23
Nevada Disciplinary Board. See, Exhibit 4, Coughlin's 8121/15 Pre-Hearing Brief.
24
25
Please see, also, Exhibit 5, Letters of Recommendation from fellow attorneys and
26
others.
27
28
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1598
2
adopt the recOlmnendation of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board and
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12

The undersigned respectfully requests that the Office of Enrollment and
13
Discipline allow Coughlin to practice before it during such interim.

14
15
16
37 CFR 11.29 provides that unless the undersigned demonstrates by clear

and convincing evidence, or the USPTO Director finds there is a genuine issue of
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
material fact by clear and convincing evidence that:
(l) The procedure before the State Bar of Nevada was so lacking in
notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process;
(2) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the transfer to
disability status before the State Bar of Nevada that the USPTO
Director could not, consistent with USPTO's duty, accept as final the
conclusion on that subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same disability status or transfer to disability
status by the USPTO Director would result in grave injustice.
The disability petition resulting in the 6/18/15 Order placing Coughlin on
27
28
disability inactive status was filed quite some time ago, 5/31/12. In the interim, a
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1599
lot happened. There was a disciplinary case against Coughlin that was dismissed,
2
rather than just suspended (and suspension of the disciplinary proceeding was all
5
6
that was required under Nevada's SCR 117(2), yet the Nevada Supreme Court
dismissed that disciplinary case/appeal instead).
It may be relevant to note the filing by Coughlin just prior to the disability
7
8
inactive status Order being entered on 6118115. Coughlin's filing in the
disciplinary case in NVSCT case 62337 of6/8/15 moved for a dismissal of the
10
11
12
disciplinary case against him in light of the "confession of error" resulting, under
Nevada's Rules of Appellate Procedure, from the State Bar of Nevada failing to
l3
ever file an Answering Brief in response to Coughlin's 4/2114 Opening Brief in the
14
15
16
appeal of that disciplinary case. See Exhibit 6, containing such 6/8115 filing by
Coughlin, in addition to a relevant filing of 5/29/15, and the 6118/15 Order by the
17
18
Nevada Supreme Court dismissing the disciplinary case against 6/8/15 filing by
19
Coughlin in disciplinary case (62337) seemingly resulting in Order in disability
20
21
22
23
petition case(60975), in addition to a relevant filing of 5/29/15, and the 6/18/15

Order by the Nevada Supreme COUli dismissing the disciplinary case against
Coughlin.
24
25
26
Instead, seemingly, the Nevada Supreme Court finally ruled on the 5/31112
Disability Petition in case 60975, placing Coughlin on disability inactive status and
27
28
dismissing the discipline case. See Exhibit 6.
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1600
Coughlin was never provided a hearing (thus, bringing squarely into focus
2
37 CFR 11.29b(1)) before anyone, not even a disciplinary panel, much less the
3
4
Nevada Supreme Court prior to his law license (which is a property right under the
Fourteenth Amendment, and thus a hearing is required prior to taking such from
Coughlin, even temporarily) being placed on disability inactive status, which is not
7
8
a "temporary" designation in the sense that the failure to provide a hearing before
doing so could be justified.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The power of courts to disbar or otherwise discipline attorneys

must be exercised consistent with the requirements of the Due
Process Clause. See Schware v. Board of Bar Exam. ofN.M., 353
U.S. 232, 238, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). This means that
the attorney must be afforded fair notice of the charge and a
meaningful opportunity to respond. See Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550, 88
S.Ct. 1222.
A federal court may impose discipline or disbarment based
upon another court's disciplinmy adjudication only ifan independent
examination of the other court's record shows: "(1) no deprivation of
due process; (2) sufficient proof of misconduct; and (3) no grave
injustice would result from the imposition of such discipline." In re
Kramer, 193 F.3d 1131,1132 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Selling, 243 U.S.
at 50-51,37 S.Ct. 377). In such circumstances, a show cause hearing
must be afforded. See id. at 1133 .... " (emphasis added) In Re Poole.
Id.
22
23
24
Coughlin is providing the OED with the court record in the disability case in
Nevada and an independent examination of such requires a hearing. In particular,
25
26
27
Coughlin's submission of 8/6114 (see Exhibit 7) (originally submitted 7122/14 but

returned to sender due to the USPS 13 oz rule requiring submitting such to a
28
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1601
counter employee) points out the infirmity of proof establishing the transfer to
2
disability status before the State Bar of Nevada such that the USPTO Director
3
4
could not, consistent with USPTO's duty, accept as final the conclusion on that
subject. See 37 CFR 11.29(2), and thus (3). Similarly, see Exhibit 8, 6119/09
Final Decree of Divorce showing attorney fee award in divorce case assessed
7
8
against attorney Coughlin personally (referred to in disability petition) was set

aside. Regardless, the various orders attached to the disability petition are not
10
11
"proof'] or evidence, as they would not be admissible as such.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the contempt order from the traffic citation trial and the attorney fee award in the divorce case), thus different
burdens of proof where utilized therein, as such, no offensive collateral estoppel could apply given the clear and
cOl1vicing burden in disciplinary matters ... that is if those orders were not set aside anyways, which they were)
offense may conclusively establish guilt of the offense charged in attorney disciplinary proceedings.[17]
Likewise, a foreign jurisdiction's adjudication of guilt may be deemed conclusive proof of guilt of the attorney
misconduct charged. [ 18] The burden then falls upon the attorney to demonstrate why the foreign judgment is not
valid or why the state should not accept it and impose sanctions based thereon.[19] While a judgment in a civil
in a prior proceeding, even when it is conclusive of misconduct on the part of the attorney.[ 22] [FNI7] N.J.-In
re Boylan, 162 N.J. 289, 744 A.2d 158 (2000). Mass.-Matter ofConcemi, 422 Mass. 326, 662 N.E.2d 1030
(1996). Consideration of underlying conduct not precluded A conviction does not preclude consideration of the
actual conduct itself for the purpose of detennining the appropriate discipline to be accorded an attorney. Ill.-In
re CiardeIli, 118 Ill. 2d 233, 113 Ill. Dec. 94, 514 N.E.2d 1006 (1987). [FNI8] Fla.-The Florida Bar v. Mogil,
763 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2000). Unsupported finding disregarded A finding by a board, in an out-of-state
disciplinary proceeding, that the respondent had charged an excessive fee would be disregarded in a disciplinary
proceeding within the state, where no basis for supporting the finding could be found. Mo.-In re Weiner, 530
S.W.2d 222, 81 A.L.R.3d 1272 (Mo. 1975), supplemented, 547 S.W.2d 459 (Mo. 1977). Burden of showing
infinnity of foreign proceeding The burden of showing that the respondent was denied due process and that there
was an infirmity of proof in the foreign disbannent proceeding is on the accused attorney. Neb.-State ex reI.
Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Dineen, 235 Neb. 363,455 N.W.2d 178 (1990). [FNI9] 100. [FN20] Tenn.Berke v. Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436 S.W.2d 296 (1968). [FN21] Iowa-Committee on
Professional Ethics v. Wright, 178 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1970). Tenn.-Tennessee Bar Ass'n v. Berke, 48 Tenn.
App. 140,344 S.W.2d 567 (1960). [FN22] Tenn.-Berke v. Chattanooga Bar Ass'n, 58 Tenn. App. 636,436
S.W.2d 296 (1968).
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1602
2
5
6
Exhibit 7, Coughlin's "additional response" to the disability petition of August
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2014 and the 5/31/12 Disability Petition itself.

Because an attorney disciplinary l?roceeding is quasi-criminal in
advance notice of the charges, and the 0 ortuni to e ectivel res ond to
the char es and con ront and cross-examine wltnesses. .. . .
onst. men. . In re etersl' 2 .
2 If.
1).
However, because of tneir quasi-criminal nature, dIsciplinary
proceedings must accord the respondent the essentials of due process ofla~.
U.S.-In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222,20 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1968),
In re Ming, 469 F.2d 1352 (7th Cir. 1972). General rules invoked to msure
comQliance Cal.-Emslie v. State Bar, 11 Cal. 3d 210, 113 Cal. Rptr. 175,
520 P.2d 991 (1974).
As a general rule, in a proceeding to discipline an attorney, he or she
(Fla. 1965).
time and in a meaningful manner, WhICh is satisfied by the l?fovisions for
presuspension notice and a hearing, together with the availabIlIty of
postswmenslOn reVIew. Mass.-In re Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d
15 (2002).
A license to practice law was a property right protected by the due
process clause oftlie FOUlieenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
property right protected QY state and federal constitutional right to
procedural due process. E-x parte Case, 2005 WL 2600214 (Ala. 2005).
for seeking his temporary suspension and was r;{0rded both a hearing
before a smgle justIce of the Supreme Judicialourt, at which facts were
presented, and a hearing before the (ull court prior to effectiveness of an
order directing his temporary suspenuSion. Mass.-Matter of Ellis, 425 Mass.
332, 680N.E.2d 11540997).
APpointment Of Counsel For Attorney Facing Disciplinary Charges,
86 A.L.R. 4Th 1071.
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1603

"PetItion to detennine competency; notice ....
by a hearing panel or tlie examination of the attorney by qualified
medical experts.
If, uJ!on due consideration, the court concludes that the
attorney is mcapacltated for the purpose of practicing law, it shall
shall be suspended.
she IS WIthout adequafe representatIOn."
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
hearing. It does not seem to be a settled point of law2 in Nevada whether SCR
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
merit of such arguments against declaring him disabled.

2
In Nevada, SCR 102(4)( c) and (d), seem to support the position that a hearing is required before placing
Medical Examiners, 68 Nev. 455, 235 P.2d 327 (1951). A state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law
without due process of law, as respondent readily concedes. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232,
77 S.Ct. 752, I L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). In this instance, however, the risk of erroneous deprivation is minimized by
the provisions ofSCR 102(4)(c) and (d). Under these niles, a temporarily suspended attorney is entitled to
resolution of the matter. The government public interest element is evident. The nile on its face only permits this
court to order temporary suspension if there are affidavits to support allegations that an attorney is causing "great
hann" by his actions; i.e., temporary suspension prior to a hearing is only warranted if "exigent circumstances"
exist. Cf. State ex reI. Sweikert v. Briare, 94 Nev. 752, 588 P.2d 542 (1978). We therefore conclude that the nile
case to justify dispensing with a pre-suspension hearing." Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 643 P.2d 1201 (Nev.
1982).
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1604
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

A.L.RAth 136 (1990 & Supp. 1995).
With respect to a statute which provided that at any time after
charges were filed against an attorney a court had the power, pending
trial of the charges, to suspend the attorney, the court in Laughlin v
Wheat (1937) 68 App DC 190, 95 F2d 101 (applying District of
Columbia law), while construing the statute to include the right to
notice and a presuspension hearing, held that it was invalid as applied
to an attorney who was suspended without notice and a hearing.
declared.
An attorney may be temporarily suspended without a presuspension hearing where the risk of enoneous deprivation is
(1995).
Disbarment or Suspension of Attorney in One State as Affecting
Right to Continue Practice in Another State, 81 A.L.R.3d 1281
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1605
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

be heard in his own defense. In re DisciplinaIY Proceeding Against
Sanai, 167 Wash. 2d 740,225 P.3d 203 (2009).
Failure to provide
adequate opportunity to defend
Albert, 389 Mich. 153,206 N.W.2d 729.
10
11
12

13
practicing law, just such newly acquired evidence.

14
15
16
In Conclusion, Coughlin respectfully requests the OED not place him on
17
18
disability inactive status at this time, or at least, hold such decision in abeyance for
19
the next six to twelve months given the judicial economy attendant to waiting to
20
21
see the result of what appears to be a fairly imminent reinstatement of Coughlin in
22
Nevada.
23
VERIFICATION/DECLARA TION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

24
25
26
27
28
10
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1606

2
Dated this August 27 th , 2015,
3
4
5
6

Petitioner
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1607
2
3
5
6
copy of this RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE upon the following by
mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following
addressee:
Mail Stop OED, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
7
8
9
10
11

Petitioner
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1608
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
3
4
5
6

Hearing of 8125/15
8/26/15.
7
8

9
10
11
12
13

Exhibit 6: 6/8/15 filing by Coughlin in disciplinary case (62337) seemingly
resulting in Order in disability petition case (60975), in addition to a relevant filing
of 5/29/15, and the 6/18/15 Order by the Nevada Supreme Court dismissing the
disciplinary case against Coughlin.
14
15
16
17
18
Exhibit 7: Coughlin's "additional response" to the disability petition of August

2014 and the 5/31/12 Disability Petition itself in 60975.
Exhibit 8: 6/19/09 Final Decree of Divorce showing attorney fee award in divorce
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
PERSONAL STATEMENT
1609
Exhibit 3
1610
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7 IN RE:
8 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.,
Case No. RI 15-0804
10 ===================================================
11
12
13
14
15
2015
Reno, Nevada
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Job No. 255647
23
24 Reported by:
Transcription
25
CAROL HUMMEL, RPR, CCR #340

Computer
1611

Page 2
2
3
4
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
5
6
7

Craig Denney, Esq.
Bruce C. Hahn, Esq.
10
ALSO PRESENT:
R. Kait Flocchini
Deputy Bar Counsel
11
12

Respondent
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1612

1
Page 182
2 and our charge.
And we found that there was a great deal

4 today.
5
6 a bit more information from you, sir.
And that is, we

9 before it issues its opinion.
And that reinstatement plan

11

14 your proposed plan.
And that plan should be submitted to

16

18 it to the remaining panel members.
I'm going to send it

22

24 appropriate order as quickly as possible.
I'm hoping to
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1613

Page 187
3 information.
And we will enter our order, the panel will


10 a different outcome here.
But it's my hope that you will

14
Questions?
15
MR. COUGHLIN:
16
MS. JENKINS:
I do, your Honor.

You can do whatever you need to
17 do.
18
MR. COUGHLIN:
SCR 117.4, I believe, requires

MS. JENKINS:
20
It says the panel shall render a

22 conclusion.
And the hearing will not conclude until that

24
MR. COUGHLIN:
If I submit that -- how could
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1614

1 information?
Page 188
It seems to me there was a point made about

3 we should have gotten this earlier.
Yet what I filed this

6 rules.
7

11 letters of recommendation.
12 monitoring.
Seems there's already
There's already this plan.
It's been laid
14
MS. JENKINS:
Mr. Coughlin, if you would like

18
MR. COUGHLIN:
My wish would be for this panel

20 filed, and then make a ruling.
I did not anticipate that

22 from today, so I might need -23
MS. JENKINS:
While I appreciate your

25 of the hearing's conclusion.
This hearing will not be
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1615
08/25/2015
Page 189

2 requested information.
And if it's not received, then at

5
MR. COUGHLIN:
6 tomorrow, will it then
Okay.
And if I submit it
will a decision be made within
8
MS. JENKINS:
If your submission is received

10 it will not be
will not contain the amount of

12 necessary.
But if it does, the panel will meet at its

14 matter.
15
MR. COUGHLIN:
So then a decision -- it would
16 conclude?
17
MS. JENKINS:
18
MR. COUGHLIN:
It would.
I guess I just ask because the

20 for years.
21
MS. JENKINS:
22
MR. COUGHLIN:
23
MS. JENKINS:
Mr. Coughlin -I'm not suggesting

Mr. Coughlin, I've expressed now
24 several times that you have until November 15th.
If
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1616

Page 190
3

5 panel will reconvene and issue an appropriate order.
And

9
In no event do I envision that the reconvening

11 of 2015.
That simply won't happen.
This panel will

15 And that's all.
16
MR. COUGHLIN:
I just anticipate indicating,

19 what they would like to see in this plan.
This plan I

22 indicate a willingness to comply with that.
But I don't

24
MS. JENKINS:
25 testimony at this point.
Mr. Coughlin, there is no

It's simply the order is to
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1617

Page 191
2 reconvene.
That's all there is.
MR. COUGHLIN:
If I may ask that the panel

7 together -8
MS. JENKINS:
Mr. Coughlin, rest assured the
9 panel will give you your due process.
There is nothing

11
MR. LOW:
12
MS JENKINS:
13
MR. LOW:
May I say something?

You may.
Mr. Coughlin, I hope you understand

17
What's been asked of you is not what's in

22 years.
23
We are giving you your best and last shot here
24 to make this right.
And we have accommodated your wish to
25 have this happen quickly.
And I find that your difficulty
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1618

1 STATE OF NEVADA )
)
2 COUNTY OF WASHOE)
Page 193
ss.
I, CAROL HUMMEL, a notary public in and for


11

15 herein appears;
16
17 Pages 1 through 192, inclusive, is a full,
true and

19 proceedings;
20

23 financially interested in the
acti0Z2J;~
24
25
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1619
Exhibit 4
1620
AFFIDAVIT OF MILDRED SANCHEZ-GIBSON
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF CLARK
4
5
)
) ss:
)
MILDRED SANCHEZ-GIBSON under penalty of perjury, being first duly sworn,

deposes and says as follows:
1.
I am employee of the State Bar of Nevada, Office of Bar Counsel.
2.
I reviewed
8
9
all incoming correspondence from August 1, 2015 to
September 12, 2015 related to Zachary Coughlin, Esq.
3.
The only documents received during that time period by the State Bar of
10
Nevada in the Las Vegas office, which were related to Coughlin, are attached hereto.
11
Neither is a Petition filed by Coughlin with the Nevada Supreme Court.
12
Dated this 9th day of November, 2015.
13
14
15
Mildrbd~Sanchez-GibsqJ1
16
17
18
19
20
SUBSCRIBED ~D SWORN to
before me this~ day of
&
vember,
: N 2015.
~.
I(i)'.'
~)'
LOUISE WATSON
Notary Public, Stale of Nevada

Appointment No. 1524021
~y Appt. Expires July 14, 2019
-,
NOTARY PUBLIC
21
22
23
24
25
1621
RECEIVE!.;
Sl:.r' 0 8 2015

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
COUGHLIN. ESQ . BAR NO. 9473.
Supreme Court No. 60975
RECEIPT FOR DOCUMENTS

TO:

State Bar of Nevada/Las Vegas \ David A. Clark. Bar Counsel
You are hereby notified that the Clerk of the Supreme Court has received and/or filed
the following:
09/01/2015
Returned Filing Fee. Check No. 0101 returned to Zachary Coughlin.

(No fee for Bar Matter.)
DATE: September 01.2015

Tracie Lindeman. Clerk of Court
ai
1622
Knute Knudson
Reno, NY 89523
(775) 448-1528
RECEIVED BY
AUG 2 1 2015
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
August 17, 2015
State Bar of Nevada

Las Vegas, NY 89102
President of Business Development I have also been in recovery for over 23 years. I've attended AA
-//
society..
/
S~~~"
,~~_~;~t ~-;:e'~,.,~
I<rt'ute Knuds6n
1623
Exhibit 5
1624
DECLARATION OF R. KAIT FLOCCHINI, ESQ.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I, R. Kait Flocchini, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada
that the following is true and correct:
1.
I am an Assistant Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Nevada. I work in the
State Bar of Nevada's Reno office.
2.
The State Bar of Nevada's Reno office did not receive any U.S. mail related
to Zachary Coughlin, Esq., between August 25,2015 and September 12, 2015.
3.
I did not receive any e-mail from Coughlin between August 26, 2015 and
10
October 30,2015, exceptfor one acknowledging receipt of a message from Chair Jenkins
11
on September 22, 2015.
12
4.
I did not receive an e-mail from Coughlin with the Petition or the
13
Supplemental Petition attached. I only received those documents because Assistant Bar
14
Counsel Phillip Pattee forwarded them to me.
15
I.e
Dated this ~ day of November, 2015.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1625
Exhibit 6
1626
Kait Flocchini
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Phillip Pattee
Monday, September 14, 2015 8:32 AM
Brian Kunzi; Kait Flocchini; Shelley Young
FW:60975
8 27 15 NRAP 40 60975 In Re Coughlin seeking to set aside order placing on disability
inactive status with six exhibits.pdf
Looks like Coughlin wants another hearing. He sent this to me, David Clark and Patrick King,
none of whom hang out in the Reno office anymore.
Phil

Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Patrick King; David Clark; Phillip Pattee
Subject: 60975
courtesy electronic copy
1627
Exhibit 7
1628
2
3
4
6
7
8
ESQ. ; Nevada Bar Number 9473,
)
)
--~--------------~-------
10
11
Case No: 60975
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully submits the above titled
document on his own behalf. Coughlin hereby recognizes that, despite the arguments contained
12
13
herein, he needed to make some very significant changes in his life and assures this Honorable
14
Court that he has done so, and in no way intends for this filing to question this Honorable Court's
15
authority or wisdom.
16
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
17
An SCR 117 Disability Petition was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court (hereinafter
18
19
"Court") on 5/31/12. Coughlin filed responses to such on 6/18/12 and again on 8/8/14. On
20
4/23/14 the Court ordered an evaluation of Coughlin be perfonned by a qualified medical expert
21
of the State Bar's choosing. The Bar's 7/11114 filing makes clear that it lost this Court's Order in
22
transferring it from the Southern to the Northern Office, though it fails to explain why the Bar
23
failed to return any of the communications it received from Coughlin in May 2014. The Bar
24
25
filed an evaluation by Dr. Nielsen on 9/29/14. The Court then ordered Coughlin placed on
26
disability inactive status on 6/18/15.; No hearing was ever held prior to such being ordered. The
27
Court's Order does not include any findings and indicates such is to be the final disposition of the
28
1629
matter. A review ofSCR 119(3) and SCR 117 do not make all that clear that NRAP 40(b)(4)'s
restrictions apply here, or, indeed that NRAP 40( c)(1 )-(2) are controlling here. After all the
phrase "Petition for Rehearing" implies there was a hearing in the first place. Here, that is not the
case. ii
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The failure to accord Coughlin a hearing (and the
6
attendant opportunities to call and confront witnesses and conduct discovelY), the possible
reliance on matters not pled and not part of the record in the disability case, the lack of any
actual findings, written or otherwise, and the lack of appellate review here resulted in Coughlin
10
being deprived of his license to practice law without sufficient due process. iii Coughlin very
11
12
much appreciates this Court having ordered the evaluation and arranging for it to be paid for, and
13
has taken such and made the best of things and submits this filing merely as a demonstration of
14
his current fitness to practice law and his determination and work ethic applied toward having
15
his law license reinstated.
16
To the extent the Nevada Supreme Court's Order relies on infonnation (accurate or not)
17
18
(in Dr. Nielsen's Evaluation and either of the two responses filed by Coughlin, or anything in the
19
appeal of a disciplinary matter in case 62337) that were not pled in the Disability Petition (and
20
there was never any amendment made thereto by the Panel or Bar), such should not serve as
21
support for the Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status due to the attendant notice
22
and opportunity to be heard due process deficiencies that stem therefrom.
23
24
There is quite a disadvantage to Coughlin between the Court's not providing any findings
25
and the lack of notice or notice-pleading here. The failure to provide the fonner makes it more
26
difficult to argue the latter. This Court acted in a trial court capacity in the disability case, and
27
there has been no appellate review of such afforded to Coughlin. The undersigned is grateful to
28
2
1630
this Court for having allowed him to file an NRAP 40 Petition in this regard, and this
Supplemental thereto. It seems quite likely that much of what the Court relied on (especially
given the three year lapse between the filing of the Disability Petition on 5/31/12 and the Court's
6/18/15 Order) draws from either Dr. Nielsen's 9/22/14 Evaluation or Coughlin's filing of an
"additional response" on 8/8/14, or Coughlin's filing in the disciplinary case appeal in 62337 of
6
late May, early June 2015. Such matters were not plead, nor ever added by amendment, and the
Court's 4/23/14 stem admonishment to Coughlin to cooperate with the evaluation by a qualified
medical expert should not operate to make any such materials Coughlin divulged to such expert
10
somehow notice plead sufficient to satisfy due process dictates.
11
12
Dr. Nielsen's various unsworn, unsupported, often inaccurate, contentions as to a variety
13
of matters (especially those not even pled) should not be relied on where not subject to cross-
14
examination, in making a determination on the disability petition. Regardless, to the extent such
15
were, there exists a multitude of basis for Coughlin to mitigate the import of any such matters,
16
and or demonstrate their patent invalidity due to due process deficiencies and Coughlin hereby
17
18
19
20
requests an appropriate opportunity to do so should such be necessary. iv
I.
COUGHLIN WAS NOT AFFORDED SUFFICIENT DUE PROCESS
A HEARING OF SOME SORT NECESSARY: As a general rule, in a proceeding to
21
discipline an attorney, he or she is entitled to a full and fair hearing before a competent and
22
unbiased tribunal. The respondent in a disciplinary proceeding generally is entitled to a hearing,
23
in connection with the charges filed therein, before disciplinary action can be taken. Ex parte
24
Burton, 237 Ark. 441, 373 S.W.2d 409 (1963).v
25
A fundamental requisite of due process in a disciplinary proceeding for suspension of an
26
attorney is an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, which
27
is satisfied by the provisions for presuspension notice and a hearing, together with the
28
availability of posts us pension review. In re Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d 15 (2002).
3
1631
In summary, a full and fair hearing is recognized as the right of the respondent. Bar
2
3
Ass'n of Baltimore City v. Posner, 275 Md. 250, 339 A.2d 657 (1975).
Indeed, it seems entirely implausible to find that an attorney in Nevada is guaranteed a
hearing should they face the specter of something so comparatively minor as a "private
reprimand", yet no such hearing should they be subject to being publicly declared "incapacitated
for the purposes of practicing law", the effect of which can obviously be quite devastating to
one's career as well as their personal and professional reputations, for many, many years,
whether they are ever reinstated or not. vi
Further, where the practical effect of being placed on "disability inactive status" is to be
10
celiain to prevent one from practicing law, a hearing and other due process hallmarks
11
certainly should be afforded Coughlin here where the mere possibility of some discipline (even
12
more minor forms thereof, such as a ten day suspension or public reprimand) levied in the SCR
13
105(2)(d) context entitle an attorney to a panoply of due process protections. Such arguably
14
applies in the SCR 117(2) context, depending upon just what "due consideration" means therein,
15
thus, implicating NRAP 40(2)(A)-(B).
16
vii
In Nevada, SCR 102(4)(c) and (d) and SCR 105(2)-(3), support the position that a
17
hearing is required before placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, or at least an
18
"immediate hearing" after so doing. "The practice of a profession is, without question, a
19
valuable property right, of which one cannot be arbitrarily deprived. State v. Medical Examiners,
20
68 Nev. 455, 235 P.2d 327 (1951). A state cannot exclude a person from the practice oflaw
21
without due process oflaw, as respondent readily concedes. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,
22
353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). In this instance, however, the risk of
23
erroneous deprivation is minimized by the provisions ofSCR 102(4)(c) and (d). Under these
24
niles, a temporarily suspended attorney is entitled to continue his existing practice for a
25
circumscribed time and may obtain an "immediate hearing" and prompt resolution ofthe
26
matter." Burleigh v. State Bar of Nevada, 643 P.2d 1201 (Nev. 1982).
27
28
The failure to accord Coughlin a hearing here to rebut allusions to content in videos
alleged posted on "You-Tube" (sic) that the Bar and NNDB failed to attach to its Petition (and
4
1632
failed to sign a sworn declaration attesting to what was purportedly said in said videos), or an
2
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Nielsen with regard to his evaluation, or to present proof of the
setting aside of the orders attached to and referenced in the Disability Petition, and or to offer
evidence in mitigation or as to the patent invalidity of alleged conviction(s) referenced is further
indicative of the due process lacking here.
Verdict or findings integral to due process: Express factual findings of the elements
necessary to support the charge are necessary in attorney disciplinary matters. See SCR 105(2)-
(3); In re Oliver, 470 F.2d 15 (7th Cir. 1972).viii It is especially necessary for due process
purposes to provide written findings where other due process hallmarks are not present. In re
10
Abrams, 436 Mass. 650, 767 N.E.2d 15 (2002). Findings made should conform to the charges.
11
State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460, 524 P.2d 747 (1974).ix
12
Further, especially where one facing something so slight as a public reprimand (a
13
comparatively minor injury to one's personal and professional reputation compared to being
14
placed on disability inactive status) is entitled to findings offact (delivered quite soon after an
15
actual hearing), the fact that the order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status here is
16
devoid of such, and fails to even expressly find Coughlin to be "incapable of practicing law"
17
(despite the Disability Petition expressly requesting such a determination) augers in favor of
18
reconsidering the Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, or, reinstating him to the
19
practice of law in a more expeditious fashion than might be available to one pursuing such via
20
traditional SCR 117(4) routes. x
21
Here, Coughlin was provided no findings whatsoever, but, rather, the Court wrote:
22
"Having reviewed Dr. Nielsen's report and all documents on file in this matter, we conclude that
23
the relief request in the petition is warranted". However, the Petition expressly requested a
24
determination of Coughlin's competency, and no such determination is expressed in the Court's
25
6118/15 Order. Rather, such Order merely places Coughlin on disability inactive status, while
26
offering no ruling as to Coughlin's competency or indication as to whether the Court finds
27
Coughlin "incapacitated for the purposes of practicing law", much less an indication of upon
28
what findings any such order might be based on.
5
1633
Where SCR 117(5) shifts the burden of proof to the Petitioner, Coughlin, away from the
2
State Bar (which was charged with such burden in the SCR 105 disciplinary complaint context in
case 62337, which was dismissed), such a dramatic shifting of the burden of proof ought require
a hearing, findings of fact, and an opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses before an
attorney such as Coughlin is placed on disability inactive status.
NO OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT AND CALL WITNESSES: a district court
attorney disciplinary proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature, the Due Process Clause entitles the
charged attorney to adequate advance notice of the charges, and the opportunity to effectively
respond to the charges and confront and cross-examine witnesses. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5.
10
In re Peters, 642 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2011).
11
Coughlin ought have been afforded to cross-examine witnesses. and to present
12
evidence in his opposition to the request to have his competency determined for the purposes of
13
practicing law and to have him placed on disability inactive status. Indeed, an attorney facing
14
even a public reprimand in an SCR 105(2) context is afforded the ability to compel discovery
15
and subpoena witnesses. xi Dr. Nielsen's evaluation, in particular, would have come across a lot
16
differently upon being subjected to cross-examination.
17
INSUFFICIENT NOTICE: Amendment, by State Bar Disciplinary Board, without
18
providing attorney with notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the amendment, which was
19
tantamount to a new misconduct charge, violated due process. Pappas v. Virginia State Bar, 271
20
Va. 580,628 S.E.2d 534 (2006).xii The lack of findings in this Court's Order placing Coughlin
21
on disability inactive status prevents an opportunity to assess whether such conforms to the
22
charges.
23
The essential feature of the process by which the proceeding is begun is that it notify the
24
attorney ofthe nature of the charge against him or her. Matter of Klein, 407 F. SUpp. 570 (S.D.
25
N.Y. 1976); Mendicino v. Whitchurch, 565 P.2d 460 (Wyo. 1977). To this end, the notice
26
should be reasonably specific. Id. Coughlin was prejudiced here where the Order placing him
27
on disability inactive status seems (no actual factual findings therein ... ) to rely on matters not
28
even pled in the disability petition. xiii
1634
Amendments. Amendments to the complaint in a disciplinary proceeding should be
allowed, provided that an opportunity of meeting any new matter therein alleged is given to
the respondent. Coughlan v. U.S., 16 Alaska 407,236 F.2d 927 (9th Cir. 1956).
An attorney must be informed that charges are being amended and provided an
0ppOltunity to be heard as to such amendments. Tomlinson v. State Bar, 13 Cal. 3d 567, 119 Cal.
Rptr. 335, 531 P.2d 1119 (1975). An attorney can be tried only on the charges contained in the
complaint. Matter of Abrams, 521 F.2d 1094 (3d Cir. 1975). Proof of acts not charged generally
will not justify disciplinary action,. In re Corace, 390 Mich. 419, 213 N.W.2d 124 (1973);
Pappas v. Virginia State Bar, 271 Va. 580, 628 S.E.2d 534 (2006).xiv
10
11
12
It seems apparent that the Court's Order is largely based on matters not pled in the
Disability Petition. xv
NO FORM OF APPELLATE REVIEW: Due process hallmarks necessary to a fair
13
attorney disciplinary matter include the right to appellate review, written findings, and
14
affording the attorney the opportunity to testify and cross-examine witnesses during a
15
hearing. In re Ifill, 878 A.2d 465 (D.C. 2005).
16
Where an attorney is Nevada is entitled to an automatic review by the Supreme Court

17
18
under SCR 105(3)(byvi (which includes a de novo review of the verbatim transcript of the
19
hearing) should they face something so comparatively minor as a "public reprimand" (which
20
does not involve the loss of one's right to practice law for even a day, much less the burden of
21
proof shifting attendant to SCR 117(5, the failure to afford Coughlin a hearing here, and the
22
23
seeming reliance upon matters not pled in the Disability Petition, and upon matters and
24
circumstances present only in an entirely different case'vii make even more strong the argument
25
that Coughlin was not afforded the requisite due process here. Consequently, there is then an
26
infirnlity of proof to support the order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status.
27
28
FAILURE TO APPOINT COUGHLIN COUNSEL UNDER SCR 117

INCONGRUOUS WHERE APPEARING PRO SE AND RULED INCAPABLE OF
1635
PRACTICING LAW
2
3
4
But a finding that the attomey is competent to appear is not equivalent to a finding that
the attomey is competent to appear pro se. In Re Meade, 103 Wash.2d at 380, at 381,693 P.2d
713. Attomeys appearing pro se must have the capacity to intelligently waive the services of
counsel and adequately represent themselves by "respond[ing] appropriately [and] rais[ing]

6
legitimate defenses." Id. at 380-81,693 P.2d 713. Under this standard, we have held that
attomeys are not competent to defend their disciplinary actions where their mental condition
interferes with their understanding of the underlying situation and prevents them from
10
responding appropriately and raising legitimate defenses. See id.
11
12
13
The very fact that Coughlin was not prevented from representing himself pro se in the
disability case ought act as a defensive collateral bar to placing him on disability inactive status.
14
In re Carroll, 287 Ala. 29, 247 So. 2d 350 (1971).

15
16
II. I. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COUGHLIN BEING
17
INCAPACITATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRACTICING LAW
18
INFIRMITY OF PROOF: Where substantially the same facts which constitute a single
19
course of conduct are alleged as violations of two separate mles, a finding of not guilty as to one
20
may preclude a finding of guilty as to the other. In re Carroll, 287 Ala. 29, 247 So. 2D 350
21
22
(1971). Coughlin's filing of 8/8/14 establishes that the contempt citation by Judge Howard
23
attached as Exhibit 1 to the Disability Petition was not upheld on appeal, and that the Orders by
24
Judge Nash Holmes attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 were set aside by Judge Nash Holmes, whom
25
also set aside the criminal trespass conviction, and that Judge Linda Gardner set aside the
26
attomey fee award levied against Coughlin representing a legal aid client in a divorce case
27
28
referenced in the Disability Petition, and that the other prosecutions of Coughlin were patently
8
1636
invalid given the unconstitutional denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and other due
process infirmities. That being the case, there existed very little left (that was actually pled in
the Disability Petition) in support of placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, thus
implicating NRAP 40(2)(A)-(B).
5
6
7
Especially where Coughlin was not afforded a hearing of any sort, the fact that SCR
117(2) uses the plural "expert,"xviii, is significant (implicating NRAP 40(2)(b)) where only one
purported qualified medical expert was offered and or ordered, in Dr. Nielsen. A second opinion
would seem to be called for by SCR 117(2). This same argument applies to show a lack of due
10
process, here, particularly where one facing even a gross misdemeanor in Nevada must be
11
12
13
14
15
evaluated by two different mental health professional to determine their fitness to stand trial.
NRS 178.415(1).
Perhaps most troubling about Dr. Nielsen's evaluation is its complete and total lack of
comment or any emphasis whatsoever with respect to the rather marked apparent correlation
16
between Coughlin becoming unable to afford two potent psychiatric medications he had been on
17
18
19
20
21
for over a decade in August 2011 and his thereafter being arrested for two different instances of
petty theft (within just days of each other) just a couple weeks later.
Coughlin attached a certified prescription history printoutXiX in Exhibit 1 to his 8/8/14
response in the disability case establishing that Coughlin suddenly went off these medications
22
hmnediately prior to the two petty theft arrests, and that he remained off the anti-depressant for
23
24
the criminal trespass arrest occurring just weeks thereafter. Further, despite Dr. Nielsen's
25
evaluation noting Coughlin had been in recovery for substance abuse issues for years, such
26
evaluation fails to mention or place any import on the fact that the Walmart petty theft arrest
27
included an allegation that Coughlin consumed, while shopping for groceries, an enormous
28
9
1637
quantity of a potent dissociative, Dextromethorphan (contained in high dosages in the Duract
2
3
4
Cough Melts that Dr. Nielsen's report merely references as "throat lozenges").
FUliher, Dr. Nielsen's evaluation fails to grasp that not only were the traffic citations
dismissed by Judge Nash Holmes, but so to where the two Orders attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 to
the Disability Petition (detailing alleged civil contempt and alleged professional misconduct),
6
7
much less make any note of the fact that the criminal trespass conviction was set aside as well.
Dr. Nielsen's report also makes several inflammatory allusions to Coughlin allegedly being
"homeless" or "nearly homeless" when such simply was not the case. Further, Dr. Nielsen's
10
report fails to accord any significance to the fact that Coughlin's was forced to file his initial
11
12
response (which was, consequently, not as polished and measured as it would have been
13
otherwise) to the Disability Petition, of 6/18/12, in the early morning hours just prior to his being
14
forced to proceed to trial in the criminal trespass case during the pendency of an order for
15
competency evaluation in violation ofNRS 178.405.
16
Additionally, the extent to which Dr. Nielsen fails to accord any significance or attention
17
18
to the fact that Coughlin was repeatedly subjected to violations ofNRS 40.253's requirement that
19
the Washoe Sheriff wait at least 24 hours from the posting of a Summary Lockout Order prior to
20
conducting a lockout is troubling. Dr. Nielsen's evaluation also simply notes that Coughlin was
21
"convicted on the iPhone offense" without noting the extremely strange and mitigating
22
circumstances of such matter. xx
23
24
Dr. Nielsen's evaluation contains a great deal of inflammatory material not pled in the
25
Disability Petition and is devoid of any note of mitigating circumstances whatsoever. For
26
instance, a May 2013 arrest and subsequent conviction for resisting a public officer fails to note
27
(despite Dr. Nielsen being provided proof of such) that the justice court bailiff making the arrest
28
10
1638
was fired for misconduct just days after Coughlin's sentencing in such mattter, nor does Dr.
Nielsen make any mention of the multitude of instances where Coughlin was forced to proceed
to trial during the pendency of an Order for Competency Evaluation in violation ofNRS
178.405, and forced to represent himself in violation of the 2008 Indigent Defense Order (the
above just one such instance; especially repugnant considering Coughlin ultimately was made to
6
serve a county year in connection with the resisting the fired justice court bailiff charge and the
misuse of 911 case, which Nielsen fails to note was pled down to a mere misdemeanor), or note
where Coughlin was denied the very transcript of his criminal case on appeal required by NRS
10
189.030. Similarly, Dr. Nielsen's evaluation alleges the Bar "received complaints from sitting
11
12
judges", yet fails to specify whether any judge other than Judge Nash Holmes (whom
13
subsequently set aside the very orders her referral to the State Bar was based on) actually made
14
any such complaints to the Bar. Coughlin has repeatedly requested from the Bar copies of any
15
such complaints from other judges and has never been provided such. One can imagine how
16
much less weight might be given to Dr. Nielsen's recommendation had his report been subject to
17
18
testimony and cross-examination, much less being placed alongside the second opinion required
19
by SCR 117(2)'s use of the plural "experts". Further, there has been no evidence offered to
20
suggest that Dr. Nielsen is even a forensic psychologist, and given the interplay between
21
Coughlin's abruptly going off two potent psychiatric medications and his suddenly being arrested
22
23
24
25
26
27
at the age 34 for two instances of petty theft followed by a criminal trespass arrest within
approximately six weeks of abruptly going off such medications, it is entirely arguable that a
forensic psychiatrist should have been required.
Dr. Nielsen's evaluation of Coughlin fails to identify anywhere near the dramatic and
troubling issues typically present in cases where an attorney is placed on disability inactive
28
11
1639
status. Further, Coughlin's 8/8/14 Notice and the 6/6/14 filing in the appeal ofa disciplinary
matter in NVSCT case 62337 by Coughlin (which was attached within Exhibit 1 therein)
actually makes many important and valid points with respect to Nevada landlord tenant law,
summary evictions (such as the fact that Washoe County is along among counties in Nevada in
refusing to comply with the dictate in NRS 40.253 that tenants be accorded at least 24 hours
6
7
from the posting of a summary lockout order prior to such lockout being conducted), right to
counsel issues and the Indigent Defense Order, an various arcane points of criminal law, all
devoid of the sort of off the wall paranoia and disjointed claims attendant to the typical disability
10
inactive case. xxi
11
12
Further, the State Bar and or Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board failed to ever file a
13
response of any sort to the arguments put forth in the two filings submitted by Coughlin in
14
response to the Disability Petition. xxii This implicates NRAP 40(2)(A)-(B).
15
16
17
18
19
Supreme Court looks to similar cases for guidance as to the discipline to impose in an
attorney disciplinary proceeding. In re Disciplinary Action against Lundeen, 2012 WL 933102
(Minn. 2012). In Nevada, in In Re Harris (NVSCT case 57507) the attorney there was never
subjected to a Disability Petition, nor was he ever placed on disability inactive status. SCR
123(3).xxiii
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin was temporarily suspended indefinitely from the practice oflaw in Nevada
between 6/8112 and 6/18/15, over three years, pursuant to the automatic suspension required
under SCR 111(6) for the alleged conviction of an offense containing an element of "theft" (ie,
the Walmart cough medication petty larceny charge). In the interim the Disability Petition filed
on 5/31/12 sat dormant, the State Bar of Nevada failed to file an Answering Brief to Coughlin's
Brief in the appeal of the disciplinary matter in 62337, and three of the bar counsel appearing on
either Coughlin's disciplinary case or the disability case are no longer employed by the State Bar.
As Senior Judge Charles McGee testified (please see attached the complete transcript from such
12
1640
Reinstatement Hearing in Exhibit 1) at Coughlin's reinstatement hearing, none of the infractions
Coughlin has been accused of typically warrant anything more than a public reprimand.
Coughlin has worked hard to become an attorney (at one point ranked tenth in his law school
class and a member of the law review) and accrue experience and expertise thereafter, including
a stint as a legal aid domestic violence attorney and a associate at Hale Lane. He has more than
paid the price for the wrongs he committed, and further, he has established that he has done more
than an adequate job of addressing the personal issues underlying and precipitating such matters,
as evinced in the transcript of the 8/25/15 Reinstatement Hearing Coughlin now provides this
Honorable Court. Coughlin hereby respectfully requests his law license be reinstated in the near
10
future.
11
VERI FICA TIONIDECLARA TION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN

Comes Now, Declarant, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says under
penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct: I. I am subject attorney in the above-referenced
matter, have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I hereby
declare that all assertions I have made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
12
13
14
15
16
Dated this September 21st, 2015,

Petitioner
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
1641
2
3

945 W. 12th St.; Reno, NV 89503
Te1e and Fax: 9496677402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com, Pro Se
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
1642
I certify that on September 21 st, 2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of
this SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE upon the following by
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Douglas Rands, Esq.

Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
9498 Double R Blvd., Ste. A
Reno, Nevada 89521
drands@rsgnvlaw.com
Phillip Pattee, Esq.
Office of Bar Counsel; State Bar of Nevada
3100 W. Charleston Blvd. Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
philp@nvbar.org
11
12
Dated this September 21st, 2015
13
14
15

Petitioner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
1643
INDEX TO EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: transcript from RI15-0804 8/25/15 SCR 117(4) Reinstatement Hearing in In Re

Coughlin. One hundred and ninety three pages (193).
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
16
1644
The NVSCT's Order of 6118115 in case 60975 placing Coughlin on disability inactive status ruled:
"After reviewing the petition and its attachments, as well as Coughlin's
motion filed in response to the petition, we directed the State Bar to arrange for an
examination of Coughlin by a qualified medical expert to determine Coughlin's
capacity to practice law to file a status report regarding its efforts in this regard.
Coughlin has since filed another response to the petition, and the Bar has now filed
a supplemental report containing Dr. Earl S. Nielsen's evaluation regarding
Coughlin's capacity to practice law.
Having reviewed Dr. Nielsen's report and all documents on file in this
matter, we conclude that the relief requested in the petition is warranted.
Accordingly, Zachary B. Coughlin is transferred to disability inactive status.
Coughlin may resume the active practice of law only after he has complied with SCR
117(4) and (5)."
It is interesting to note that the Court's Order fails to make a finding that Coughlin is now or
then "incapable of the practice oflaw".
Consider what the Disability Petition actually requested: "the Chair hereby
asserts ... he believes the Respondent is incapable of continuing the practice oflaw at
this time due to mental infinnity, illness, or addiction: and the NNDB Chair hereby
seeks a determination bv this Honorable Court ofthe Respondent's competency and
an order transferring the Respondent to disability inactive status"
The Court failed to actually rule on Coughlin's competency. Rather, its Order simply placed
Coughlin on disability inactive status. Thus, there was no finding or ruling made as to Coughlin's
"competency", or as to whether he was "incapacitated for the purposes of practicing law") nor any
indication as to whether such was caused by "mental infirmity, iIIness, or addiction". The Court's
Order fails to expressly adopt Dr. Nielsen's assessment, but, rather, indicates "Having reviewed Dr.
Nielsen's report and all documents on file in this matter, we conclude that the relief requested in
the petition is warranted."
NRAP 40(2) The court may consider rehearings in the following circumstances:
(A) When the court has overlooked or misapprehended a material fact in the record or a
material question of law in the case, or
(B) When the court has overlooked, misapplied or failed to consider a statute, procedural rule,
regulation or decision directly controlling a dispositive issue in the case.
With respect to NRAP 40(2)(A) the Court here may have (its is difficult to say given the lack of
findings in this Court's Order, which was made in the scope of its original jurisdiction in SCR 117
Petitions) may have overlooked to fact that most of the convictions, citations, or sanctions
referenced in either the Disability Petition, or Dr. Nielsen's evaluation have been set aside. Further,
this Honorable Court may have misapprehended a material question of law in determining that
Coughlin was not entitled to a hearing, to conduct discovery, call and confront witnesses, or receive
findings in support of this Court's decision, and was somehow allowed to appear pro se where then
placed on disability inactive status, or that NRS 40. 253 does indeed require the passing of at least
24 hours prior to the Sheriff effecting a summary lockout order, or that an indigent criminal
defendant is entitled to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, especially where sentenced to actual
incarceration, or that NRS 189.030 does require the justice to transmit the transcript in a criminal
appeal, and such justices failure to do so in now way justifies refusing an indigent criminal
defendant his right to an appeal.
ii
1645
Judicial disciplinary proceeding satisfied state and federal due process requirements; at hearing
before cOlllnittee on judicial conduct, judge has power to subpoena witnesses, right to counsel,
right to cross-examine witnesses and present witnesses on his or her behalf, hearing is
transcribed verbatim for Supreme Court review, judges are informed in advance what issues
will be considered and that they may present evidence of mitigating circumstances, Supreme
Court reviews entire record to determine if/actual findings are supported by evidence of whether
violation is shown, and Supreme COUli detennines independently what sanction should be imposed.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. In re Case of Snow, 140 N.H. 618, 674 A.2d 573 (l996);_CJS
Constitutional Law s 1899, Requirements of procedural due process-For removal or other discipline
of judge.
iv
The various alleged convictions, citations, or sanction pled (and those not pled, but seemingly
considered by the Court) in the disability petition present peculiar and unusual circumstances which
warrant an independent inquiry as to the fact of guilt. People ex reI. Attorney General v. Laska, 101
Colo. 221, 72 P.2d 693 (1937). The trier of the facts may go behind the conviction to weigh its impact
upon the discipline, if any, to be imposed. In re Gross, 67 N.J. 419, 341 A.2d 336 (1975).
Thus, where a conviction is not conclusive with respect to the sanction to be imposed in the
disciplinary proceeding, evidence is admissible to explain or mitigate the significance of the
conviction, to show the character of the crime, and what sanction, if any, should be imposed. Id.
Coughlin allegedly withdrew his criminal appeals as to a number of matters apparently
considered by the Nevada Supreme Court, some of which where not even pled in the disability petiton.
To the extent such had a baring on whether the Court found Coughlin need be placed on disability
inactive status, any such alleged withdrawing of his appeals ought be tempered by providing Coughlin
an opportunity to speak to such. Coughlin's filing of 8/8/14 did to some extent, referencing assurances
made to him by his fonner employer at Washoe Legal Services, the fact that Coughlin was denied
access to legal tools while in custody, and was not pennitted to represent himself on appeal.
In disciplinary proceedings the board in its investigative capacity, may look behind a plea of
guilty to a crime by an attorney, especially where plea bargaining is involved, in order to detennine just
what offense the attorney is or was guilty of. Ky.-Kentucky State Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 492 S.W.2d 880
(Ky. 1973).
It is important to consider that Coughlin actually accepted plea bargain to dispose of both the
iPhone petty theft case and the misuse of911 case (where such charges were reduced to disturbing the
peace); however, the trial judge rejected such plea as not voluntarily made by Coughlin. Regardless,
there exists dramatic due process violations in these various cases, ranging from Coughlin being denied
counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment and 2008 Indigent Defense Order, being required to
continue to represent himself in the Walmart cough medication case (which also featured a doubly
illegal arrest for a misdemeanor, after 7 pm, by a tribal police officer in violation of the Fourth
Amendent) after being found in summary contempt ten minutes into trial, judges refusing to comply
with the appellate transcript requirements ofNRS 189.030, being denied the right to represent himself,
denied access to legal tools and his medication while incarcerated, inconsistent verdicts in violation of
~ and Staab. Further, as to any actual convictions or sanctions Coughlin ought be provided an
opportunity to be apprised as to which have actually been pled and are to be properly considered by the
COUli, the afforded any opportunity to offer mitigation in such regard or otherwise assert any patent
invalidity of such due to due process violations.
v The Florida Bar v. Fussell, 179 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1965); Slotnick v. Pike, 374 Mass. 822,370 N.E.2d
1006 (1977)
vi
SCR Rule 105. Procedure on receipt of complaint. 1. Investigation ... (c) Hearing. Upon
receipt by bar counsel of written objections to the issuance of a private reprimand and a statement
of election by the attorney within the time prescribed, the matter shall be set for a fornml or infonnal
hearing in accordance with the attorney's election. A fonnal hearing shall proceed in accordance
iii
1646
with Rule 105(2). At an informal hearing the attorney shall be given the opportunity to appear, to
present oral argument, and to present evidence related to the written objections or any
relevant issue.
vii
SCR 105(2); "(d) Time to conduct hearing; notice of hearing; discovery of evidence against
attorney. The hearing panel shall conduct a hearing within 45 days of assignment and give the
attorney at least 30 days' written notice of its time and place. The notice shall be served in the same
manner as the complaint, and shall inform the attorneY that he or she is entitled to be represented
bv counsel. to cross-examine witnesses. and to present evidence. The notice shall be accompanied
by a summary prepared by bar counsel of the evidence against the attorney, and the names of the
witnesses bar counsel intends to call for other than impeachment, together with a brief statement of
the facts to which each will testify, all of which may be inspected up to 3 days prior to the hearing."
viii Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of Virgin Islands Bar Ass'n v. Johnson, 447 F.2d
169 (3d Cir. 1971); In re Ifill, 878 A.2d 465 (D.C. 2005); Mildner v. Gulotta, 405 F. Supp. 182
(E.D. N.Y. 1975).
ix In re Doherty, 28 A.D.2d 546, 280 N.Y.S.2d 340 (2d Dep't 1967); In re Kersey, 444 Mass. 65, 825
N.E.2d 994 (2005); Hitchcock v. State Bar, 257 Cal.Rptr. 696; 771 P.2d 394 (1989); In re DwyerJones, 470 Mass. 582,586-88,24 N.E.3d 566, 570-72 (2015).
x (SCR 105(2)(e) ... time for decision ofpanel...Any five members of the panel shall be a quorum.
The hearing panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing ...
accomoanied by the panel's findings and recommendation).
xi
"SCR Rule 110. Subpoena power, production of documents, witnesses, and pretrial proceedings. 1. Issuance
of subpoenas by hearing panels and bar counsel. .. The attorney may also compel by subpoena the attendance of
witnesses and the production of pertinent books, papers, and other documents before a hearing panel."
xii See, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson, 86 Ohio St. 3d 104, 712 N.E.2d 122 (1999).
Findings
made should confonn to the charges. State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460,524 P.2d 747 (1974). In re
Dohelty, 28 A.D.2d 546, 280 N.Y.S.2d 340 (2d Dep't 1967).
xiii
In attorney disciplinary proceeding, a charge must infonn the attorney adequately of the
misconduct involved, and, an attorney cannot be disciplined without some charge being made and
filed against him or her, and all charges of professional misconduct should be included in any
complaint made against an attorney. It necessary that the attorney be fairly and specifically infonned
of the charges against him or her. The constitutional guarantee of due process will prevent a court
from finding violations of attorney disciplinary rules that have not been charged in the complaint
against the attorney. See, Burkett v. Chandler, 505 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1974); In re Krehel, 419 Pa.
86,213 A.2d 375 (1965); In re Peterson, 178 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1970); In re Griffith, 283 Ala. 527,
219 So. 2D 357 (1969).
xiv
The Court's Order of 4/23114 in 60975 should not operate to make anything in Dr. Nielsen's
report somehow an amendment to the allegations pled in the 5/31/12 Disability Petition, where such
Order read: "We strongly admonish Coughlin that we expect him to fully cooperate with the
medical expert chosen by the State Bar, and we warn him that any refusal on his part to do so will
result in this court moving forward in considering tho other bar matters pending against him,
including the recommendation that he be disbarred. In re Discipline of Zachary Coughlin, Docket
No. 62337."
xv
PASSAGE OF THREE YEARS FROM FILING OF DISABILITY PETITION
PREJUDICIAL: Coughlin here was prejudiced by the damage to his professional reputation and
earning capacity done during the passing of three years from the time of the filing of the 5/31/12
Disability Petition and the 6/18115 Order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status, especially
where he was afforded no hearing of any sort. Compare that to the swiftness guaranteed under SCR
105(2). See, In re Disciplinary Action Against Overboe, 867 N.W.2d 482,486 (Minn. 2015).
Disciplinary proceedings generally should be handled with dispatch. The Florida Bar v. Papy, 358
1647
So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1978). Take practically any attorney in Nevada and strip them of their law license for
three years on an indefinite basis, with all the concomitant lack of earning capacity, alienation, and
shame that attaches thereto, while three different bar counsel enter and exit the picture in such cases,
and it is entirely likely such attorney's lives would contain a fair amount of dysfunction too.
xvi
SCR 105(3). Review by supreme court. (b) De novo review of public discipline. . .. a
decision recommending a public reprimand, suspension or disbarment shall be automatically
reviewed by the supreme court. Review under this paragraph shall be commenced by bar counsel
forwarding the record of the hearing panel proceedings to the court ... " (SCR 105(2)(g) Court
reporter. All formal hearings shall be reported by a certified court reporter ... ").
XVll
(Case 62337, Bar Counsel's failure to file an Answering Brief, the specter of addressing
Coughlin's motion to have confession of error accorded to such failure to file an Answering Briefby
the Bar)
XVlIl
SCR 117(2) provides: "Upon the filing of such a petition, the court may take or direct such
action as it deems necessary to detennine whether the attorney is incapacitated, including referral of
the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for hearing and recommendation by a hearing
panel or the examination of the attorney by qualified medical expert~."
xix (and accompanying email he sent to the State Bar of Nevada just weeks prior to it filing the very
Disability Petition claiming Coughlin refused to admit he had any mental health issues needing
attention)
xx (involving lost or mislaid property where the finder thereof threatened to (as admitted to by hostile
witnesses) throw such iPhone in a nearby river if someone did not claim it, and without noting the
patent invalidity associated with the trial judge refusing to accept Coughlin's plea of guilt for
disturbing the the peace (which would have disposed of both the misuse of911 case and the iPhone
petty theft case), and Coughlin then subsequently being convicted of both petty theft and receipt of
stolen property with respect to the very same iPhone. A thief cannot receive from himself the fruits
of his larceny ... " Staab v. State, 90 Nev. 347, 526 P.2d 338, 341 (1974).
xxi See, for example, In re Keefe, 159 Wash. 2d 822, 825-26, 154 P.3d 213,215 (2007); See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Meade, 103 Wash.2d 374, 379-80, 693 P.2d 713 (1985); In re
Disciplinmy Proceeding Against Ryan, 97 Wash.2d 284,287,644 P.2d 675 (1982); In re
Campbell, 74 Wash.2d 276,280-81,444 P.2d 784 (1968).
In re Keefe, 159 Wash. 2d 822,833-34, 154 P.3d 213,218-19 (2007) puts into stark reliefthe
failure by Dr. Nielsen's evaluation to actually bring into question Coughlin's capacity to practice law:
" .. .In Meade, the psychiatrist testified that Meade "was competent to handle most legal
matters" and "may have appeared competent at the earlier proceedings because his appearance
and verbal abilities were unaffected." 103 Wash.2d at 378-79, 693 P.2d 713. Nonetheless, we
affirmed Meade's transfer to disability inactive status because his paranoid state would affect
his perceptions and judgment in particular cases related to his delusional system. Id. at 379, 693
P.2d 713. In Ryan, we found a sufficient nexus between the attorney's mental condition and his
competency to practice law because his delusions were intimately connected with his practice
**219 oflaw. 97 Wash.2d at 287,644 P.2d 675. We also affirmed Ryan's transfer to disability
inactive status because the evidence indicated that "Ryan, if restored to active status, might
make irrational judgments concerning the merits of cases brought *834 before him and might
continue to subject clients to litigation based on allegations of conspiracy and fabrication." Id.
... Dr. Grant's expert testimony established that Keefe's delusional system may affect his
judgment and perception in particular cases and that his mental condition impaired his abilities
to reason, establish facts, and distinguish fantasy from reality. 1 TR at 122-23. An attorney
must have these abilities to provide competent representation in the practice of law. Because the
evidence supports the hearing officer's findings regarding Keefe's mental condition and its
impact on the legal system, we affirm the hearing officer's determination that Keefe lacks the
1648
capacity to practice law." In re Keefe, 159 Wash. 2d 822, 834-35, 154 P.3d 213,219 (2007)
Similarly, consider: "First, Ryan contends that the evidence fails to establish a nexus
between his mental condition and his capacity to practice law. See Schware v. Board of Bar
Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). We find a sufficient connection.
Ryan's delusions are intimately" connected with his practice. His own testimony is that his
beliefs about the "bogus" cases have rendered him unable to distinguish between real and
fraudulent cases. He has sued fonner clients, cocounsel and opposing counsel. He has made
public his belief that a pending case was fabricated. Moreover, one psychiatrist concluded that
Ryan had a "fullblown paranoid delusion" encompassing almost everyone he has met in recent
years. This doctor's opinion was that Ryan was not capable to practice law.
As Ryan is not presently practicing law, it is necessary to speculate to some degree
about his present and future capability to practice. The conclusion reached here, however, is
based upon Ryan's own actions which occurred in close proximity to the hearing. We believe
the evidence shows that Ryan, if restored to active status, might make irrational judgments
concerning the merits of cases brought before him and might continue to subject clients to
litigation based on allegations of conspiracy and fabrication. We believe it is not in the best
interests of the public and the Bar that a lawyer in this mental condition be allowed full practice
rights." In re Ryan, 97 Wash. 2d 284,287,644 P.2d 675,676 (1982).
By contrast, Dr. Nielsen's psychological evaluation of Coughlin refers to the comparatively
benign diagnosis of "Persistent Depressive Disorder (mild to moderate)" and "Dependent Personality
Disorder associated with traits of Depressive and Masochistic Personality Styles" and notes that "From
a layman's (non-attorney) point of view, his violations seem petty and innocuous, ... ". (Page 9). Dr.
Nielsen notes only mild behavioral problems for Coughlin considering the gravity of being placed on
disability inactive status and the effect such has on one's career, earning capacity, and reputation, much
less the detriment to the public associated with so placing a fonner legal aid attorney whom has
effectively advocated for tenant's and indigent criminal defendnant's rights.
Dr. Nielsen wrote: " Mr. Coughlin was on time for appointments and cooperative with
all requests and inquiries ... Mr. Coughlin is alert, responsive, and well-oriented to all perceptual
spheres. His memory is intact for recent and long-past events. He denies hallucinations and
delusions, and does not describe beliefs or perceptions consistent with thought disorder ... He is
embarrassed and remorseful about his behavior, and remains mildly depressed ... but impulsivity
and inattention to detail interfere with problem solving, practical solutions, and perceptual
reasoning. He does not show evidence of impaired thinking or signs of brain impainnent.
thinking may be judged as odd by some, but he is not bizarre or fully out oftouch .... He has not
had major depressive episodes but rather chronic and insidious symptoms of low self esteem,
disinterest in people or activities, low motivation, and some social avoidance .... He is largely
passive-aggressive, but expresses hostility as righteous indignation, blames others for his
troubles, and resents authority. He is often bored, feels empty, and is unable to profit fonn his
own experience. He doubts his own ... he is not a sociopath and does not have an antisocial
personality disorder. He can be superficially charn1ing, but he is not pathologically
manipulative or conning. He has some conscience development, including capacities for guilt,
remorse, and sympathy .... "
Dr. Nielsen concludes "Mr. Coughlin is not formally mentally ill, but does suffer emotional
disturbance with an underlying personality disorder." Id. Such simply does not support taking away
an attorney's right to practice law. Even improperly considering matters (whether accurate or not,
1649
and there are a multitude of factual inaccuracies therein) contained in Dr. Nielsen's evaluation which
were not pled in the disability petition, there exists insufficient proof to place attorney Coughlin on
xxii Arguably, the failure by both to dispute the contentions Coughlin made in such filings ought be
deemed confessions of the merit of such arguments against declaring him disabled. See, NRAP
31 (d), DCR 13(3), SCR 119(3).
xxiii " ... or (3) relevant to an analysis of whether recommended discipline is consistent with previous discipline orders
appearing in the state bar publication."
1650
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1651
1
2
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
5
6
7
IN RE:
8 ZACHARY COUGHLIN,
ESQ.,
Case No. RI 15-0804
10 ===================================================
11
12
13
14
15
Reno,
2015
Nevada
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Job No.
255647
23
24 Reported by:
Transcription
25
CAROL HUMMEL, RPR,

Computer
CCR #340
1652
08/25/2015
Page 2
Page 4
-000-
RENO, NEVADA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 25TH, 2015; 8:38 A.M.
-000-
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
MS. JENKINS:
This is the time and place set
for a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing regarding

Craig Denney, Esq.
Bruce C. Hahn, Esq.
the reinstatement, or possible reinstatement of Zachary B.

Coughlin, State Bar number 9473.
It is August 25th, 2015, at approximately 8:38
10 A.M.
ALSO PRESENT:
have never started a hearing on time in my life,
11 and r'm really working on that, but I haven't quite gotten
R. Kait Flocchini
10
12 there yet.
Deputy Bar Counsel
13
11

12
Respondent
13
This is Case Number RI 15-0804.
14
Are the parties ready to proceed?
15
MR. COUGHLIN:
. 16
MS. JENKINS:
15
; 17
MS. FLOCCHINI:
16
18
14
17
MS. JENKINS:
Yes.
Mr. Coughlin says yes.
Yes.
19 we had a prehearing conference last week by telephone.
18
At
] 20 that time I denied Mr. Coughlin's motion for change of
19
! 21
20
venue to southern Nevada.
21
Mr. Coughlin was placed on disability inactive
22
status in northern Nevada.
23
Nevada.
24
He practiced in northern
As a result he maintains the venue for this
matter here in northern Nevada, mostly because the panel
25
had already been appointed, and I

N D E X
PETITIONER'S WITNESSES:
Charles McGee
DE
Earl Nielsen
34
55
66
Hiles l1arsh
70
73
84
Mary Barker
87
91
95
Timothy Coughlin
96
Zachary Coughlin
CE
RDE
RCE
vIe also at the status conference
22
we did a
status conference earlier in the matter where I offered

the parties the ability to do peremptory challenges.
Because of the nature of this matter I thought that was
Not typical in a reinstatement hearing, but
we're all here for the interest of justice and fairness

and what have you.
And so this designation of panel
149
11
10 DEFENSE WITNESS:
understand that just this morning at
12 apprOXimately 8:10 Mr. Coughlin has served each of the
NONE
11
12
13
14
felt that all of those
appropriate.
13 panel members with a rather lengthy,
over SaO-page

E X H I BIT S
15 received because,
. 16
15
Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21 marked
18
19
STATE BAR EXHIBITS:
20 A - Harked and admitted into evidence.
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
Just as a matter of procedure,
of course,
I was already here.
haven't had an opportunity to read that, and

18 either in transit or what have you.
So I don't know

20 time.
I 21
In the interest of fairness, Ns. Flocchini

v-Iould you like to at this time make an
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1653

Page 6 i
Page 8
1
Ms. Flocchini.
2
2
Good morning, panel. Thank you for being
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar appreciates the
5 strategy.
6
What you got last week from me basically
7 arguing, ;Iell, this is a disability reinstatement hearing,
8 not a misconduct reinstatement hearing was one tack. I
13
So what \'las missing from the Bar's prehearing
13
And therefore the panel should consider
16
To the extent that there is a substantial
18
Based on our review of all the documents on
20 this panel certainly was entitled to everything the Nevada : 20 extent that those are important, we can make copies of
22
So the length of it is maybe a little
23
I just flipped through the supplemental
"24 prehearing brief. Some of this I recognize, some I don't.
, 25 To the extent that there's exhibits attached that
Then the exhibits attached thereto are
4 prehearing brief.
5
I think at this point, because of the
7 ;Ihich, my understanding, amounted to setting aside an
7 pre hearing brief is to give a synopsis to the panel, to
8 attorney fee avlard. These were ones referenced in the SCR i 8 the parties, about what's going to be happening. I think
9 11 7 peti tion .
10
So I apologize for not getting that to the
! 10 And to the extent that tolr. Coughlin can address what's in
14 panel.
15
MS. JENKINS: Any rebuttal to Ms. Flocchini's
: 16 statement?
, 17
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. Just perhaps it would be
19 pre hearing brief.
19 extent.
20
But I think just in the spirit of cooperation
20
MS. JENKINS: Before we do that. Let's just
21 ,lith the Bar it makes a lot more sense to just address
23
MR. COUGHLIN: I think it would just be
25
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Coughlin.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1654

Page 10'
Page 12

1 that's volunteer -2 laws cited there which basically is just from CJS' s review
2
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, my concern is that
5 me understand vlhat to address.
5 at that and stUdying it and preparing for this hearing.
6
Wi th respect to why should the exhibits be
6
You may not be aware that regularly decisions
10 stuff. So I think -- I don't believe a decision is going ! 10 time to consider 500 pages of material today.
11
It is troubling to me that you chose to change
! 12 your approach so late in the game.
This circumstance
16
A lot of work went into that vlith respect to
; 16 waiting for the hearing to happen is just -- it's a very
18 Bar some time in terms of producing the record, forwarding 18
I believe that it was clear to both the State
19 the record on to the Nevada Supreme Court should that need i 19 Bar and to you during our telephone conference that
20 to take place.
21
The underlying thing is I think it's just
22 stuff the panel would want. I think the panel -- if I was i 22 we could stipulate to the entry of evidence prior to
23 on the panel I would want everything within the disability i 23 getting here. And I'm very, very disturbed that that
24 case.
24 didn't happen.
25
MS. JENKINS: I have what I need. Thank you.
25
So we're going to be wasting some time today.
I,
Page
13
Mr. Coughlin, during our telephone conference

last week I asked the State Bar and the Respondent
4 hearing today.
5
My understanding is that the materials you
S
I am not going to rule about the admissibility
9 correct?
10
MR. COUGHLIN: (Nonverbal response.)
11
118. JENKINS: Were those provided to the State : 11 then provide copies to this panel. We're not going to be
13
If you don't have hard copies, I'm certain
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. All of them were
,14 that Ms. Peters will be able to make a reasonable number
i 15 of copies for you.
I'm not talking about reproducing 500
! 16 pages five or six times, because the record needs one as
17 regard.
18
But I would reference DRP, just in the spirit
20 says, I believe, the prehearing packet to be served on the 20
I would like to move forward with the hearing
24
118. FLOCCHINI: Nothing that I can think of.
25 try to make as much use of this precious time for a panel : 25 Thank you.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1655

Page 14

MR. COUGHLIN: Nothing.
Then I would like to ask the panel to
6 left.
7
MR. DENNEY: Good mcrning. I'm Craig Denney.
MS. BRETERNITZ: Marilee Breternitz.
8
MR. LOW: Keegan Low.
10
MR. FURMAN: George Furman.
11
MS. JENKINS: I'm Caren Jenkins, and I'm the
12 chair.
Counsel are present. Mr. Coughlin, the
13
17
18
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, please.
19
Do we need to swear Mr. Coughlin or is he here
20 as an attorney?
21
MS. FLOCCHINI: You're representing yourself.
25 oath. I'm sure Mr. Coughlin is going to be forthvlith vlith
~Page
Page 16
Where I got a bit caught up was in that fit to

i 6 that probably does include character, and probably would
10
Regardless, I see this as an opportunity, a
16
But I think it would be foolish for me not to
19 intend to do that today by -20
Well, first I intend to address the fact I'm
15
ige-U
1 the panel.
2
3 Mr. Coughlin?
MR. COUGHLIN: No.
5
After that, meeting the fitness prong showing
(The oath vias administered to
5
Mr. Coughlin.)
6
MS. JENKINS: Please be seated.
MR. COUGHLIN: I appreciate the panel being
8 There might be other stuff that will be \vorthwhile
11 economy.
12 disability reinstatement hearing, to whatever extent those 12
It's interesting to note the disability
13 are different.
14
What I filed last week on the 21st needs more
14 believe that's about 38 mcnths ago. There was some things
18
With SCR 116.2 spelling out some standards
i 20
But I think I'm not conceding the point on
21 disability statement context, the rule is SCR 117.4 which , 21 appeal, but I want to use this hearing as well as
22 possible.
23
Judge McGee will also be testifying, the
: 25 testify, whether as to fitness or disability being
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1656

Page 18'
1 removed.
Page 20
And then I'll put on evidence related to

3 sho,ling current competence and learning of the law.
4
But it seems to me the bulk of the time should
7 of Ivhat it ,iOuld like me to focus on, I certainly will.
8
But from my review of the case law, addressing
13
The majority of it, if not all of it, is just
17 case lalv that supports doing that, looking beyond the
20
But the underlying sentiment is just that
21 was wrong. I vias not well. Kind of a combination of
23 responsibility here, and I vias not behaving appropriately,
that the panel hold the matter in abeyance for six months,
8 law.
9
Our request, or our recommendation, is based
! 10 on, will be based on the brevity of Mr. Coughlin's
11 compliance ,lith Dr. Nielsen's recommendation. And the
13 disability.
14
Also the anticipated issues with starting up
17 the State Bar.
18
And then thirdly, the State Bar recognizes
25
And recognizing that perhaps that's longer than is

2
Thank you.
3
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you for your time here
5
The panel has been provided with a copy of
12
The focus on fitness is appropriate in this
15 Mr. Coughlin that vie' re not prepared at this time to
20
At this point the State Bar is not supporting
24
And the State Bar's recommendation or the
1 necessary, perhaps, that's why we viOuld request that the

i 5 basis for returning to the practice of law.
6
~lS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, presentation of
7 evidence.
8
MR. COUGHLIN: I would first like to put on
i 9 some witnesses. If Judge McGee would like to go first.
: 10 would like to do that unless you would like to hear the
i 11 doctor's testimony.
12
I will call Judge McGee.
13
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I</as this witness
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
16
MS. JENKINS: Obj ection?
! 17
MS. FLOCCHINI: I am considering the
: 18 representation that Judge McGee was disclosed. I believe
i 19 that Judge McGee may have been referenced in conversation.
21 testimony today.
22
But I wanted to give some input on the order
24 that Dr. Nielsen ,las available, prepared to be available
i 25 from 8:30 until 10:00, and that he will not be available
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1657

Page 24
Page 22!
1 after 10: 00 0' clock. So I vlanted to make sure that that

CHARLES McGEE
4
5
'
THE WITNESS: Thank you for that guidance.

There is no secret that 12 years ago I was
2
: 5 one of the venues in which I was able to observe Zach.
6
I've read Dr. Nielsen's report. I've talked
THE WITNESS: I may be very, very brief,
110
I have -- I don't envy your position, because
11
The reason that I put this judicial
16
I am something of a pseudopsycho
18 recently made.
19 parts of the addiction 1'lOr Id because of my personal
19
So if he wants me to limit my testimony to
20 just character testimony, then I will say a few words, and 20 experience, and because of my studies.
21
This 90 days they talk about, for example, has
22
MS. JENKINS: Would you please identify
, 23 brain chemistry begins to change. And my anecdotal
24
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Charles M. McGee.
i 24 experience anYVlay is it's about a year for somebody who is
25 And I live at 4930 Turning Leaf Way in Reno, Nevada. I've : 25 addicted to a substance. You can't state with any
I

2 years.
May I go ahead?
3
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. Unless you
8
THE WITNESS: I'll do that.
MR. COUGHLIN: For whatever purpose.
10
THE WITNESS: It's really interesting for me
15
Let me state briefly my qualifications.
Is this a confidential hearing?
16
17
MS. JENKINS: No.
18
Ms. Flocchini, would you like to respond to
19 that?
THE WITNESS: Is this a public hearing?
20
MS. JENKINS: It is a public hearing. The
21
22 public is invited to attend the hearing, and the record,
23 don't believe, is sealed in any vlay. But depending on

2
Zach is a brilliant young man as the State
7 a time.
But on top of that, he's had mental health
8
11 considered in isolation would probably vlarrant more than
! 14 or something like that.
15
Taken together collectively, this man, and I'm
i 16 saying this to you in your face, acted like a jerk.
! 18 and arrogant he was before these lower court judges as if
: 20
And that to me is a sign of the problem that
, 23 of a mood swing disorder, but he got a little beyond
24 himself.
25
NOW, those are the caution flags that I think
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1658

Page 26'
Page 28

3 there's a monitoring program that is offered by the State I 3 a little bit more tense.
4
And I'm sorry if I haven't been here to just
8
And let me tell you, I think a biased 11arning
9 room loves.
9 vlith some scientific basis. More and more now they're
10
That's all I have to say.
11
MS. JENKINS: Any other questions for the
I 12 witness?
13 the synaptic clef. And it literally after a while kind of I 13
14
15
MS. FLOCCHINI: No, thank you.
MS. JENKINS: The panel?
16 beyond that because I'm not a psychiatrist or a chemist or i 16
17
MR. FURMAN: None.
MR. LOW: Good morning, Judge McGee. I'm
18
But I applaud Zach Coughlin because for years
18
20
THE WITNESS: Of course.
MR. LOW: In the packet I was provided I did
21 anymore. I think he's honest. I think he recognized what 21
22 a jerk he was.
23
I think if he could -- in the 12-step program i 23 feel like I need a copy of that at my earliest ability to
24 we're supposed to make amends. And whatever way he can do 24 have one, because I need to see what was in that report.
i 25
But I \;ill talk to you about -- you have some
2 step we call it.
But the overall prognosis is excellent after
3
he had this kind of epiphany. And I can't describe it in
7
So, to me, you should start out, whether it's
8 now or a month from now or three months from nOl;, or even
15 professional.
16
Then I don't think you need to necessarily
24
That's pretty much all I have to say. I'm
25 speaking with the eye of my heart. And I care for him. I
1 familiarity Vlith the Petitioner in the recovery program,

2 you've indicated?
3
THE WITNESS: I do.
4
MR. LOW: Are you his sponsor?
I
5
THE WITNESS: I am not.
MR. LOW: Do you kno\; who his sponsor is? And
8
THE WITNESS: I think so. But I think that's
9 information that I I;ould like to maintain confidentiality
I 10 for.
'11
MR. LOW: I don't need any identity.
12
To your kno\;ledge, does the Petitioner have a
13 sponsor?
THE WITNESS: I think so. But I'm not sure.
14
, 18
MR. LOW: You're talking about the Petitioner?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
19
20
MR. LOW: All right.
THE WITNESS: There was a gap in there.
21
, 22 don't knOl'l what his relationship with a sponsor might have
i 24
MR. LOW: Do you have any information about
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1659

Page 30'
Page 32
THE WITNESS: Yes, with qualifications. I

4
That's part of the reason for my hesitation as
MR. LOW: There's obviously a determination of
5
6 the quality of recovery -6
MS. JENKINS: Any other questions from the
7 panel?
7
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
8
MR. LOW: -- that's he's experiencing.
8
MR. DENNEY: None.
Do you have information or knowledge about how
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Judge.
10
11
THE WITNESS: I know he's there every time I'm 11
MS. JENKINS: Please, go ahead.
I 12
DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
14
And if I were in your shoes, I would make
14
Q Your Honor, if I can just ask you. You
15 referenced six years ago. I believe at the neeting you're
16 times a week.
17
Ironically, you might even ask his dad that
18
A That's probably right.
19
MR. LOW: I think that's all I have. Thank
19
Q That's my recollection.
20 you.
i 20
A I stand corrected. It probably has been that
; 21 long. I'm not real good on time. And I apologize to you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
21
22
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Denney?
: 22 It probably has been at least ten years.
I 23
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Judge McGee.
23
THE WITNESS: May I be excused?
MS. JENKINS: Judge McGee, when was the last
24
24
MS. JENKINS: You are excused. Thank you for
25 time you were at a meeting where zach Coughlin was in
25
Page 33
Page
1 attendance?
2
THE WITNESS: Three weeks ago.
MS. JENKINS: You mentioned that he's been
4 away.
5
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Hovl long ago did he leave? And
7 hOI' long ago did he return? That you're aware of.
THE WITNESS: I'm not completely sure, because
8
14
So I know there was a hiatus vlhere he vias
17 will.
18
What I saw in the meeting three weeks ago is a
21 cried.
22
MS. JENKINS: How long ago did you meet
23 Mr. Coughlin?
24
THE WITNESS: Probably six years ago, seven
1 being here.
Is it time for Dr. Nielsen? Get the telephone
3 set up, please.
4
(Recess taken.)
5
MS. JENKINS: I understand, we have a
7 himself.
8
THE IrIiTNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't understand
9 that.
118. JENKINS: Would you identify yourself for
10
12
THE WITNESS: My name is Earl S. Nielsen,
14
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask the court
i 16 stand, please, and raise your right hand.
17
(The oath was administered
118
telephonically to the witness.)
119
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, my name is Caren
I 22 reviewed your report, either the one you did initially or
25
Any references to your reports are just fine,
2
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1660

Page 34
Page 36
1 but we want you to testify from your knoViledge rather than

2 I was able to reach Vlere that he was -- he was having some
THE WITNESS: Okay.
4
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin.
4 in the past Vlith other chemicals that seemed to have been
5 resolved. That he \'ias mildly depressed, but a lot of that
5
EARL NIELSEN
called as a Vlitness in said case,
7 difficulties Vlith the Bar.
having been first duly SViorn, Vias
8
And I also diagnosed a dependent personality
8
examined and testified as folloVls:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 longer standing.
10 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
11
What I recommended Vias that he seek counseling
11
Q Good morning, Dr. Nielsen. Thank you for
13
A You're vie 1come .
14 And that he -- the other recommendation I made vias that he
14
Q Dr. Nielsen, can you describe the contents of
i 15 Vlithdraw himself from the law and find Vlhat I call the
! 16 subsistence job Vlhere he could survive, but he needed to
17
A Yes. Although it's not on the records in
18 supporting himself, get avlay from some of his dependency
19
Q Dr. Nielsen, if I can just interject quickly. i 19 issues.
20 Including reference to recovez:y efforts by the Petitioner
And I also recommended that if possible he get
20
21 that may have been present with respect to substance abuse 21 out of the area. Because I think there are too many
I 22 triggers around him in the Reno community, at least in
22 recovez:y.
. 23 Ivashoe County.
23
Please go ahead, sir.
24
I knovl that's a pretty brief summary of a
24
A Okay. I was originally asked to conduct a
That's essentially what the report
3
So I met with Mr. Coughlin in July of 2014 and
4 conducted a background, social history intervie\'i, and also
7
I was also surprised with the relatively
11
I also conducted psychological testing with
13 and the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory -14
THE REPORTER: He's breaking up.
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, if you could speak
15
16 as loudly as you can \'iithout shouting. We're having a
18
THE WITNESS: I'm having that trouble too.
20
MS. JENKINS: If you would.
21
THE WITNESS: Okay. I Vias talking Vlhen you
22 said it, so I didn't hear you. I Vlill try to speak more
24
MS. JENKINS: Great.
25
THE WITNESS: So in meeting Vlith Mr. Coughlin,
1 concluded.
I then received a phone call from Mr. Coughlin
3 in June of 2015 asking if I Vlould revievl his progress and
4 be Vlilling to write a letter to the Bar that describes my
5 observations. I agreed to do that, and I met Vlith him, I
7
He supplied me with additional records. He
9 contact Vlho had opportunity to observe him. I chose not
i 11 I did speak Vlith Bill Martin, Vlho is a marriage and family
12 therapist. I spoke Vlith Dr. Hoar who is also a marriage
14 Coughlin, Vlho is Mr. Coughlin's father. These are
15 people -- the first two he had been in counseling Vlith in
i 16 San Diego.
17
The importance of speaking to his father is
18 that when I did the original report he Vias quite estranged
22 I evaluated him first. So his Vlillingness to allow me to
I 23 speak to his father at this point allowed me a viindovi that
i 24 I thought I needed.
; 25
So I was able to do those things, to review
2
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1661

Page 38'
Page 40

1 father and family had visited Nr. Coughlin in San Diego,
Based on my then contacts of Nr. Coughlin and
4
6 stepsister.
And so I thought that on a personal level was
7
i 9
At this point vlhat I had said in my letter,
9 counseling in Reno, although that counseling vias through
10 the Northern Nevada Adult Nental Health Services. And in i 10 and it's certainly not up to me to make a decision whether
i 11 he is reinstated. But if he's reinstated at this point, I
13 reentry for Nr. Coughlin, including random alcohol
14 had no means.
15
l'lhen he got to San Diego, I think his first
16 objective there was to apply for NediCal. And once
I 16 reports to the Bar, and engage in serious counseling with
17 NediCal was approved, he was able then to get private
; 17 a qualified counselor.
i 18
It doesn't have to be a psychologist. The
19 benefit than what he was receiving with NANS.
20
I didn't have any contact with Nr. Coughlin
21 from at least August of 2014 until June of 2015. I didn't 21 enough to keep Mr. Coughlin focused on his needs to
22 improve and his ovm responsibilities.
23
So when he had chosen to move to San Diego, in
25
But when I was able to see him in June, and
review his records in July, I was convinced that he had
But the reports from the counselors vlere
7
10 for a way to blame your problems on somebody else. I
12
By January of 2015, he finally appears to have
21
So the summary of my second letter is that
In addition to monitoring those things, I
2
6 character.
So that's how I summarize my experience with
7
8 Nr. Coughlin. Do you need more?
9
NS. JENKINS: Nr. Coughlin?
10
~ffi. COUGHLIN:
I have a couple quick
11 questions.
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q Dr. Nielsen, were you aware that the first two

arrests at issue in the disability petition occurred
within a couple weeks of myself, the Petitioner, abruptly
ceasing to take both Adderall and Wellbutrin, and instead
dealing with the effects of coming off of those by
relapsing on dextromethorphan or over-the-counter cough
medication?
I was aware of that, yes.
21
Q Do you see any -- did you see that as
24
A I think there's some important connection.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1662

Page 42
Page 44

1 what I understand, I think one of the thefts I"as I think
5
And so it is a combination of alcohol, of
6
I don't want to overdo this. I have a limited
8 of the crimes. As I look at the pattern, I sawall of it
9
The arrests themselves were further stressors.
11
And so again it's that conflagration of events
, 13 go back to my original report. I don't think you have an
15
That actually, from my point of view, sets
i 15 sociopath.
You weren't choosing to do those things just
16 that's what was going on at that point in time. Not at
18
Q Could you say the Petitioner throughout the
: 19 period of time in which the various events detailed in the
: 20 petition occurred, would you say the Petitioner was going
21
When I look at that a year later, that's
22
A Yes.
23
Q Would you say throughout that same period the
45
1
Q Or by ingesting massive quantities of a
3
A Well, again, I think that was your solution at
A Well, I did believe there was an alcohol

3 of the factors.
4
I also think there was mental and emotional
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q Okay. So Dr. Nielsen, getting into mitigation

aspects. All the misconduct or misbehavior detailed in
the disability petition, in your opinion would you say
that there was an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive
on the Petitioner's part exhibited in all that behavior,
but rather just such being symptomatic of a level of
dysfunction in the Petitioner's life?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A I don't know how to answer that. In all

honestly, I think you were scrambling, and I think you
were grasping at whatever you could. Those things tended
to be ineffective.
I don't know about motive. I think your
motive at the time was survival. Your choice of solution
was poor.
20
21
22
23
24
Q To compare that to somebody who is functioning

at a fairly high level, who is convicted of theft, would
you say that might exhibit more of a dishonest or selfish
22
A Again, I don't have the statute in front of
motive than one of Petitioner's circumstances at the time, 123 me, so I don't have that standard here. I do believe that
whereas you say he was just scrambling to survive?
25
A Yes. Again, I think the theft wasn't -- from
11
Q Would you say the chemical dependency or
13
A I don't think I can make a causal statement.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q Are you aware that the standards for

mitigation in Nevada to, if you will, be more forgiving or
have more understanding of one's misconduct include a
prong which asks whether or not the chemical dependency or
mental illness caused the misconduct? And if that be
established, then some more mitigation would be found?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1663

Page 46'
Page 48

2 an attorney.
1 counseling things that I recowmended. And I do believe by

3
Q Okay.
A I also said that I did believe with adequate
5 fight back.
6
So yes, I think in my view you have met the
I 7 rehabilitative standard, as I said. And I think in
10 where you \o[ere able to function independently and might be 10 But you've been able now to sustain the pattern for many
11 months, and I think tnat counts.
12
The causal language in the standard, I can
12
Q Do you find it significant that the Petitioner
!13 here has ceased taking Adderall?
i 14
A I think Adderall has good and bad effects.
14 said I \o[as at the moment being cautious about the causal
i 15 And it's prescribed medication, prescribed for a reason,
16
Q Doctor, the third prong in the SCR 105.2. (i)
i 16 and it's effective for what it's used for.
However, it's
19
Would you say on Prong 3, the Respondent's
20 recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability 20
For you to have stopped the Adderall and found
i 22 from the past -- without the medication is, again, a
, 23 tribute to you efforts.
23
A Yes.
24
Q Do you find that to be the case here?
24
Adderall might make your life easier, but it
25
A
1 it.
2
Q Do you think the use of Adderall here might
4
I do understand that you have been alcohol
5 free for a period of time, and I think that counts. I
6
A I think that's possible. The effect of
7 your Ovin ship, and that counts. So I'm willing to say
10
But that's vlhy I recommended relatively strict 10 hyperactive and hostile and use poor judgment.
11
Adderall doesn't usually stimulate that set of
13 alcohol at this point. You're not under the influence of " 13 But if you begin to add Adderall to dextromethorphan or
15 are enough improved that I think you can stand on your own 15 predict.
16
So there has been an element in your -- when
16 two feet.
17
So yes, I think that you have met that
i 17 you seem to be overly stressed and begin making poor
i 18 judgments, you tend to exacerbate that with a hyperactive
19
Q So did you find that to be the case with
: 19 display or almost a hypomanic display. And it's again my
! 20 reason for arguing Adderall probably isn't a drug of
21 disability?
22
A Yes. I think that you have been away from the 22 own. You don't need the alcohol, and I think you'll find
24
Q Doctor, the fourth prong of that mitigation
i 25 analysis, do you find that the recovery arrested
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1664

Page 50'

2 unlikely here?
Page 52
your actual character other than the observations that are

3
A Well, I think based on your recovery efforts
5
Q Doctor, would you say in your review of the
10
As I think you're aware, when we talk about
!10 rights to counsel issues and other various altruistic
11 pursuits
13
A I don't think I'm qualified to make that
14 do, and you've been consistent, and you've been persistent 14 statement. I'm not an attorney, and I'm not an actual
15 with that.
I 16 improvements that I see place you in a position where I
16
I think that if you find yourself getting
18 talk to yourself about that. Okay. What's going on here? 18 know. I don't have the capacity to evaluate your ability
19 vlhat am I doing? But I don't think you need the
20 medication.
20
I don't know -- frankly, I don't know enough
21
Since you've stopped the medication and the
, 23
Q Would you say that you found yourself agreeing
1
Page
51 t~

2
Q On that note would you say the Petitioner has
1 like?
' 2
A Again, you're asking me a question about a

6
Q Well, did you find yourself at various points

5
A To the extent that you have made the effort to

11 settings?
Q Would you say that the Petitioner, when

11
14
A I think that's true.
15
Q Would you say that evidenced or was evidence
18 proceeding?
19
12
A I probably did that. And yes, I think there
A As far as my role goes, yes.
20
Q Other than the misconduct at issue, are you
22 reputation?
23
A I'm not sure about that, Mr. Coughlin. With
16
17
; 18
19
20
21
1
Q To the extent that I would gather, and I think

you should, but you view yourself as having character, a
good character, would you say that the congruence of your
opinions and the Petitioner's opinions in those various
contexts could lend support for you to find the Petitioner
has character?
22
A Yes. I don't have a problem saying that you
, 25 my statement to the generality that I think without the
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1665

Page 54
8
Q Would you say that the Petitioner displayed
11
A I think that's more obvious today than it vias
12 a year ago, yes.
13
Q
14 questions.
15 disabled?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Just to wind this down with respect to my

Would you say the Petitioner is no longer
Page 56
1 alcohol and the Adderal1 and the high stress that you were
6
And so yes, I think that there's evidence that
1
Q You indicated earlier that you have reviewed
2 doCtullents that were provided by the medical providers,
5
6
A Correct.
A Correct.
Q And you also reviewed doCtullents provided by

8 months; correct?
10
Q You indicated that you felt Dr. Hoar's methods
: 11 were very good. What about Dr Hoar's methods were you
13 head?
14
A Yes. Dr. Hoar specifically -- and, by the
15
16
Q Would you say the Petitioner is fit to
17
practice law?
18
A To the extent that I'm able, I think that, you , 19
know, it's -- I don't see at this point an impediment in
20
your emotional or mental health or your general character I 21
to prevent you from functioning as an attorney.
122
Q Would you say that -- okay.
23
Would you say the Petitioner has the requisite 24
competency and skill in the law at this time?
25
A I think the Petitioner is no longer disabled.
way, I did speak vlith Mr. Martin and Dr. Hoar as well as
reading the records. Dr. Hoar's approach that she
described is a form of dielectric behavior therapy, and
also a newer form of therapy that is generally called
mindfulness, so it gets mixed up with some other things.
And those two types of therapy are really the
forefront of effective psychotherapy today. And so the
fact that Dr. Hoar practices those things and understands
vlhat they are was meaningful to me as the direction
Mr. Coughlin needs to go. I am not available to take
~Ir. Coughlin on as an individual client. But if I were,
Page
1
MS. FLOCCHINI: Objection. Beyond the scope.
MS. JENKINS: Doctor, I'm going to sustain the
2
5
MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have, your
7 Honor.
8
9
Ms. Flocchini, do you have questions for the
10 doctor?
11
CROSS-EXAMINATION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2
I don't mean anything negative about
: 3 Mr. Martin, but I think he's more traditional in his
I
6
Q How much concem does it cause you or raise in
A I don't really think he made the choice. I

,, 9
: 10 think, the way I understood it from Mr. Martin and
! 11 Dr. Hoar, Dr. Hoar is the one who discovered that they
: 12 were both billing MediCal, so she had contacted
Q I just have a few. Thank you for taking time I 13 Mr. Coughlin to say you established with Hr. Martin first,
out of your vacation for us, Dr. Nielsen. I know
, 14 one of us has to leave.
Mr. Coughlin greatly appreciates it and so does the state
15
He was seeing Dr. Hoar only once a week and
Bar.
A Thank you. You're vlelcome.
, 17 decision to break away from it as a professional courtesy.
Q I will try to keep my questions brief.
i 18 I didn't get the impression that it was something that
In your professional opinion, how long does it 19 Mr. Coughlin chose.
take to establish a relationship with a therapist?
20
On the other hand, as I said, I don't have
A A trusting relationship. It takes a long time 21 anything against Mr. Martin. I was more impressed with
for the relationship to develop. To establish the
relationship probably takes a matter of weeks. I believe
in my own practice I have established pretty solid
24
She was very clear that she \;ould continue
relationships vlith people within three to six \;eeks.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1666

Page 58
Page 60

2 relationship.
3
Q Thank you. You're aware that Mr. Coughlin

2 while practicing?
3
A It doesn't. Again, I think it's evidence that
6
A Yes, I'm aware of the dates, and initially
7 that concerned me. But vlhat I realized later is that
7
I don't know what he exactly did to get the
10 l1ediCal, and that took three months. It takes three
ill I don't know that he's spent exactly a hundred hours, but
, 12 he got credit for that.
12
As I said, I wish he had started sooner, but
13
I think it's a symptom of his style to try to
15 the last minute.
16
Q Does it cause you any concem as to whether or
17
Q I appreciate that. Were you able to review
i 18 will be able to maintain his emotional and mental
18 the medical records from NAMS, the Northem Nevada Adult
5 2015; correct?
I.
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes.
Q And so you saw in those medical records that
Mr. Coughlin was not receiving therapy services from NAMS
from approximately September of 2014, and then of course
he discontinued services when he moved to San Diego in
about January of 2015. You saw that; right?
19 stability?
20
A Well, it's the reason I keep saying I think he
i 22 has a counselor as an anchor that he can speak to weekly
\ 24 going. As long the alcohol and the Adderall don't get
i 25 back involved, I think he will be able to function fine.
Page 61
A Yes.
2
Q And does it cause you concem -- well, let me
3 ask you.
4
Have you read Mr. Martin's letter that was
6 recomnendation from Mr. Martin?

3
Q Are you aware of a report from a Dr. Hunter
I don't recall that, no.
6
Q There was a report to the admissions
7
A I did read that, yes.
8
Q Does it cause you concem that Mr. Martin
8 some emotional stability concems with respect to
I 9 Mr. Coughlin, and that Dr. Hunter believed that to be a
10 synptom or that his behavior was a synptom of an
I 11 adjustment reaction in 2002.
11
A That does raise concerns. And I would say
12 it's one of my motives for stating that I would be happier 12
Is that consistent with your understanding or
14
I think Mr. Martin -- I think Mr. Martin is
15
16
17
18
involved in M and sees that as a path, but rather he was

involved with someone who understands AA, but does
psychotherapy rather than leaning on the AA model, and I
think that's the difference between the two of those.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Are you aware that Mr. Coughlin has

represented that he's completed over a hundred hours of
continuing legal education between August 14th and August
19th?
A I am aware of that because you told me.

Q Yes. And that infonnation had been provided
to the State Bar. How much of a concem does that raise
15
A Well, I don't know Dr. Hunter.
16
I appreciate that.
17
! 18
19
20
21
A I don't have the context. I don't have what

was going on at the time. But adjustment reaction is a
diagnosis used by many mental health practitioners
to basically say this is a relatively mild problem. It's
solvable. And they have to have a diagnosis for insurance
I 22 purposes.
, 23
Okay.
24
A And so, if you recall, it Vias an adjustment
25 reaction of what type? Was it -- vlhether it concerns
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1667

Page 64
Page 62

2 be part of the context. Do you even know \vhat Dr. Hunter

3 think they would vlelcome him back. So that's one of the
4
Q My understanding that Dr. Hunter is a
4 things that was here before that I wouldn't \vorry about as
5 psychiatrist.
5 much.
6
A Okay.
6
I know that he had some rather antagonistic
7
Q You're aware that Mr. Coughlin is currently in
9
A Yes. When I spoke with him he was in San
9 this, it's not really a professional thing. I vlOuld
10 Diego.
11
Q Does it raise concern for you that
15
A Actually, I think the fact that Mr. Coughlin
16
MR. FURMAN: Thank you, Doctor.
: 17
MS. JENKINS: Other questions from panel
. 18 members?
19
I would want to be sure if he moves back to
19
MR. LOW: Dr. Nielsen, this is Keegan Low, one
21
I'm just trying to establish a time1ine. You
22 Mr. Coughlin.
23
He recently got his law degree from Boyd in
23
THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes. I don't have
! 25 the request of the Bar to conduct this evaluation in July,
3
I would strongly encourage him to come back to
But I think in San Diego, like I said, he sort
5
12
So I think he has the social skills, and the
15
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you for your time and
17
18
MS. JENKINS: Does the panel have any
20
MR. FURMAN: Dr. Nielsen, at a point you said
23
THE WITNESS: I don't knOlv. He's been gone
4
MR. LOW: And then I believe you testified
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct, June 26th.
7
8
MR. LOW: Did you see him between those two
9 dates?
10
THE WITNESS: No.
11
MR. LOW: From the history that you took at
14
THE WITNESS: Well, actually, I think he
15 had -- I think he had stopped mUltiple times. But I'm not
20
Again, I don't have any records here, and I
21 would have to go back and crosscheck that to see \vhat' s
22 written down.
23
MR. LOW: Do you have an understanding of
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1668
08/25/2015
Page 66'
THE WITNESS: I thought he was free from

3 time right now.
4
MR. LOW: The change in location appears to
6
THE I'IITNESS: Yes. I didn't say go to San
10 that.
11
MR. LOW: Thank you, Doctor.
12
13
MS. JENKINS: Other panel members?
14
Mr. Coughlin, of course you get the last word.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I just have a couple questions.
16
MS. JENKINS: Please.
l7
18 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
19
Q If you were aware the Petitioner is taking
20 We1lbutrin, would you have any concem with that?
21
22
23
24
25
A No. Wellbutrin is an antidepressant. It's

inside the class of SSRIs. It's a relatively safe
medication, and it doesn't contribute to any of the side
effects that would be attributed to Adderall and Ritalin
or the stimulants.
Page 68
1
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Nielsen, we appreciate your
2 time and energy today on your vacation, and the \'Iork that
4
Is there anything that you're aware of in your
longer true, as far as you know?
I 7
THE I'IITNESS: I don't know how to answer that.
9 to the next.
10
MS. JENKINS: I understand. That was a poorly
: 11 asked question.
, 12
When you wrote the first report, have you
14
THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.
: 15
MS. JENKINS: When you wrote your follow-up
18
THE WITNESS: No, not that I knOl'l of.
, 19
MS. JENKINS: Grea t. Those are the answers
I 20 we're looking for.
21
Anything further, Counsel?
: 22
'23
MS. FLOCCHINI: No.
24
MS. JENKINS: You are released to your
Other witnesses?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. If I can
4
MS. JENKINS: I think that's a grand idea.
5 Let's take five.
(Recess taken.)
6
MS. JENKINS: Let's go back on the record.
7
8
A Actually, in my profession I hadn't thought
10
MR. COUGHLIN: If possible, I would like to
12 credit. So yeah, that's a possibility I hadn't -- again, , 12
MS. JENKINS: You mean telephonically?
13 you and I have never spoken about the credits, so I didn't 13
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
, 14
MS. FLOCCHINI: What's the name of that
15
Q Was there any time that you felt Steve Harris , 15 person?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Miles Warsh. W-a-r-s-h.
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Obj ection . Relevance.
17
MS. JENKINS: Has that name been disclosed to
18
MS. JENKINS: Do you have a counter?
18 the other side?
19
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, the doctor testified at
19
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
20 Steve Harris's hearing, and it might not be that relevant. 20
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, any comments,
21
MS. JENKINS: Objection sustained.
22
No need to answer that question, Dr. Nielsen. I 22
~lS. FLOCCHINI: I don't remember the
23
24
MR. COUGHLIN: That's all I have. Thank you,
24
MS. JENKINS: Thank you. There's the
25 Dr. Nielsen.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q Is it your experience with on-line continuing

education courses that sometimes you'll listen to them,
and need to listen for a participation code, and that you
can do that for weeks, and then log on-line and type in
all those codes, but that doesn't necessarily mean you did
all those hours the day you typed in those codes and got
the certificates?
1
2
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1669

Page 72
Page 70 i

2
(Telephone call placed.)
MR. COUGHLIN: You are on the record to
7
MILES WARSH
8
9
10
11
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
12 BY MR. COUGHLIN:

i
2
3 ability.
13
Q Thanks again, Miles, for making yourself
16
A My name is Miles, M-i-l-e-s. Warsh,
17 W-a-r-s-h.
Q And you live in San Diego?
19
A I do. San Diego, California.
18
20
Q And I will be referring to myself as the
22
Are you the Petitioner's sponsor in some
23 context?
No, I don't. I've seen, you know, an amazing

I vlOuldn' t see any reason for that judgment to
4 be made.
5
Q As far as you know, has the Petitioner
7 him?
8
A Yes. Absolutely clean and sober and working a
10
Q Do you feel the Petitioner is fit to practice
11 law?
12
A
I do, yes, in my opinion. I think the
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Nothing further, your Honor.
15
Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
16
THE WITNESS: You're welcome. Is there
18
MS. JENKINS: Yes. Ms. Flocchini has a couple
20
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Who am I speaking
21 vlith?
22
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. My name is Caren
I'm the chair of a five-member panel meeting
am.
24
25
How long has that been the case?
Since the first or second week of January
THE I'IITNESS:
Hi, Caren.
MS. JENKINS:
Hello. Thank you for being
Page
2 2015.
3
Q Have you met approximately weekly for several
5
A I have.
6
Q Can you describe that?
A Yes. vie get together, and we do step work
8 related to recovery. Read the big book, talk about \.;hat
10
Q Do you do that approximately a couple hours
12
A Yes.
13
Q Do you see the Petitioner at recovery meetings
14 regularly?
15
A Absolutely, yes. At least weekly.
16
Q Have you witnessed the Petitioner exhibiting
18
A Yes. Absolutely I have, yes.
19
Q Do you feel the Petitioner has good character?
20
A Yes. Yes, I do.
21
Q What's the Petitioner's reputation amongst
23
A Oh, within the recovery community Zach is a
25
Q Do you feel the Petitioner is disabled at this
73
2 here.
3
5
6
7
8
9
, 10
11

MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini is with the State
Bar of Nevada. She will cross-examine you. I will then
ask if the panel members have questions for you, then
we'll give Mr. Coughlin the last word.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
Q Good morning, Mr. Warsh. This is Kait
13
Hi, Kait.
14
Mr. Warsh, are you an attorney?
15
I am not.
16
Q Are you aware of the stressors that are
i
18
Pardon me? I didn't hear your question.
19
Q Sure. I can repeat it.
20
Are you aware of the stressors that are
21 involved in practiCing law?
22
No, I'm not.
I don't practice law.
23
Q Is your general -- your impression of
: 25 your personal observations of his work in his recovery
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1670

Page 74'
Page 76

Yes.
2
THE WITNESS: It is.
3
Q But not on anything that you know about
3
MS. JENKINS: Can you give me an idea of how
5
A Well, again, I don't practice law. I own and
5
THE WITNESS: I can tell you exactly why.
MS. JENKINS: Great.
7
THE WITNESS: You know the program that we
8 and cash flow. And I don't practice law, but, you know,
10 amount of billable hours every day. I have daily, \~eekly, ,10 and their defects and their poor behavior. And frankly,
11 monthly goals.
12
So I'm not saying that my business, my
13 businesses are in any way similar to a law practice, but I 13
And Mr. Coughlin shows up. He is incredibly
14 think that Zach could do anything that I do. It's just my 14 honest. He's been very remorseful, in my opinion. I've
15 opinion having gotten to know him very intimately and see , 15 done this work with a lot of men over a number of years,
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Those are all the questions
, 17 part in these situations which, as he's identified, has
19 Mr. Warsh.
i 19
And it takes, you know, it takes someone of
20
THE WITNESS: You're very welcome.
! 20 character to be willing to look at themselves with gut
21
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, I'm going to start
23
You referred to one of the things that you do
, 24 participates in groups that I belong to. He has made
25 including an activity called "reading the big book." What 25 friends in my experience vlith him. He is welcome and
1 program?
2
A
Page 75
1 does that mean?
1 invited to my home for family functions.
We love and
2
THE WITNESS: It's a book. The book is kind
I 2 adore Zach in our life.
3
MS. JENKINS: Similarly -- this is the last
4 one. When you were asked vlhether Mr. Coughlin had or
7 But -7 successfully.
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. JENKINS: Great. That's a nice synopsis.

8
THE WITNESS: I think I was asked -- and
You were asked vlhether the Petitioner has
shown any remorse for his actions, and your answer was
10
MS. JENKINS: Go ahead.
yes. Can you tell me what it is that you relied on to
11
THE WITNESS: I think I was asked if I would
come to that conclusion?
I 12 consider him to be disabled.
THE WITNESS: Well, we have personal, you
: 13
MS. JENKINS: Good. Are you aware -know, conversations and relations at an intimate level.
14
THE WITNESS: I'm not a legal or mental health
And he has shared with me, you knO\~, a number of issues
15 professional.
that he had in the past, and legal problems, and all of -- 16
MS. JENKINS: Fair enough. Are you aware of
the sum of all of those things that's brought Mr. Coughlin 17 the basis for Mr. Coughlin's move to inactive status based
to sit in front of this panel today.
And, you know, we have looked at all of those
19
THE WITNESS: Yes. I've actually seen all of
instances and situations and dug down into the how, what
and why of it. And he's incredibly like remorseful. And, 21 I'm aware of whatever information and evidence is in front
you knO\~, he's looking to make amends for those things and 22 of you.
knows it's just not acceptable behavior.
! 23
MS. JENKINS: As a friend of Mr. Coughlin, and
MS. JENKINS: Great. And you also were asked 124 a person who is intimately involved in his life, hOvl are
whether the Petitioner exhibits character. Well, that's a 25 his behaviors, his attitude, his demeanor different now,
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1671

Page 78

2 to the State Bar when he \,as moved to inactive status?
3
THE WITNESS: You know, when I first met Zach,
12
And the work that we do enables us to have our
l7 didn't seem to consider, you knovl, what vias even going on
20
Zach is very present and engaging, and he
25
Again, I'm not an attorney or a mental health
Page 80
2 sponsor of?
3
THE WITNESS: I've clearly attempted to take
5 vlOrking Vlith four guys, Mr. Coughlin included right noVl,
6 and have several -- I don't knOVI. I mean, yes.
7
9
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
, 10
process?
, 12
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I have a sponsor, and I
13 continually Vlork the steps. So I've had a lineage
, 15 and make my life happily and usefully whole, and I get to
! 16 share that Vlith Mr. Coughlin.
: l7
MS. JENKINS: ~Ir. Warsh, I'm going to assume
19 friend and your colleague Mr. Coughlin in this matter -: 20
THE WITNESS: Anything that I think -21
MS. JENKINS: Excuse me. I want to ask you:
25
THE I'IITNESS: \~ell, gee, that's kind of a
ill
Page
1 hard -- that's a difficult question, and things that Vlill

2 in t1r. Coughlin over the last six months, especially in
MS. JENKINS: One final question from me,
6 make some really good repairs on relationships vlith the
6
9 are.
10
THE WITNESS: Okay.
11
MS. JENKINS: First. How many times or how
i 11
Pi tfalls, I mean, they're everywhere, you
12 knOVI. I've been sober a while, and I'm never more than an
13 experience?
14
THE WITNESS: Well, in my experience I have
l7 remember the absolute number. I can tell you that I
! l7 not looking for any reasons for him to fail.
18
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. I'larsh.
19
Panel, do you have any questions for this
' 20 gentleman?
21 developer, another fella who when I first met him lived in '21
MR. DENNEY: I have nothing.
22 the bushes outside of a church where we attended a meeting 22
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Low?
23
MR. LOW: Miles, my name is Keegan Low. I'm
24 contractor's license and -24 one of the panel members.
25
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, would you say there
25
THE WITNESS: Can you hold on for just a
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1672

Page 84
Page 82

2 routine.
2 reason.
i 3
So he has a plan of action. I know that's
3
MR. LOW: Can you hear me now?
4
THE WITNESS: I think I hear you alit tle
5 better.
6
MR. LOW: Just a couple of questions for you.
7 or a drug.
MR. LOW: Thank you. Appreciate it.
8
THE WITNESS: Correct.
8
THE WITNESS: You're welcome, sir.
MR. LOW: And so how long has Mr. Coughlin
9
10
MS. JENKINS: Dr. Furman?
10 been sober?
11
THE WITNESS: Well, Zach was sober for a
11
t.ffi. FURMAN: No questions.
12 little I'lhile when I met him. But I think he's got to be
12
MS. FLOCCHINI: No further questions. Thank
13
14
MR. LOW: He attends weekly meetings with you I 14 you.
15
16
THE WITNESS: Well, yeah. He attends meetings 16
MR. COUGHLIN: Just one, your Honor.
17
18 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
19
Q Mr. Warsh, you referenced it briefly. Are you
20
MR. LOI'/: So if you had to put an approximate
21
A Yes.
22
Q How long? Approximately how often?
22 would you say?
23
THE WITNESS: Oh, I vlOuld say probably six or
23
A Well, I think you go every vleek. We talk
i 24 about it. And you started going, or at least I became
25
MR. LOW: How far along are you with the step
2
THE WITNESS: Zach's on his 12th step. We
7
~ffi. LOW:
Does Mr. Coughlin sponsor any
9
THE WITNESS: Well, no, sir. He's just gotten
12 recently in the last week arrived at, is I'ihere he I'lill go
14
MR. LOW: Have you had any discussions with
19
THE WITNESS: We have spoken in a general way.
25 be. He knOl'ls vihat he needs to do. He's made recovery a
Q Has the Petitioner, to your knowledge,

2 atteIrpted to make amends -- I think you referenced this
3 earlier. But has the Petitioner atteIrpted to make amends
10
11
12
" 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
'24
: 25
A Yeah. Absolutely. The letters and

face-to-face meetings.
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Warsh.
That's all, your Honor.
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Warsh, you're excused at
this time. We appreciate your investment in the
Petitioner, and your assistance with his recovery, and
your testimony before this panel today. Thank you very
much.
THE WITNESS: You're welcome. And I assure
you it's my honor and my pleasure. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, at this point I
would like to somewhat briefly call my mom, and then my
dad.
MS. JENKINS: We have 25 minutes at our
disposal. Would that be adequate for you to put on all of
your remaining witnesses other than you?
t.ffi. COUGHLIN: I think so.
MS. JENKINS: Let's try to do that.
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can just call my mom, Mary
Barker of Reno, Nevada.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1673

Page 86
Page 88
(The oath was administered to the witness.)

2
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, I would be in favor
2
A I was not present. However, I was called
4
Q Were you asked to attend the hearing?
5
MS. JENKINS: What's she going to say about
5
A Yes. And I came, but you were not here yet.
6 you, really?
7
MR. COUGHLIN: They weren't here at the last
S
Q Were you not very happy with the Petitioner at
10 Ms. Flocchini?
10 state?
11
It does muddy the record when we have just
11
A I was concerned about -- my belief is that
, 12 your mental state, other than being depressed clinically
14
I don't know. How much should I say?
15
But, Ms. Flocchini?
15
MS. JENKINS: vie' re looking for your personal
16 opinion.
16
MS. FLOCCHINI: I don't have an objection to
17
THE WITNESS: My personal opinion. Zach never
20
And of course it's your case.
21
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
22
MS. JENKINS: I will suggest, if I may, that
25 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
1
87

5 happens.
6
MR. COUGHLIN: Just to clarify, your Honor.
8
MS. JENKINS: The removal of disability, and
9 fitness to practice are the tlvO issues before this panel.
10
MR. COUGHLIN: With fitness including
11 character?
12
MS. JENKINS: I would say so. Just as you
14
15
MARY BARKER
16
l7
18
19
DIRECT EXAMINATION
20 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
21
Q Ms. Barker, can you state your name and
23
A Mary Barker.
24 Nevada 89503.
25
9450 \'lest 12th Street. Reno,
Q Were you present at the prior disciplinary
A Yes.
I'm sorry.
If I can stop you there.
3
Q -- and direct the question a little more
4 specifically.
5
Have you witnessed the Petitioner displaying
I
A Yes. Absolutely.
S
Q Have you witnessed the Petitioner seeming to
11
A Yes.
12
Q Do you believe the Petitioner is fit to
13 practice law?
i 14
A Yes.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have.
: 16 Thank you, Ms. Barker. Mom.
17
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, if I may just give
21
\'Ihat is helpful to the panel is asking the
23 allo,l the witness to testify.
24
So if you want to go back to the three points
.!
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1674

Page 90
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
this witness to explain how she came to those conclusions,

and do you agree that blank, and how do you come to that
conclusion, that would be more helpful to us.
Do you want to start over?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. Just to
clarify the three points. It is overcome the disability,
fit to practice law, and have the requisite skill and
learning or is it character, overcome disability?
MS. JENKINS: I would like to direct you to
Nevada Supreme Court Rule 117, Paragraph 4, resumption of
practice by disabled attorneys. I'm moving down in the
paragraph. It says, "The petition shall be filed with Bar
counsel's office, and should be set for hearing before a
five-member hearing panel which shall consider whether the
attorney has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence
that the attorney's disability has been removed, and that
he or she is fit to resume the practice of law."
Those are the only considerations before this
panel today.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
BY t4R. COUGHLIN:
Q Miss Barker, if you could take the suggestion
22
23 and direction the panel judge just made and comnent with
Page 92
reviewing in my mind vlhen I believe he stopped all

4
Q What substance are you aware of that he was
5 using?
6
A Adderall and alcohol. Now, let me say I did
7 not have firsthand -8
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can just in terj ect
9 quickly.
10
MS. JENKINS: Do you have an objection?
11
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, it is similar to an
12 objection.
13
MS. JENKINS: What's your objection to the
14 question?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Relevancy. I understand this
17 behavior -- or it's always been somel'ihat unclear to me
! 18 what period of time is under review here.
The activity
21
So I think it's probably relevant what
,24 a relevance objection.
25
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to alloVi the question
93


2 inactive determination and -3
MR. COUGHLIN: Actually, this is prior.
THE WITNESS: Before.
4
MS. JENKINS: I believe that I'm going to
5
6 alloVi it. Because it's relevant for the panel to knOVI at
9
MS. FIOCCHINI: Thank you.
, 10 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
11
Q Were you aware if Mr. Coughlin was using
3
A I think that there has been a tremendous
5 sober. And I think that a lot of your disability Vias the
7
And I just -- I compare the way that you vlere
11 another lawyer Vlho Vlill be a mentor, who Vlill be there
12 seeing Vlhat you are doing. It has to be frustrating for
13
A I believe he was. But that is a mom's belief.
13 you.
14
MR. COUGHLIN: I think that's all I have, your 14 I did not see anything. Even Vlhen Zach lived here, I
15 Honor.
,15 never savl him drink. I never saw him use. And I actually
, 16 thought because of his behaviors that he must be mentally
16
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you.
17 ill, and I went through a 13-Vleek program with the
CROSS-EXAMINATION
i 18 National Nevada Mental Health Institute for families of
18
19 people Vlith mental illness.
20
Q Mr. Coughlin was in San Diego -- or, I'm
20
And nothing seemed to fit that. He l'iasn' t
21 bipolar. He Vlasn't schizophrenic according to what I
22
A Uh-huh.
23
Q Are you aware that Mr. Coughlin was using
24
And I personally believe that it was a
25
A Yes. As his sponsor was talking, I was
25 combination of Adderall and alcohol. And he Vias under a
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1675

Page 94:

3 began.
4
Q And you indicated before that you believe that
6
A I believe so. I believe so. Now, what I know
12 difficulties.
13
14
15
16
17
18
A Yeah.
24
Q -- getting work. But I just want to know if
A Yes.
2
Q And that there was periods of time between
4 programs --
A Yes.
6
7
8
10
11
12
Q Okay.
13
A And that's it.
14
Q Are you aware of any stressful situations that 15
Mr. Coughlin has had in the last eight 1IIOnths?
16
A I suspect every day might be kind of stressful : 17
when you're getting sober.
18
Q I appreciate that. But there's nothing
: 19
19
20 significant? I recognize that Mr. Coughlin 1IIOVed to San
21 Diego, and I'm sure the panel knows that, and that 1IIOving
22 can be a stressful endeavor --
23
Page 96
-- ostensibly sober?
A Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Anything from the panel?
MS. JENKINS: You're released. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can call my father,
Dr. Timothy D. Coughlin.
TIMOTHY COUGHLIN
having been first duly sworn, vias
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COUGHLIN:
Q Hello, Dr. Coughlin. Thank you for being here
20
21 today.
If you can state your name and residence.
22
A Tim Coughlin.
23 Nevada.
4263 Greenhorn Court. Reno,
24
Q Can you speak to the same questions that were
A Yes. I've been sober 36 years. I'm one of

3
A Right. And I think that this is stressful.
5 been on his mind. And I think that he's handled it well. I 5 the last six or seven years of his life. It was one of
7
I've been the medical director for the McLane
10 for a long time.
11
MS. FlOCCHINI: The State Bar appreciates you ! 11
I can say that Zach, as his mother has alluded
13
MS. JENKINS: Hang on. Rebuttal.
13 school. He was a National Merit finalist. He \'1as All
14
15 BY MR. COUGHLIN:
16
Q Ms. Barker, are you aware the Petitioner had
16
I think he went off to college, and I suspect
17 not S1IIOked marijuana for seven years between 2007 and late 17 that some things happened there. He came back with three
18 different colored hair, and he made the law review in lavl
19
A Yes. As I said, I never really knew that you
21
I do know that you went through years of
21 law school.
22
And sometimes the smarter you are, the tougher
24
Q So are you aware of the Petitioner entering a
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1676

Page 98
1 the time.
I love Zach a great deal. His character is
7 point.
I feel very strongly that in the last year we
8
12
You know, we've had -- it's been difficult.
15 of thing.
16
Adderall is an amphetamine, the same thing as
21 than the ones who do. And everybody goes to v/Ork every
23 quite figure out hovi things got all balled up.
24
My mother's father was one of first guys in AA
2
Page 100
I'

3 all that. It's been very helpful. And Vle've had, you
4 knOVl, there is a huge success rate among doctors because
6 them. If they screw up, their livelihood goes aViay.
7
The doctors' AA meeting meets in my office on
9 at that. 110st alcoholics are their oVin Vlorst enemy, and
11
Frankly, he hasn't been arrested in a long
13 improving. And Vie have good conversation noVi. And
17
My vieVi of this 500-page brief is his anxiety
, 18 took over, and he Vias just determined to dot every I and
, 19 cross every T and lost sight of the fact if you don't have
20 recovery it doesn't matter hoVi good your argument is.
,21 It's got to come from the heart. And you need a huge
! 22 spiritual conversion.
You have to have a totally, you
23 knOVl, a major upheaval in how you look at the ,/Odd and
24 hoVi you treat people and hoVi you behave. And I think he's
25 had that.
Page

4
My dad's father was the mayor of a little
9
Ego and self-centeredness are at the heart of
12
And I've been a lightening rod for Zach. And
14 a lot of "ays. I've seen this in AA before where people
15 have long-term sobriety, but their kids remember Vlhen it
16 Vlasn't that way. And so sometimes they, you know, they
18
I have no doubt in my mind that his recovery
19 is sincere at this point. I've seen him break dOVin and
20 cry and apologize for the things he's done and the Vlay
22 knoVi he's sincere in that.
23
But it is, you knOVl, it is a difficult road.
24 And I Vlould lobby for reinstating Zach, but I Vlould tie
25 him to a very tight contract, Vlhich is what we do loJith
But I think he's still early in recovery.

3 take up to tViO years for your PET scan to come back to
4 normal. It can be tViO years before you begin to
5 experience pleasure the Vlay it should be.
6
But Zach has a good heart, and he is tenacious
7 if he's anything. Period. And, you knoVl, a Vleak person
8 would have quit a long time ago, but Zach Vlill push things
10 to me Vie have got the old Zach back, and I can't tell you
11 hoVi thrilled I am Vii th that, because Vie had pretty much
i 12 felt like loJe had lost him.
: 13
14
Ms. Flocchini?
15
MS. FLOCCHINI: I Vlill only briefly ask a
: 16
17 question.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
18
,20
Q Do you have an example or can you give an
I 21 example of when Mr. Coughlin has had a particular stressor
25
A I think he gets up every morning and is at
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1677

Page 102'
Page 104
1 work at 7: 00 0' clock to do vlhat' s manual labor. And

-0002 that's tough, you know. And living in a new town, he's
2
RENO, NEVADA; TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2015; 12:15 P.M.
3
-0003 made a lot of friends, which is remarkable.
But I think recovery has a dignity. And
4
4
5
MS. JENKINS: Back on the record.
6
Mr. Coughlin, vie' re still in your case in
7 chief.
8
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Besides
11
And frankly, I don't pull my punches with
i 12
MS. JENKINS: "This" for the record is?
13 know if we didn't reall y -- when Zach would get arrested,
13
MR. COUGHLIN: This is the filing I submitted
14 today.
15
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to deny the admission
16 of the filing as a whole. But if you vlOuld like to
17
I think the mental illness, and frankly the
19 don't have any doubt that he's sincere in his remorse and 119 Ms. Flocchini, of course, can object to them, I don't
21 that regard. But he's dug himself an incredible hole, and 21 record.
22
MR. COUGHLIN: For Exhibit 1 I seek to
24
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have no further questions.
24 2015.
25 Thank you.
, 25
HS. JENKINS: That's in the package that's
Page
1
2
MS. JENKINS: Panel members?

Mr. Coughlin?
MR. COUGHLIN: No further questions, your
4 Honor.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, sir. \~e appreciate
6 your testimony.
What do you have left other than yourself and
7
8 your documents?
9
MR. COUGHLIN: Just the documents, your Honor.
14
MS. JENKINS: I understand. I would like to
21
We're going to, of course break at 1:40 for
24
(Recess taken at 11:37 A.H.
25
to resume at 12: 00 P.M.)
5
105

2
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
3
~B. FLOCCHINI:
No objection.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. It will be
5 admitted.
I 6
MR. COUGHLIN: Just for clarification, all
9
Exhibit 2 would be selected progress notes by
10 Dr. Terry Pittinger who is a treating therapist at NNAHHS.
I 11
~~. JENKINS:
Any objection?
I 12
14 of Hiss Pittinger's notes.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize. I don't know if I
MS. JENKINS: Hr. Coughlin, the one I have
, 18
, 20 two-page document. I'm sorry, keep going. It's a
22
MR. COUGHLIN: But on my index to exhibits
, 24 approach. This might prove useful. Hs. Flocchini vlOuld
! 25 you object to allowing the panel to have this the index to
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1678

Page 106
1 the exhibits?
MS. JENKINS: What you call it is really
2
MR. COUGHLIN: That is a few of the progress
5
6 notes by a psychologist at NNN1HS who I was treating with.
11
MS. JENKINS: The term of this treatment vias
14
MR. COUGHLIN: The NNN1HS treatment, I started
15 getting counseling at NNN1HS in March of 2013 originally
16 with a different therapist who turned out \;as a neighbor
20 treatment.
21
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to ask why is it that
23
MR. COUGHLIN: I believe because, one, to cut
24 down on the bulk of this filing. TvIO, because in these
Page 108
1
MS. FLOCCHINI: I know Mr. Coughlin will be
2
3 testifying directly today. I don't have an objection. I
5 evidence.
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to strike Exhibit 3 as
: 6
i 10 strike Exhibit 3.
, 11
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 4 is a letter from a
I
i 12 treating therapist, Bill Martin, MFC.
, 13
MS. JENKINS: Was Mr. Martin unavailable to
14 testify today?
i 15
MR. COUGHLIN: I just didn't ask him to
, 18 might be duplicative.
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. I have a hard time
, 19
: 20 switching between advocate and adjudicator. I'm going to
23
MS. FLOCCHINI: Based on this document was
Page 107,
1 I guess, that vlOuld be used such as CBT, cognitive

3 candidly, because the NNN1HS notes are somewhat lengthy,
6
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, other than
9
MS. FLOCCHINI: I think it was, as you say,
11 from the treatment and the observations of the NN~BS
14
MR. COUGHLIN: It's not late 2013. It's March
16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Sure.
l7
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to not allOl; Exhibit 2
20
MR. COUGHLIN: This is, Exhibit 3 is a sworn
Page 109
' 1 proceeding, the State Bar does not have an objection to

2 Exhibit 4.
3
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 4 \;ill be admitted.
:
MR. COUGHLIN: Given I was seeing two
MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection. This letter has
7
10
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 5 is admitted.
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 6 is certificates of
:11
! 13 education credits.
i 14
MS. FLOCCHINI: No obj ection.
15
MS. JENKINS: What is this being offered to
, 16 show?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: The CLEs? For the purposes of,
19 show he's no longer disabled and fit to practice law. A
:, 20 little bit later in the subparagraph a requisite
I 23 present today, shOl;ing I've actually done a lot of legal
I 24 work while suspended, it's all on my OI,n behalf, but it's
i 25 intended to show that I've maintained learning in the law
I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1679

Page 110 i
Page 112

MS. JENKINS: I'll admit it.
2
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. I think
3
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have a number of letters of
4 that's 6.
5
Exhibit 7 is a paycheck stub detailing 700
6 recognize them.
. 7
MS. JENKINS: I have question for you,
8
MS. JENKINS: I find this a little difficult
i 8 Ms. Flocchini.
Will the State Bar be bringing up
10
~lS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
11
MS. JENKINS: I'll admit them. They're in.
12
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't have a better copy on
12
i 13
Exhibit 9 is a certified prescription history
14
MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, is the $6,015 the
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Basically, yeah, at $10 an hour 16 questioned Dr. Nielsen about this earlier, whether he saw
17 saying I had earned 6,000 since starting in that year. So 17 any causal correlation bet~leen me abruptly going off
18 plus that was from, I believe, early August. So adding up 18 Addera11 and 11ellbutrin, and thereafter being arrested
19 tlvice in a couple of weeks.
20
So this prescription printout history does
21
MS. JENKINS: My concern with this copy is
25 pay date may be.
25 twice wi thin 17 days. The initial two arrests detailed in
Page
MS. FLOCCHINI:
Perhaps the pdf version is

7
MR. COUGHLIN: It was August 5th, from what I
9 point.
10
MS. JENKINS: Let's say it will be admitted.
13
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 8 are letters of
17
MS. JENKINS: Relevancy?
18
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar would object
20 before.
21
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I believe 14s. Flocchini
25 These materials would, I would believe, ~lOuld have been in
113
1 the petition.
2
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar, I don't believe
5
MR. COUGHLIN: If I could speak to that.
. 7 Bar did, in fact, receive this, and it received this two
i 8 weeks before the filing -- well, along with an email that
10
The State Bar received this -- not
: 16 no substance abuse problems, and he refuses to acknowledge
i 17 he has anything in that regard.
18
Which I found to be highly inaccurate
24 the IDS-page thing included in the prehearing packet.
25
But then the order references, it says, we're
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1680

Page 114
Page 116

MR. COUGHLIN: It's included in the record
2
So for me there was two. The initial thing
3
MS. JENKINS: I don't doubt that, sir. I
4
6 exhibit, this email to Mr. King of May 14, 2012, vlhich
8
So while I don't doubt that the State Bar has
9
It's a lengthy email. Details what I saw as
9 seen it before, it Vias not seen in relation to the SCR 117
. 10 hearing that Vie' re here to deal with today.
11 arrests occurring within a couple weeks after running out I 11
MS. FLOCCHINI: To the extent -- I apologize.
12
MS. JENKINS: I want to just say that your
13
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I am going to deny 13 state of mind and your behavior, the reasons for your
14 admission of this document. Your explanation for what you 14 behavior prior to the arrest, is really not Vlhat we're
16 went off of amphetamines, 30 milligrams, and Vlellbutrin,
18 doesn't say anything of the sort. Vlhether it says that
18
However, I think it's really attenuated to
19 what we're here for. I'le' re talking about your current
20 issued a mere three or four days after the last filling of 20 status of your disability, and your current character and
21 your Vlellbutrin, I'm going to suggest that this does not
22 attorney.
23
I'm going to deny admission.
24
MR. COUGHLIN: 2011 in August was -- the
Exhibit 10.
24
25
MR. COUGHLIN: May I speak to that, your
2
MS. JENKINS: Those drugs continued to be
4 2012.
5
MR. COUGHLIN: There is a gap though during
9 start filling the Vlellbutrin until April 2012. But I went
11 arrest.
12
MS. JENKINS: That's amphetamine, 30
13 milligrams?
14
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
15
MS. JENKINS: It does show that.
16
Counsel?
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: I will speak more accurately
23
MS. JENKINS: I Vlill mention that while the
1 Honor, briefly?
2
MS. JENKINS: I think that you've had an
4
MR. COUGHLIN: I've argued both ways that it
5 should and shouldn't. Exhibit-6
MS. JENKINS: 10, I believe.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: -- 10 is a report, a progress
I 8 note. They're not all the progress notes from that
10 offered to show that I turned in a bottle of Vlellbutrin to
111 him and discussed Vlith him going off -- not Vlellbutrin,
I 12 Adderall -- the amphetamine, in April, early April. And
i 13 discussed going off that with him and then thereafter went
. 14 off that medication.
! 15
~!S. JENKINS: Counsel?
I 16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Similar to the records from
I 21
And to the extent that it can support
; 22 Mr. Coughlin's statements that he has gone off Adderall, I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1681

Page 118'
1
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can briefly
1
2
3
4 were largely, the bulk of that vias largely what was
4
5
6
7
8 corrpanion disability case.
8
9
There's case law that I detail in my 26-page
9
10
11 courts are often going to expect more than just you coming 11
12
13 contexts. The courts seem to want the stuff corroborated. 13
14
So while I can come in here and testify I quit 14
15
16
17
18
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to allow these as
18
19
20 Mr. Boehner.
20
21
I'm also going to suggest that the Petitioner
21
22
23
23 testimony that he gave a bottle of Adderal1 to someone at
, 24
25
Page 120
response as to Exhibit 11.

MS. JENKINS: It's admitted.
Exhibit 13.
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 13 is various letters
of recommendation.
MS. FLOCCHINI: No objection. vie have seen
them. Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: I will admit Exhibit 13. It's a
lot of pages.
t1R. COUGHLIN: Probably 30 pages. I should
have Bates stamped all these.
MS. JENKINS: Approximately 22 pages of
letters of recommendation for reinstatement of
Mr. Coughlin.
MS. FLOCCHINI: I apologize. As I was
reviewing this I stopped at Dr. Nielsen's progress revieVl,
vlhich is sort of included in this packet. And there are
some letters of recommendation that are dated back to
2009 -- I'm sorry, 2004, that were not previously
provided.
MR. LOW: Which exhibit are we on now?
MS. JENKINS: Number 13.
~ffi. COUGHLIN:
I believe they were provided in
the sense that they were submitted to the State Bar at the
Page

2 allow it.
3
Exhibit 11, sir.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Exhibit
9 beyond.
10
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: The best evidence regarding
16
MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted.
17
18
Exhibit 12 would be attendance sheets for
24 provided for.
25
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar has the same

2 using the materials. They were submitted therevlith in
3 this hearing.
MS. FLOCCHINI: I appreciate that. I will
4
MS. JENKINS: I think that the panel can
7
9 hearsay value, if you Vlill, of the documents as a whole.
: 10 And just being aViare of the date it's probably a good
, 11 idea.
But I'll admit Exhibit 13 in its entirety, and
, 12
15
Do you have one more exhibit?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: A few more. Exhibit 14 will be
, 17 a couple orders from Reno Municipal Court Judge Nash
, 18 Holmes reversing the criminal trespass and contempt
, 21
22 admission of Exhibit 14. The documents, these tViO orders
23 "lith the proof of service, doesn't exhibit what
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1682

Page 124
Page 122 I
MS. JENKINS: Documents.
MS. FLOCCHINI: -- documents.
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, can you explain to
3
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I don't doubt that
4 me hO;1 these might be helpful in some way in this case?
5
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. I've argued this both
9 possibly character. And the case la;1 I detail in my
MS. JENKINS: Now we're on to 15, I believe.
10 filing, my 26-page filing of today is, what is included in 10
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: It happens to be on the back.
MS. JENKINS: Is there any other documents you
12 of severity of the past misconduct goes to how much I need 12
14 have character.
; 14
MR. COUGHLIN: Actually, your Honor, there
15 are. I 1'lOuld like to submit as Exhibit 15 my filing in
15
And if past misconduct or alleged misconduct
,17 order as the additional response I filed with the
18
MS. JENKINS: My problem with these documents, 18 petition. That was a filing I submitted in July of 2014.
20 what case number 11 TR 26800 TI or case 11 CR 26405 might I 20 order placing on disability status. And given that the
24 their face.
25
Also I think it goes to whether or not -- what
25
Your testimony is, without additional
1
2
123
5
MR. COUGHLIN: They're from the criminal
7
MS. JENKINS: There's nothing on here that
9 nothing on here that says that it's anything other than -10 the case is dismissed, and it doesn't say loJhy, what the
12
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay.
13
MS. JENKINS: I'm at a loss to know how this
15
20
The Nevada Supreme Court -- so if this panel

2 Because I lias at somewhat of a loss. I think I know just
3 common sense what the Nevada Supreme Court ,lOuld probably
7 this is your -8
So in order to figure out what disability do I
,10 they rely on in making their order. And in their order
16
So what this ,lOuld be is my additional
21 it.
'22
It's a little bit dispiriting that thereafter
23 the Bar, the board two loJeeks later filed a disability
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1683

Page 126:

2 cause and correlation, identifying vlhat I'm doing to
4
MS. JENKINS: I understand your concern and
8
lihile your argument in the disability hearing
17
So I don't want you to rely on it as evidence.
21 requires copies of that at this moment, but I'll allovi it
23
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay, your Honor. I appreciate
Page 128
'1 law in that 38 months. In fact, I probably practiced more

4
MS. JENKINS: Are you going to give us an
6
MR. COUGHLIN: That's the purpose of this
11
But nonetheless, they do establish, in my
: 14 time.
, 15
MS. JENKINS: So those are -- Exhibit 16 is
16 vlhat you would like to offer, which includes documents
19
MR. COUGHLIN: No. That I've been litigating
21 contexts.
MS. JENKINS: So you have been keeping your
: 22
24
MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah. Yes.
25
MS. JENKINS: Is that point conceded, Counsel,
Page 127

4 here says, Ivell , it's okay for the State Bar to put that
9 copy I have.
10
MS. JENKINS: That would be great. And when
13
MR. COUGHLIN: Just a couple more, your Honor.
16
MS. JENKINS: Where does it say that?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: It's a couple sentences after
I did not go off and do nothing related to the
25

2
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have briefly reviewed
7 these documents.
8
MS. JENKINS: Is there an objection?
9
MS. FLOCCHINI: I believe that it is
, 12 decision.
13
What I'm seeing, there are documents that I
.15 admitted included in Exhibit 16. That's a concern.
16
MS. JENKINS: I don't see any reason that that
22 16.
23
24
MS. JENKINS: Anything else?
,25
MR. COUGHLIN: Can I clarify what the Bar's
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1684

Page 130 i
Page 132

2 disciplinary appeal, that vlere literally -- a week later I
4
MR. LOW: Sir, I don't understand what you are
7 point?
8 the law?
8
MR. COUGHLIN: Not by the Bar, not
9
Basically I'm seeking to see if that point's
, 10 case, not only was I declared disabled. And the Rule
11
MS. JENKINS: I'm not certain what your
12 case is paused.
13
Not only that. After I filed these, and the
17
Representing yourself isn't necessarily the
i 17 Go prove you're not.
I'lere throwing it out. The Bar can
20 knows? The fact is, those documents won't really help you 20 to disbar, and we're going to put you on disability
i 21 status.
22 proceeding.
i 22
23
MS. FLOCCHINI: With respect to the status of
23
24
Exhibit 17 is a collection of filings and
additional matters that were pending before the
supreme court. Upon entering a status of disability
7
From my point of view, I'm on -- I went to a
14 disabled.
15
Basically it's tough. I have redoubled my
16 efforts in recovery in expressing some contrition. I
19 seeing this guy's,disability, and they are glad he finally
21
So in assessing whether or not I've overcome
23
MS. JENKINS: What are you proposing to offer
24 as an exhibit?
25
MR. COUGHLIN: My filing of late May and early
inactive, the Court, for procedural purposes, dismissed

2 vlithout prejudice the other disciplinary matters that had
7
Those disciplinary proceedings continue to be
8 pending. And if he were to be reinstated, then they \'iill
i 10 file, but didn't dismiss them.
11
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to stop all discussion
! 13 vlant the panel to be poisoned by knowing how many, the
i 14 nature, the status or other things with regard to
, 15 discipline and allegations or findings of discipline or
, 16 recommendations or pending matters that haven't even gone
18
I think that's inappropriate in this case -19 and don't even speak yet. I want to be able to have a
! 21 disability and his fitness to practice law in this state.
22 And that's all.
23
I don't want to hear about allegations.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1685

Page 134

4
I think it will unfairly prejudice this case
7 they get to revie;1 this matter and determine whether to
9
So as far as exhibits, stay away from anything
13
MR. COUGHLIN: It does, your Honor. And
15 the filing last week. The problem is -16
MS. JENKINS; I thought that ,las a good tack,
17 but you changed.
18
MR. COUGHLIN: I did. The problem is I
20 reports or the Bar ,las going to offer it or something.
23
Some of this is, you know, it might have been
i
Page 136
I 1 these arrests that happened after the period he detailed
! 2 in the disability petition.
3
I believe ultimately the Nevada Supreme Court
,4 is going to want to know is this guy fit now, not is this
MS. JENKINS: Do you have an exhibit to offer?
9
10
MR. COUGHLIN: Well, I'm sorry, your Honor.
13 appeal?
14
MS. JENKINS: Your filing, protest filings
! 15 regarding the appeal of your disciplinary proceedings I
16 disallowed.
i 17
t1R. COUGHLIN: The next exhibit would be the
19
MS. JENKINS: The pleadings?
I 20
MR. COUGHLIN: Everything filed. Well, very
i 24 preheating packet pursuant to DRP 57. \mat to include in
Page

Are you prepared to offer that into evidence
4
9 into evidence?
10
MR. COUGHLIN: This is the initial report?
MS. JENKINS: His report of your current
11
12 status.
MR. COUGHLIN: That is Exhibit 1.
13
MS. JENKINS: Okay. Good. Sorry. I missed
14
15 it.
16
MR. COUGHLIN: So my last exhibit will be his
17 initial report.
18
MS. JENKINS: That will be fine. Let's take a
19 look.
20
MR. COUGHLIN: I went back and forth on this a
1 today.
And I'm saying, well then, it's my tight or
2
3 choice whether or not to say, 'Ihat about all this other
8
MS. JENKINS: You had an opportunity to
10 discussions earlier that 'leek. Why is it you were unable
! 11 to get your strategy together to do that before this past
12 Friday?
13
MR. COUGHLIN: One, they already have those
i 15 disability case.
; 16
Two, I didn't get the preheating packet until
, 17 the 21st or 2nd, 'Ihich was past. In order to know what is
: 18 missing from the prehearing packet, and what I needed to
: 19 respond with, I have to get the prehearing packet first.
! 20 So only if I'm getting the prehearing packet and looking
i 21 at it, where are the eight exhibits to the petition?
: 22 Where is my response? I have to get it first in order to
, 23 know, yeah, I'm going to put those in as evidence.
24
i 25
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar inadvertently
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1686

Page 138'
Page 140
failed to include the eight exhibits to the petition. I

3 included.
MS. JENKINS: So the final say is this panel,
3
4
The second response should have been included.
MS. FLOCCHINI: If there's no recommendation
5
MS. JENKINS: That's the second response?
7
8
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
9
MS. JENKINS: And the eight exhibits to the
9
MS. JENKINS: Then I would like the court
10 initial filing -10 reporter to accept any documents that have not been
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
i 11 admitted and mark them as not admitted documents, put a
12
MS. JENKINS: Are available -12 rubber band around them or whatever you do, and keep them
13
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
14
MS. JENKINS: -- for the panel? What number
14 later.
15 exhibit would !tIe be proposing that it be?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, your Honor. Now-16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Mr. Coughlin has been marking
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, I apologize for
16
17 the irritation in my voice. But I \'/ill express once again
i 18 how disappointed I am that these documents are being
19
MS. JENKINS: I would like the State Bar to
22
MS. FLOCCHINI: Not at all.
23
MS. JENKINS: Unless the State Bar has other
23
And it's really just you, me and Bar counsel
24 exhibits.
, 24 that could have been doing this rather than the other four
25
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar has two
Page 139 +~
Page 14T
1 exhibits.
1 move on.
MS. JENKINS: Well, I still think that
2
MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize for that, your
2
4 vlhat to challenge it with.
5
MS. JENKINS: This is the procedure we employ
6 number.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can -- though
8 it \vasn't admitted, can I have Exhibit 16 marked and
10
MS. JENKINS: As a disallowed Exhibit?
10
MR. COUGHLIN: I apologize. And I agree, your
11
MR. COUGHLIN: I think so, yeah.
i 11 Honor. My apologies.
12
MS. JENKINS: It can get marked for
So exhibit -, 12
13 identification, but it's not going to become a part of the 13
MS. JENKINS: I think we thought it was number
14 record because it's not allo!tled.
I 14 18 to be cons ide red next.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: But in the event that
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Just for the purposes of 16 and
i 16 l7 that you said to just include -17 an appellant right in this regard. But if it's ruled that I 17
MS. JENKINS: Put them on the table.
18 I'm not rehabilitated here, I might argue, well -- or that 18
MR. COUGHLIN: Exhibit 18. I'm dravling to a
20 and 21.
21 them to see.
21
Exhibit 18 is a complete copy of the, not the
, 22 disability petition, but the whole file from that case.
22
MS. JENKINS: How do \'ie deal with this?
23
MS. FLOCCHINI: I admit that I am newer to the I 23 So Bar counsel just gave me copies for the panel \'/hich is
25 I believe that the appropriate course is if the panel does 25 actual attachments to it.
I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1687

Page 144
Page 142 I
But also included in that file would be the

I
1 Exhibit 18?
2
~1R. COUGHLIN: Sure.
3 would also be Dr. Nielsen's report, vlOuld also be not too I 3
MS. JENKINS: Let's do that.
4 much else really.
4
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't have a cover page.
And I think the prehearing packet is in the
5
MS. JENKINS: It's okay. You can write 18 on
5
6 record? Because if it is, there's a I~S-page filing in
7
Would you like to offer an Exhibit 19?
8
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, your Honor. This is
My only thing that I think should be included
9
10 exhibits.
MS. JENKINS: You said Exhibit 19 is nothing?
11
12 would say, Ivai t a second, we l'iant to see Dr. Nielsen's
12
MR. COUGHLIN: That's correct. I had to mark
13 that as blank.
14 well.
14
MS. JENKINS: No problem.
15
MS. JENKINS: So Exhibit 18 that you would
15
MR. COUGHLIN: Then exhibit -16
MS. FLOCCHINI: May we go off the record?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: For judicial economy it might
:17
18 just be easier to say -- and you've already ruled on this. 18
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 20.
19
MR. COUGHLIN: Here it is, yes. Exhibit 20 is
20 2014 additional response by me to the disability petition, , 20 the order and the disability petition. There's a sanction
21 I Ivant to get that into evidence somehow, it vias included
I 22 showing that that was dismissed.
, 23
MS. JENKINS: Exhibit 20 is a document setting
24 entire file.
25
Instead of the entire file, maybe just the
I 25
t1R. COUGHLIN: The judge said I was sarcastic
Page
1 complete disability petition l'iith all the exhibits where
145
1 and some other things.
An attorney's fee award was

5
MS. JENKINS: Counsel I can't see or imagine
6
7 offer to me. vlliat you do have in your hands, as I
7
10
MS. JENKINS: I'm guessing, not having the
11
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
12
MS. JENKINS: The Exhibits 1 through 8 that
13 you offered with your response to the State Bar's petition 13 without an explanation of why and what have you, it's not
15
And again, I've been trying to avoid putting
16
MR. COUGHLIN: That, plus -16 into this record any discipline-based arguments.
17
MS. JENKINS: No. Is that what you have in
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes. To the extent that there
19
MR. COUGHLIN: These are five copies for the
21
MS. JENKINS: It includes the petition or just 21 not the primary concern. The relevancy in the 117
22 the attachments?
23
MR. COUGHLIN: It includes the nine pages of
24 petition.
25
MS. JENKINS: \'Jould you like to mark that as
! 25 position to be practicing and should be rendered disabled.
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1688

Page 146

3
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, is this document
7
MR. COUGHLIN: Only to the extent that to know
8 whether or not it's changed, 11e need to know what it was.
9 And whether or not there 11as in fact an order saying that
14
I agree it's still a red flag that the judge
17 that order? Because if she did, I didn't -18
MS. JENKINS: Does the document say why the
22
MR. COUGHLIN: To the extent it awards the
Page 148
1
MS. JENKINS: It will be admitted as Exhibit
2 21, I believe.
3
MR. COUGHLIN: Lastly, your Honor. No more
11
MS. JENKINS: Good. I'm not going to preclude
13 you greatly.
: 14
MR. COUGHLIN: No more exhibits. I promise.
15
MS. JENKINS: So we have 15 minutes. Would
, 16 you like to begin or .lOuld you like to do something else?
17
~1R. COUGHLIN:
I would like to begin, if I
i 19 other than to say I'm very, very sorry. And I recognize I
22
~~. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, do you have a
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes, I would like to ask a few
if I may.
Page

4 grievance.
MS. JENKINS: I'm not going to allow the
5
6 document.
7
MR. COUGHLIN: If I can -- one last thing. If
10 show that. That's all I 110uld have said there, your
12
And then lastly -- and I really apologize this
15 report.
16
MS. JENKINS: The 2014 report?
17
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. Based on July 2014
20
MS. FLOCCHINI: And the State Bar has no
22
I will reference to the panel that it was
1
2
3
CROSS-EXAMINATION
4 BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
5
Q Mr. Coughlin, in 2002 you applied for
7
A Yes.
8
Q And there was some concerns that the
I 10
A That's correct. That's correct.
' 11
And I guess, your Honor, I'd just make a
i 13
MS. JENKINS: The concerns of the State Bar at
i 14 your admission in 2002 are not relevant to this proceeding
! 15 is your objection?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: Yeah.
17
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, why are they
18 relevant?
i 19
MS. FLOCCHINI: The concerns of the admissions
24
So it shows an ongoing concern with his
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1689

Page 152
Page 150;
1 practice of law.
2
MS. JENKINS:
3
I'm going to allow it.
BY MS. FLOCCHINI:
4
Q Mr. Coughlin, the admissions board held an
S initial hearing in 2002; correct?
6
A Yes.
7
Q And at that hearing you admittedly had a bit
9
A I don't know that I vlOu1d characterize it that

12
Q Would you disagree that at the subsequent 2004
14
A I don't think I ever did. I was highly,
16 terms.
Q Okay. You were critical of your participation
17
19
A Not my participation, no.
20
Q Were you critical of the hearing at the time
22 to?
23
A It took place the day after the Bar exam in
Q So you attributed, it sounds like you
S associated with taking the Bar?
3
Subsequently there was some stuff I prefer not
I 6 calls telling me who to go to.
I went to him. It
10 grand.
11
And so we had another hearing in June 2002.
, 12 And then I just waited like most people in that character
15 2002 that we're going to vlait until 2003, October 2003.
I 17 bono attorney sort of stayed on the case.
It was hard to
: 18 tell if he was still on the case or not.
19
Ultimately I submitted something, basically a
I 22 who'd been working for the State Bar, failed to forward
2
Apparently the decision was made to give me my
4 for reasons I still don't understand until May of 'OS.
S
Okay.
Between the time of the February 2002
6
A Yeah. Taking the Bar exam, driving back from
8
A Yes. I forgot to mention I did meet with
11 individual mming the strip club in Las Vegas who was the
I 12 Got fired by Perry and Spann. Three months went by.
13
Q Did the State Bar admit you to practice law
13 l'lhere is your license? You don't have it yet? We have to
14 let you go.
15
A Conditionally.
15
Then I went out and passed the Patent Bar. I
16
Q What did they require you to do before
17 admitting you?
18
A There was -- well, I mean, that was a stated
20 year of law school in the summer. I came back, I finished 20 and the week I got there I got the abeyance order, which
22 have been sworn in at that time, January of 2002. I
23 brought me in. So I vias let go from that.
24
Then -- I bring that up because ultimately I
25 a while. It was interesting how it vias conducted. And I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1690

Page 154

8
Q Dr. Hunter believed that your behavior in
12
A Sure.
13
Q And the readjustment reaction, Dr. Hunter
16
Page 156
Then I'd write down the codes on different

2 pieces of paper. Sometimes -- a few of the instances,
6 was \~iFi. So then when I'd get a piece of paper full of a
9
So no, it's not as though I completed 40 hours
; 11 logged on, said here's all the codes. The tedious process
, 12 of listening to these codes interspersed one time in an
13 hour-long CLE.
14
Q Over what period of time did you take all of
15 these CLEs?
16
A Yes.
It would have been in the last approximately
17
Q With Dr. Hunter you identified -- and I think
17 six weeks. There \1ere a couple -- there was approximately
I 18 three or four CLEs that I also took in April when I went
19 going up to February 2002 was extremely stressful for you? 19 to the Other Bar retreat, which is an organization in
20
A Going up to the start of '02?
21
Q Up to February of '02 when you met with the
23
A Sure.
24
Q As it might be for anyone, it was a stressful
25 period?
_._-
20
21
22
23
" 24
j 25
California. I went to that retreat aboard the Queen Mary

in Long Beach in April. And I don't know -- those, I paid
for those and got credit for those, as far as I know.
They're reported to the CLE board of Nevada. The ones in
California, I don't think they were processed. They might
have been approved for Nevada credit, but there are only
~------~l
Page 155
A Yep.
1
Q And the concern was that you didn't react to
2
3 the stress well; is that ac=ate?
4
A Well, I passed the hardest Bar exams in the
9
So I would say I would put that up against how
13
Q You have sul:Jnitted as an exhibit to this
15 education in law. And my review of that shows that you -16 it appears that you have conpleted 13 hours on August 14,
20
A No. Those were all downloaded. Those were
25 day.
1 three of them.
2
Q So then 104.5 hours of CLE in approximately
3 six weeks?
Yes.
5
Q And you would have taken those courses perhaps
8
A Uh-huh. Or yes.
9
11
Q Did you take any steps to address the
13
A This vlOuld have been -- you're saying prior to

16
17 '02. I
18 hearing
19
20 did you
Q I would imagine that it would be sometime in

don't know if it would have been prior to the June
or not.
But the identified adjustment reaction, what
do to try to address?
21
A Well, I know I didn't identify myself to the
24
So I went to the sessions. I continued on
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1691

Page 158'
Page 160

But I think at that time it wasn't like, okay, I 3 drug and alcohol tested and had a travel restriction.
3
4 we have this hearing in June. Clearly your problem is you ' 4 Once I got off that, I decided to follow Dr. Nielsen's
I 5 recommendation and got a change of scenery.
6
Q And you went to Santa Barbara?
7
A Yes. There was a couple stops before that,
8 but yeah.
9
I just unden1ent an adjustment disorder
9
Q Are you currently taking Wellbutrin?
10
A Yes.
I 11
Q Are you taking any other medication?
12
A No.
, 13
Q What steps have you taken to address your
15
A Well, the 12-step work I think is pretty good
16 word trouble.
17
Q Are you still working for Gary Teen Painting?
17 vlOrkbooks on cognitive behavioral therapy and the
18
A Yes.
19
Q After the hearing today will you go back to
i 20 chief emphasis of Dr. Hoar's treatment approach. As well
21
A Probably.
22
Q Dr. Nielsen's im tial report identified a
23
I've gone to church. Restarted attending
Page
1
What steps have you taken to address that
2 particular issue?
3
A I'lell I studied it. I pulled up the Wikipedia
The steps I've taken is the therapy I've done
8
15
I'm sorry. Your question was what I have I
16 done to?
17
Q To address the dependent personality issues?
18
A See, I didn't even get that until September of
19 2014. So-20
Q In September, approximately September 2014,
22 NNAMHS; correct?
23
A Yes. I had been on -- I did -- I vias Ivanting

4 in recovery.
5
Q What do you do at this time to handle stress?
A All of those things I just mentioned, plus
I 8 aware of the extent to which ego and fear and self-seeking
I
9 dishonesty and self-pity contribute so much to stress .
! 11 of other people, that helps me to have some perspective
16 very discomforting and reSUlting in stress.
: 17
Just basically realizing that whether or not I
22 so stressed out to the peint where you need to go -- or I
, 24 number of activities. Self-defeating, self-seeking type
25 of activities. Whether it be vlOrkaholism, engaging in
I
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1692

Page 162'

2
Q can you identify a tiJre in the last eight
4 identifying that going into recovery is stressful. I
7
A Well, this proceeding would be a very good
17
That was very stressful because I thought it's
25
In fact, I called Mitch on Sunday, Ivhich I
Page 164
I 4 through a full-blown disciplinary hearing in November, I
5 vlish that entire process could have been more, more
MS. FLOCCHINI: Those are all my questions.
9
MS. JENKINS: I'm going to call a time out for
: 11 whatever time that is, approximately an hour from now.
12
MR. COUGHLIN: Your Honor, if I can just
, 13 interject. If the Bar is in agreement with this, I don't
18 assess how it feels without any further -19
MS. JENKINS: I appreciate that. I want to
! 21 make sure that there's nothing further that she wants to
Page 165
163
felt pretty bad about, but he got right back to me. And
5 limited, the panel can't consider all this other stuff. I
7
In fact, that filing last week didn't mention
15 information.
16
As a consequence I've seen, in my view, this
19 it, but that same fear viaS attendant to that. And
22
And that's probably consistent, that's
(Recess taken.)
2
MS. JENKINS: Back on the record. It's just
Bar counsel, do you have additional evidence
4
MS. FLCCCHINI: Before we get back into the
6
7 substance, I vlOuld like to present a little bit of
, 9 rereviel'led Supreme Court Rule 117, consulted more
, 12 required to be submitted to the supreme court, whatever it
13 is.
14
Under 116 it's only if the recommendation is
i 18 recommend reinstatement.
19
MS. JENKINS: So in either event, this record
21 it's just a recorrmendation anyway.
. 22
MS. FLCCCHINI: True that.
MS. JENKINS: Good to knOVI
. 23
24
MS. FLOCCHINI: Then also with that in mind,
1
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1693

Page 166'

6
In that case that year, I believe, would not
9 because of the ;Iay that the wheels turn.
10
MS. JENKINS: That doesn't seem fair.
12
MS. FLOCCHINI: In addition, the State Bar
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 168
I can't recall, but that sounds right.

2
Q Then again in 2011 when some of the issues
6
A That's correct.
7
MS. FLOCCHINI: I just wanted to make sure
10
~1S. JENKINS:
Are there any questions from the
, 11 panel of Mr. Coughlin?
12
MR. DENNEY: No.
13
MR. LOW: No.
MR. FURMAN: No.
A.
14
~1S. BRETERNITZ:
No.
MS. JENKINS: The State Bar would like to have 15
~1S. JENKINS: Great. Let's do some closing
the hearing exhibit?
16
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. The hearing
17 statements.
Ms. Flocchini.
packet.
18
I
MS. JENKINS: The prehearing packet that was
19
MS. FLOCCHINI: As the State Bar indicated at
distributed to the panel?
MS. FLOCCHINI: True. Yes.
MS. JENKINS: Marked as Bar Exhibit A?
23 hold, at 11hich time then a status hearing could be held.
MS. FLOCCHINI: Yes.
24
And the basis for the recommendation and the
MS. JENKINS: Any objection, Mr. Coughlin?
Page
Page 169

MS. JENKINS: It 11ill be admitted.
MS. FLOCCHINI: Thank you. And the Bar is not
So there are some decisions that are related
And the State Bar recognizes that, and doesn't
8
I 9 question the credibility of the witnesses at this point
11
And the only other order that would be
11
Nonetheless, probably to paraphrase
I 12 Dr. Nielsen, because I don't want to say I'm quoting him
15 affidavit, and I wanted you to kn0\1 why.
16
17
MS. FLOCCHINI: I have had a brief opportunity 17 yourself to the stress that's involved in every day
, 18 practice.
i 19
The evidence is that the situation is better,
" 20 but he has not yet exhibited a fitness to practice law.
20 Mr. Coughlin.
22
Q Mr. Coughlin, in 2002 it was identified that
i 24 hearing here. And it's safe to say that this process has
25 that correct?
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1694

Page 170!

3
But the State Bar still has some concerns,
l4
The State Bar's recommendation for the status
18
Evidence of continuing to \.,ork during the
22
And also a submission by ~!r. Coughlin of a
Page 172

4
MS. JENKINS: Ms. Flocchini, would it be your
I
9
MS. FLOCCHINI: The State Bar's recommendation
: 10 vlOuld be to only obtain status information. Our
i 15 on reinstatement, then just those limited areas, not a
i 16 full rehash of the hearing.
: 17
And at the time of deciding, if the panel felt
22 that.
23
24
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. I appreciate the
Page 171

5
In addition, a plan, a proposed plan, may
8 not, hOI., to practice outside of Nevada, and that there is
11
I think it's also important, knowing the fact
13 la\." that have affected Mr. Coughlin's ability to practice
19 to figure out hOI., to maintain that and show that you can
20 continue it.
21
So that is the State Bar's summary of

2
My over arching sentiment here is contrition
! 8 sense that I just don't want to go back to being in these
9 contentious situations, especially \.,ith entities that are
11
That being said, I've been out, unable to
19
I wasn't given a disciplinary suspension for
! 22 crime, if you steal a grape, it involves theft, you're
! 24 panel, and they issue a, you know, you're referred to the
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1695

Page 174

2
I got referred to a panel, and instead of
11e had a full-blOlvn disciplinary trial that
9
14
I go into that because that's a lengthy time
20 to set you back another couple of years because nOlv we
22
I don't think that's fair. I've had years of
Page 176
suspended for over five years.

2
I think you have to compare -- to have
compare other cases. We had a case here that involved the
6 Harris case. HI. Harris admitted to misappropriating
7 $800,000 from clients. Hr. Harris never had a disability
9
Dr. Nielsen testified at his proceeding that
! 10 he was diagnosed, Harris was diagnosed "lith, I believe
! 13 disability petition filed against him.
[ 14
The Nevada Supreme Court suspended Hr. Harris
15 for three months. Granted, Hr. Harris paid back all the
i 18 for that.
And I knOll! Mr. Harris and respect him. And I
20 recovery.
21
Nonetheless, the misconduct we have here is
i 22 $14. Cough syrup from a Walmart. It's not 800 grand from
. 25 "lhen considering that Mr. Harris had three months

1 suspension. Granted, it "las three years. Two years and
2
Frankly -- so the Bar's concerned -- I would
5
So I've already been suspended for 38 months.
11
In reality an abeyance would, particularly
I 11 rehabilitation here.
And I've gone into some of the
12 given what Hs. Flocchini said earlier about how the time
. 12 relevancy issues with respect to how much can I go into
16
But I can submit to you truthfully that I have
17
So if that's the case, then we do an abeyance
19 panel makes a decision and says okay, reinstate. Granted, 19 fact, I think if I'm not reinstated soon, one, it's going
20 the court "lOuld probably follow suit and reinstate me at
20 to send a poor message out. Considering the pUblicness of
23 have to take the Bar exam again rule. And at that point I 23 disservice to me.
24
The poor message it will send out is look at
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1696

Page 178 i
Page 180

1 of misconduct. vie don't have misconduct findings here.
3 saying there vlasn' t misconduct, because the whole
4 that way than if I had given it to you two weeks ago. I
5
Nonetheless, I'm not looking at that saying,
7 and all this stuff two vleeks ago, you'll have much the
9
Because I only gave them this report after
10 they had met with me a couple of times, and they both said 10
And I fear that being out of the practice of
14 something. Or just they would have developed preconceived 14 like. Freud says to work is one of the most important
16
But I get back to how transparent I've been
17 here, and hOI'! -- or the level of transparency I've offered 17 three years, I submit there should be a really, really
18 here in terms of providing this panel with that which the ; 18 profound argument and rationale for protecting the public
; 19 to justify that. And that's not present here.
120 Particularly vlhere I didn't misappropriate $800,000 from
21
The cooperation is underscored by the fact
21 clients.
22 that Dr. Nielsen's report, his initial evaluation, the one 22
So to take away any further my ability to
23 vlhich the court referenced in its disability order as one
24 of the bases for finding me disabled. His initial report i 24 my momentum, and I think it's going to send the I'lrong
I have great respect for the
3 depression.
4
So that report's filed. My level of
and the Bar as evidenced by my subsequently going back and
I'm going back to AA again, I'm addressing the stuff,
12
I've gone above and beyond, pointed out the
19 here.
20
But I would just close by saying that I do

2
Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Counsel.
3
4
Is there anything the panel wishes to ask or
6 deliberations?
7
MR. LOW: No.
i 8
MS. JENKINS: Great. Then we'll stand
12
And if the parties wish to hang around. If we
,14 make that finding. So you're welcome to hang out in the
; 15 lobby for as long as we're here. If we do not come to a
! 18 record of our findings.
19
(Recess taken.)
20
118. JENKINS: Let's go back onto the record at
: 21 4:12 P.M.
! 22
The panel has considered the testimony today
! 24 order came to unanimity about how to address the
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1697

Page 182!

2 and our charge. And \ve found that there was a great deal
4 today.
5
11
13 order appropriate based upon the hearing today, as Ivell as
16
19 to them an~,ay either way, but with my determination about
22
Page 184

i 2 people we're asking to report quarterly to the Bar about
3 your progress.
4
We want to hear from you your plan to attend
5 three meetings a week, as vlell as an additional three
9
We would like your plan to include your
: 11 therapeutic counseling of not less than twice per month
i 12 for that two-year period. Someone you're comfortable with
; 13 I,ho is licensed in some way. So that means that while we
, 17 other counselor. We're talking about mental health
18 counseling.
19
We would like for you to submit to and include
, 20 in your plan your ability to pay for drug and alcohol
! 24 well as the State Bar doing it based upon any reports or
Page

We would like to hear from you your ideas
2
5 following areas.
Number one. Your plan to obtain and determine
6
12 period.
13
We would also like for you to identify an
20
To you, it is up to you to find those
MR. LOW: You said drug counseling. You mean

2 drug testing.
3
MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry, drug testing, alcohol
4 and drug testing.
We would like to have your reinstatement plan,
5
' 6 how you might achieve that, pay for it, what have you.
7
And then we would like for you to identify
i 11 support yourself? Identify what triggers there are in
: 12 your life that cause you to be either stressed or to want
! 14
And frankly, we want your plan to include any
! 15 other information that you think is going to be critical.
18
Do you have any questions about what this plan
20
MR. COUGHLIN: You mentioned November 15th is
21 a deadline by which -I 22
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
23
MR. COUGHLIN: -- referring the plan could be
25
1
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1698

Page 186'
Page 188

2 get them up to speed about I-Ihat their obligations might
3 \ole should have gotten this earlier. Yet what I filed this
5 outline.
I'm not guessing that that can be done by the
rules.
6
7
11
If that can be submitted to us in a shorter
13 comprehensive, because the panel also believes that a plan 13 out in what I filed.
14
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, if you would like
18
MR. COUGHLIN: My wish would be for this panel
18
So if you can develop a very thorough, and I
19 know you can be thorough, a thorough and \olell-considered
20 filed, and then make a rUling. I did not anticipate that
22 pages. I want it to be a brief overview. And certainly a ! 22 from today, so I might need -23
MS. JENKINS: While I appreciate your
25 reinstatement.
Page 187

7
14
Questions?
15
MR. COUGHLIN: I do, your Honor.
16
MS. JENKINS: You can do whatever you need to
17 do.
MR. COUGHLIN: SCR 117.4, I believe, requires
18
20
MS. JENKINS: It says the panel shall render a
24
MR. COUGHLIN: If I submit that -- how could
1
2
3
4
5
concluded until the panel receives that additional

requested information. And if it's not received, then at
the end of November 15th the panel will reconvene at that
time and issue its decision.
MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And if I submit it
tomorrow, will it then -- will a decision be made within
8
115. JENKINS: If your submission is received
, 10 it will not be -- will not contain the amount of
i 12 necessary. But if it does, the panel I-lill meet at its
I 13 earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude this
14 matter.
15
MR. COUGHLIN: So then a decision -- it would
116 conclude?
i 17
MS. JENKINS: I t would.
18
MR. COUGHLIN: I guess I just ask because the
: 19 way it's being presented here this could be not concluded
. 20 for years.
21
MS. JENKINS: 11r. Coughlin -i 22
MR. COUGHLIN: I'm not suggesting -23
MS. JENKINS: 11r. Coughlin, I've expressed now
, 24 several times that you have until November 15th. If
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1699

Page 190
Page 192
conclude with a conference call and an issuance of an

,lith our decision is not enuring to your benefit here. So
3
3
MR. DENNEY: I'd echo those comments.
4
DR. TIM COUGHLIN: Can we get a specific list
6
MS. JENKINS: I'm certain that the transcript
8
MR. LOW: You can get a copy of the
9 transcript, that portion that talks -In no event do I envision that the reconvening
10 of this panel ,lill happen a great deal after November 15th 10
DR. TIM COUGHLIN: All right. vle'll go ahead
12
MS. JENKINS: That will be available how
13 quickly?
14 happening of November 15th and issue an appropriate order. 14
THE REPORTER: Tomorrow morning.
15 And that's all.
15
MS. JENKINS: Tomorrow morning emailed to the
16 parties?
16
MR. COUGHLIN: I just anticipate indicating,
17 and certainly due care and respect will be taken to what I 17
THE REPORTER: Yes. I just need email
! 18 addresses.
19
MS. JENKINS: We're standing in recess until
20 think largely follows what the panel, if it hasn't already 20 the reconvening upon receipt of the materials.
21 read Dr. Nielsen's updated report, would largely assent or 21
(Proceedings concluded at 4:30 P.M.)
22
~~23 believe I need three months to do that.
23
24
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, there is no
24
25
Page
1
2
MR. COUGHLIN: If I may ask that the panel
5 I file the brief tomorrOl'l, to use that time to review the
5
7 together -7
8
MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, rest assured the
8
9
10
11
11
MR. LOW: May I say something?
12
12
t~S JENKINS:
You may.
13
MR. LOW: Mr. Coughlin, I hope you understand ! 13
14
15
16
: 17
17
Imat' s been asked of you is not what's in
18
19
19 It's a very specific request for very specific information 20
20 about your intent, what you're going to do here in Reno or 21
! 22
22 years.
23
23
We are giving you your best and last shot here 24
25 have this happen quickly. And I find that your difficulty 25
STATE OF NEVADA )
55.
COUNTY OF WASHOE)
I, CAROL Hut1MEL, a notary public in and for
the County of vlashoe, State of Nevada, do hereby certify:
August, 2015, at the offices of Nevada State Bar, 9456

Double R Boulevard, Reno, Nevada, personally appeared
witnesses who were sworn by me and Here deposed in the
matter entitled herein;

hereinbefore was taken in verbatim stenotype notes by me,
a Certified Court Reporter, and thereafter reduced to
writing by means of computer-assisted transcription as
herein appears;
Pages 1 through 192, inclusive, is a full, true and
correct transcription of my stenotype notes of said
proceedings;
counsel for any of the parties, nor a relative or employee
of any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor
financially interested in the
actio~~
'
Litigation Services
1.800.330.1112
1700
Exhibit 8
1701
Kait Flocchini
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Phillip Pattee
Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:18 AM
Kait Flocchini
FW: courtesy copy of Supplemental Petition for Rehearing
9 2115 60975 Supplemental Petition for Rehearing NRAP 40 NVSCT with one
exhibit.pdf
Here's another one.

Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6: 10 PM

To: Ingersoll, Amanda
Cc: Phillip Pattee; Doug Rands Nv Atty Nndb
Subject: courtesy copy of Supplemental Petition for Rehearing

Please find attached a courtesy copy of my Supplemental Petition for Rehearing.
realize there is no electronic filing in these confidential matters and am merely
providing this electronic copy should it be of use to the Court and or lessen the use
of Court resources due to this matter. I placed a hard copy of this in the mail
today for filing as well.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
cell 775 276 0779
1702
Exhibit 9
1703
Kait Flocchini
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>

Friday, October 30, 2015 9:16 AM
Kait Flocchini
Laura Peters
Requested stipulation

I am writing to indicate that I will not be filing any opposition to the Panel's Recommendation and to seek a
stipulation, if you are amenable, that may allow for my case to make up the 30 days just lost to the Panel's
taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion to issue a Recommendation. The Chair indicated the
hearing would conclude when I provided the proposed monitoring plan to the Panel. I provided such on
8/26/15. SCR 117 requires the Recommendation to be issued within 30 days ofthe conclusion of the
hearing. The Recommendation was filed 10/26/15.
The record is due to be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court within 30 days of that 10/26/15 filing ofthe
Recommendation. Both parties would then have 30 days to file any opposition thereto, and, should none be
filed, the matter would be submitted for decision.
I am writing to request that the record be filed at your earliest convenience and accompanied by a stipulation
of some sort indicating that both parties choose not to file any opposition to the recommendation and request
for the matter to be submitted at the time the record is filed with the Nevada Supreme Court.
Please consider:
SCR 117: "The panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the hearing's conclusion, which shall be filed with bar
counsel's office and served pursuant to Rule I 09( I).
Bar counsel shall forward the record of the hearing panel proceeding to the supreme court within 30 days of the decision's entry.
Receipt of the record shall be acknowledged in writing by the supreme court clerk. The parties shall have 30 days from the date the
supreme court acknowledges receipt of the record within which to file any objection to the panel's recommendation. If none is filed,
then the matter shall be submitted for decision".
Thank you for considering this request. Also, if it is not too much trouble, would you mind emailing me the pdf containing the file
stamped Recommendation?
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin, Esq.

ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Tele: 775 2760779 Fax: 9496677402
1704
The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing Motion for
Reconsideration Based on Additional Information Obtained After Presentation of
Evidence Concluded in Hearing was placed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, in
Reno, Nevada, addressed to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W 12th Street,
Reno NV 89503. The document was also served in electronic form to
Dated on
thi~ day of November, 2015.
10
~ur
eters, an employee of
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
1705
/
2
3

NY Bar No. 94 73 (disability inactive status)
945 W. 12th St. Reno, NV 89503
Tele and Fax: 9496677402
Pro Se Petitioner
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
()
wit
h
r6
7
8
9
10
IN RE ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.

Petitioner
~
~
~
Case No: RI15-0804

Petitioner, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully submits the
above titled document. The undersigned would like to hereby personally apologize to Assistant
11
Bar Counsel Flocchini for not having communicated to her directly with regard to his filing a
12
13
NRAP 40 Petition and Supplemental thereto in NVSCT case 60975. Especially where the Bar is
14
an arm of the Nevada Supreme Court, a higher level of deference is owed to Bar Counsel, and
15
the undersigned recognizes he failed to meet that obligation here, and hereby expresses profound
16
remorse and asks for leniency. The undersigned has a great deal of respect for Assistant Bar
17
18
Counsel Flocchini, whom has always conducted herself in the most professional of manners in
19
this matter, and takes to heart the warning inherent to the Motion for Reconsideration, especially
20
where being an attorney is among the most gravest and serious of all endeavors. The
21
undersigned recently attended The Other Bar's 2015 annual Fall Men's Retreat in Yosemite and a
22
message integral to a presentation there is very applicable here. That message was that one must
23
24
25
strive to go beyond that which is merely required of him by the rules, and, instead, meet a higher
standard of morality.
26
1706
On August 26th, 2015, the Panel concluded the hearing or trial in this matter, upon
1
2
receiving Coughlins proposed Reinstatement Plan. 1 Asst. Bar Counsel Flocchini's Motion
alleges two distinct instances of conduct here amounted to violations of the Rules of Professional
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
Conduct.2 One is quite arguably not a misrepresentation on its face, but, regardless, a sentence at
page 8:3-8 of that same Petition of 8/27/15 by Coughlin in NVSCT case 60975 strongly plays
against Bar Counsel's assertion that a misrepresentation was made. The other allegation is show
to be false given the attached exhibit showing Coughlin did email such Petition on 8/27/15,
exactly as attested to in the Certificate of Service included in such filing.
The documents filed by Coughlin the Bar takes issue with were filed in a separate case,
9
10
with a separate case number, and in a different court than the Reinstatement case in which Ms.
11
Flocchini is attorney of record, and were not filed until after the conclusion of the hearing in the
12
instant reinstatement case. As such, nothing relative thereto comes within the purview of a
13
motion for reconsideration a la NRCP 59. Ms. Flocchini recently indicated she views NRAP as
14
15
16
applying in this NNDB case, however, a close review of SCR 119(3) would seem to make clear
NRCP applies before the NNDB, except where the SCR provide otherwise.
17
Without waiving such objection to the consideration of such subject matter outside
18
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Panel and where SCR 117(4) and SCR 119(3) do not allow for
19
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Bar here, Coughlin did not make misrepresentations
20
in those filings or the correspondence referenced in Bar Counsel's Motion, nor did he interfere
21
with the administration of justice.3 SCR 119(3) makes NRCP inapplicable here where SCR
22
23
24
25
26
1 REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 187:18 to 187:23).

Flocchini alleges a violation where Coughlin allegedly misrepresented the Panel's
intent (see page 3:16 thereof) and with respect to Coughlin allegedly misrepresenting when
he mailed or emailed his Petition on 8/27/15 (see page 4:8-9).
3
In the vast majority of instances in quotations or excerpts from the transcript, filings,
rules, and statutes, emphasis has been added.
2
27
2
1707
117(4) expressly provides for procedure following the issuance of the Recommendation by the
Panel. Even if NRCP 594 did apply here, such provides no basis for granting the Bar's Motion.
Rather, SCR 117(4) expressly provides a mechanism for the Bar to pursue such, albeit, here, the
subject matter there of is in violation of the dictates within such rule against pursuing a
prosecution (allegation) and investigation while an attorney is on disability inactive status.
wit
NRCP RULE59.NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS

(a)Grounds.A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or
part of the issues for any of the following causes or grounds ...(4) Newly discovered
evidence material for the party making the motion which the party could not, with
reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial;
h
r6
7
It is law of the case here that the hearing concluded upon Coughlin submitting the
8
9
10
11
12
proposed Monitoring Plan. However, even if the hearing or trial here were deemed to have
continued on through the 10/26/15 issuance of the Panel's Recommendation, Bar Counsel failed
to produce such prior to such time5, despite the very emails attached as exhibits to the Motion for
13
Reconsideration between Bar Counsel Pattee and Bar Counsel Flocchini, wherein Ms. Flocchini
14
is apprised of Coughlin's filing such Petition in NVSCT case 60975 on 9/14/15, clearly showing
15
that Bar Counsel can not demonstrate that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have
16
discovered and produced at the trial. See, NRCP 59(a)(4).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Even if NRCP 59(a)(2),(4) did apply here, jurisdiction over this matter currently rests
with the Nevada Supreme Court. There is no basis not to transmi the record to the Nevada
Supreme Court by 11/25/15. Asking the trial court to consider any other issues pending
review means first asking the appellate court to relinquish its jurisdiction over the case to
allow the trial court to do so. Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 575 P.2d 585, 94 Nev. 79 (1978),
provides a methodology to allow a district court to modify its own judgment under NRCP 59
or NRCP 60, after the judgment is under appeal and the district court no longer has
jurisdiction. Ms. Flocchini's tact here in not transmitting the record, in violation of SCR
117(4), is costing Coughlin his place in line to have his matter adjudicated by the Nevada
Supreme Court. The line in these Reinstatement cases is currently approximately nine
months long.
5
And, obviously, the email by Coughlin of 10/30/15 came after the issuance of the Panel's
Recommendation on 10/26/15, so such can not be considered to have been in existence at the
time of trial either.
27
3
1708
Newly discovered evidence refers to evidence of facts existing at time of trial,

not facts occurring subsequent to trial. Fox v. First Western Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 1970,
470 P.2d 424, 86 Nev. 469. It is also settled practice that the phrase "newly discovered
evidence" refers to evidence in existence at the time of trial but of which the moving
party was excusably ignorant. Brown v. Penn. R.R., 282 F.2d 522 (3rd Cir.1960).
Furthermore, the new information may be considered only if it could not have
been presented prior to the final disposition of the case. Bordelon v. Chicago School
Reform Bd. of Trustees, 44 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). See, Burr v. Burr, 611
P.2d 623, 96 Nev. 480. (1980).
1
2
3
4
5
wit
h
To whatever extent the Motion here could be read to include NRCP 59(a)(2) Misconduct
r6
of the jury or prevailing party, the alleged misconduct here had no impact on the hearing or trial,
and therefore, does not provide a basis for reconsideration.
To warrant reversal and a new trial on grounds of attorney misconduct of the

prevailing party's attorney, the flavor of misconduct must sufficiently permeate an
entire proceeding to provide conviction that the jury was influenced by passion and
prejudice in reaching its verdict. DeJesus v. Flick, 7 P.3d 459, 116 Nev. 812 (2000).
Newly discovered evidence on a matter collateral to the issues is seldom ground for a
new trial. Whise v. Whise, 131 P. 967, 36 Nev. 16 (1913).
9
10
11
12
Whether Asst. Bar Counsel's claims of two instances of misrepresentation actually
13
14
occurred after the trial or hearing here is a collateral issue, at best, considering the relevant
15
inquiry in this case is whether Coughlin's disability has been removed and if he is fit to
16
17
18
19
practice (SCR 117(4)), especially where SCR 117(4) mandates that any pending disciplinary
proceeding or investigation against the attorney shall be suspended while an attorney, like
Coughlin, is on disability inactive status. It is law of the case here that disciplinary allegations
20
are not relevant to the SCR 117(4) analysis here.6
21
22
23
24
25
26
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Pages 133:11 to 134:11) MS. JENKINS: I'm going

to stop all discussion of disciplinary matters from this point forward. I don't want the
panel to be poisoned by knowing how many, the nature, the status or other things with
regard to discipline and allegations or findings of discipline or recommendations or
pending matters that haven't even gone to a panel yet with regard to Mr. Coughlin. I
think that's inappropriate in this case -- and don't even speak yet. I want to be able to have
a clean consideration of this Respondent's status of his disability and his fitness to practice
law in this state. And that's all. I don't want to hear about allegations. I don't want to hear
about conviction of disciplinary matters. They are not relevant to the disability that
we're here to adjudicate. And I understand that they're inextricably woven, particularly
27
4
1709
The Bar's Motion for Reconsideration here indicates that: ...In the Petition he stated that
at the August 25, 2015 Hearing, the Panel affirmatively stated its intent to recommend his
reinstatement once he submitted the requested Plan. See Page 3:4-6 thereof. While the Panel
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
arguably did so affirmatively state its intent7, Coughlin's Petition, in fact, does not so assert
that. Coughlin, rather, in an abundance of caution, provided the Nevada Supreme Court (in the
Petition filed on 8/27/15) with a copy of the rough draft transcript8 of the relevant section of the
Reinstatement Hearing and wrote what is clearly not a misrepresentation:
An excerpt from the rough draft transcript provided by the court reporter of the
conclusion of the Reinstatement Hearing on 8/25/15 is attached as Exhibit 1. Such
reveals the intent of the NNDB to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license
to practice law to the Nevada Supreme Court given the Monitoring Plan Coughlin
submitted to the NNDB Panel on 8/26/15, which is attached at Exhibit 2.
One, it is important to point out what Coughlin wrote in such Petition at page 8:3-8,
which thoroughly undermines Bar Counsel's assertion that a misrepresentation was made, where
such reads:
the state supreme court may remand the disciplinary proceeding to the grievance
board with a request that it cause a hearing panel to conduct a further hearing in
the case. Mich.In re Albert, 389 Mich. 153, 206 N.W.2d 729. (NOTE: this has
essentially been done in Coughlin's case at this point, and the NNDB seems to
indicate it will recommend the reinstatement of Coughlin's law license in the
near future).
Two, Coughlin's writing that a review of a transcript excerpt he attached reveals the
intent of the NNDB to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license to practice law to
when it comes to discipline, but they are not when it comes to disability. I think it will
unfairly prejudice this case to talk about the discipline matter. I don't want that to happen for
your sake or for the supreme count's sake when they get to review this matter and determine
whether to follow the panel's recommendation. So as far as exhibits, stay away from anything
that has to do with disciplinary matters or allegations. As far as testimony, I'm cautioning you
to do the same.
7
(especially considering when viewed in conjunction with Panel Chair Jenkin's email of
8/26/15, which wrote: I hope you take careful note of these attempts to assist and shepherd
your re-entry into the practice of law in Nevada)
8
(and later, in his September 21st, 2015 Supplemental thereto, a copy of the transcript in its
entirety)
27
5
1710
the Nevada Supreme Court given the Monitoring Plan Coughlin submitted to the NNDB Panel
on 8/26/15 is plainly not the same thing as indicating that the Panel affirmatively stated its
intent.
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
Three, Coughlin's use of the word given in the qualifier phrase in the sentence Bar
Counsel takes issue with defeats the Bar's assertion that Coughlin indicated the Panel
affirmatively stated anything, especially where the transcript excerpt is denoted as coming
from an 8/25/15 Hearing and the Monitoring Plan referenced (and attached thereto as an
exhibit) is denoted as having been provided the Panel on 8/26/15.
Coughlin's inclusion of a proposed Monitoring Plan in such Petition that not only
9
10
included everything the Panel instructed him to include in it9, but goes a step further10 makes
11
even stronger Coughlin's contention the transcript he provided reveals the intent of the NNDB
12
to recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's license given the Monitoring Plan Coughlin
13
submitted to the NNDB Panel on 8/26/15. It is important to note that the very lines quoted by
14
15
Bar Counsel in such Petition make clear the excerpt of the transcript referenced took place
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(compare REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Pages 182:5 to 185:19) to the Monitoring

Plan included in the exhibits attached to the Reconsideration Motion)
10
Such proposed Monitoring Plan submitted by Coughlin does indeed go a step further
where such reads:
...7. I have identified as other information that may be critical to the
Panel's determination that this plan is a plan for success the following: I am very
remorseful for the negative attention I have brought to my profession and
for unnecessary expenditure of court time and resources brought about by
my behavior and actions.
I agree to abstain from taking, even with a valid prescription, any
stimulant medications, such as Adderall (amphetamine) or narcotics, or other
controlled substances commonly considered to be addictive. If, in the event I
must take some such medication, be it for surgery or something similar, I will
notify my Law Practice Mentor, my Attorney Sobriety Mentor, and the State Bar
of Nevada. Page 3:22-4:7 of proposed Monitoring Plan Coughlin provided the
Panel.
27
6
1711
1
2
(8/25/15) a day prior to the submission of the proposed monitoring plan immediately referenced
thereafter (8/26/15).
3
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
Four, providing the Court the transcript of the Reinstatement Hearing and Coughlin's
proposed Monitoring Plan provided the Court opportunity to draw its own conclusions from the
text thereof . Further, one may have the intent to do something, without actually doing it.
Regardless, the Panel did recommend for the reinstatement of Coughlin's law license. The
Panel's use of the phrase finalize our decision11 also lends credence to Coughlin's assertion that
its intent is revealed via a review of the transcript.
RPC 3.3 requires one knowingly make a false statement of fact or law. Further , a
9
10
mischaracterization12 is not tantamount to a misrepresentation or to knowingly [making] a
11
false statement of fact or law. Bar Counsel's choice of words here alone seems to concede such
12
is not an RPC violation.
13
14
15
16
Bar Counsel then writes: First, Coughlin knew on August 27, 2015, that Mr. Clark was
no longer Bar Counsel. Bar Counsel includes nothing in her affidavits or motion to indicate
upon what such assertion is based. Perhaps that is due to the prohibition against Bar Counsel
17
conducting any investigation while an attorney is on disability inactive status. See SCR 117(2):
18
Any pending disciplinary proceeding or investigation against the attorney shall be
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
suspended. SCR 117(2)'s prohibition there actually makes Ms. Flocchini's making two
distinct, specific, accusations of RPC violations here unsupportable. Regardless, Ms. Flocchini
stops short of alleging sending such filing to Mr. Clark, even if Coughlin knew Clark was no
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 182:22 to 182:24): And if it does meet the
outline, we'll convene in a conference call, finalize our decision, and issue an appropriate
order as quickly as possible.
12
Or misconstrued as the term is used in Bar Counsel's 11/5/15 email. See Exhibit 4. Or
an overreaching misstatement as Bar Counsel alternately describes Coughlin's writings in
her Motion.
11
27
7
1712
longer Bar Counsel, is any sort of violation of any RPC. Further, Ms. Flocchini fails to cite to
any cases or authority to support her at least implicit assertion that the responsibility would be on
the adverse party's attorney to coordinate the filing of a new notice of appearance or substitution
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
of counsel upon the exit of a Bar Counsel from his position. Regardless, where any such
responsibility upon Coughlin here, his serving these filings upon Assistant Bar Counsel
Pattee would satisfy such. Assistant Bar Counsel Flocchini fails to allege any facts to support
her assertion that Coughlin knew she was handling this matter, where she necessarily
must be referring to NVSCT case 60975.
Bar Counsel fails to cite to any rule that would be violated by such a circumstances or
9
10
any authority for the apparent implicit assertion that, were such even the case, Mr. Clark and the
11
State Bar would not somehow be capable of, or even expected to monitor the inbox for an email
12
address13 they know is still being used to electronically serve Mr. Clark in those cases he remains
13
listed as attorney of record in. Regardless, Mr. Clark is still listed as attorney of record14 on the
14
15
SCR 117 case in question here, Case 60975, through at least 11/9/15.
Here, Asst. Bar Counsel fails to allege such is some sort of misconduct or RPC violation,
16
17
but, rather characterizes such as gamesmanship. To make a summary disciplinary hearing
18
out of a motion for reconsideration would fail to accord the office of an attorney the respect such
19
13
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Or check such prior to making an accusation that a fellow attorney misrepresented

whether he emailed a filing thereto on 8/27/15.
14
SCR 117(2) places the jurisdiction for such relief sought in the Bar's 5/30/12 Disability
Petition with the Nevada Supreme Court. NRAP applies in NVSCT Case 60975. NRCP
applies in NNDB case RI15-0804 where DRP fails to cover matters. SCR 119(3); NRAP
1.
NRAP (1)(e)(5) Party, applicant, petitioner or any other designation of a party
include such partys attorney of record. Whenever under these Rules a notice or other paper is
required to be given or served on a party, such notice or service shall be made on his
attorney of record if he has one. David Clark, Esq., was still listed alone as the attorney of
record in NVSCT case 60975 upon Coughlin inquiring as to such with Chief Deputy Clerk
Ingersoll on 11/10/15. Clark and Pattee were electronic filers with the Nevada Supreme
Court at all relevant times herein.
27
8
1713
1
2
3
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
8
deserves, much less the procedural due process guarantees required by SCR 117(4), SCR 105,
SCR 110, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Further, the Certificate(s) of Service in question here make clear: I certify that on
August 27th, 2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of this PETITION... Page
9:1-2 of such 8/27/15 Supplemental. Bar Counsel's Motion concedes that emailing such
served such upon the Bar. See page 4:15 of a Bar's Motion for Reconsideration.
Alternately, here, Asst. Bar Counsel writes: He also failed to properly serve the State Bar
with the documents filed in the Nevada Supreme Court matter and misrepresented his
method of service on the State Bar. Page 2:1-3.
9
10
It is telling that Ms. Flocchini fails to write that Coughlin failed to serve her documents
11
filed in such Nevada Supreme Court matter. Such is consistent with Ms. Flocchini's failure to
12
expressly state Coughlin knew she was handling that matter, much less make any factual
13
allegations to support such a claim. Further, Ms. Flocchini fails to delve into just what sort of
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service was required upon electronic filers (ie, those whom have consented to electronic service
in Nevada Supreme Court cases) David Clark, Esq., and Phil Pattee, Esq., or cite to any rules to
support such a claim, which she fails to even allege is an RPC violation.
The Bar's Motion incorrectly asserts that: ..the Petition was not received by e-mail on
August 27, 2015. See Declaration of R. Kait Flocchini, Esq., Exhibit 5. However, Asst. Bar
Counsel Flocchini's Affidavit actually only asserts that she did not receive such via email on the
date Coughlin's Certificate of Service (correctly) claims to have emailed such to David Clark,
Esq., whom was, and still is, listed as attorney of record in such matter, NVSCT case 60975.
Attached in Exhibit 1 is a copy of the email to davidc@nvbar.org of 8/27/15 in
which was attached the Petition for Rehearing that Ms. Flocchini's Motion asserts was not
26
27
9
1714
received via email on such date. Ms. Flocchini was simply wrong here. Coughlin did, in fact,
email davidc@nvbar.org on 8/27/15 with a copy of such Petition in case 60975. The
undersigned has never received any indication that such email was not successfully transmitted.
4
5
wit
h
r6
But all of this is especially irrelevant where Coughlin also provided the Petition and
Supplemental in NVSCT 60975 to Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee. So that makes at least
somewhat salient Assistant Bar Counsel's claim that Mr. Pattee is somehow an unrelated
Assistant Bar Counsel vis a vis NVSCT case 60975.
11
The Bar's Motion then states: Counsel Phillip Pattee received it by email on
September 12, 2015. See Email String, dated September 12-14, 2015, Exhibit 6. ...
Coughlin knew that Assistant Bar Counsel Kait Flocchini was handling this matter
and he e-mailed documents to her on August 26, 201515. Yet, she did not receive an email from Coughlin regarding the Petition. See Declaration of R. Kait Flocchini, Esq.,
Exhibit 5. Coughlins affirmation of mailing (or emailing) was false. This is a violation
of RPC 3.3 and RPC 8.4(c).
12
Neither Ms. Flocchini's Motion nor any of the Affidavits or exhibits attached thereto
13
provide any support for this contention that Coughlin knew that Assistant Bar Counsel Kait
8
9
10
14
15
16
Flocchini was handling this matter. On what date, exactly, did that become so? Given that Ms.
Flocchini was referencing the Petition in Nevada Supreme Court case 60975, one must assume
17
she is referring to that matter, which has a distinct case number, and is in a different venue, with
18
a different set of court and procedural rules, than the Reinstatement case that Ms. Flocchini is
19
actually listed as attorney of record on in RI15-0804. Coughlin was never provided any
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
15
Bar Counsel's Motion for Reconsideration fails to distinguish between the NVSCT case
60975 and the Reinstatement case before the NNDB in RI15-0804. This allusion to what was
emailed to Ms. Flocchini on 8/26/15 fails to indicate that such document attached was the
proposed Monitoring Plan requested of Coughlin by the Panel just the day before in the
Reinstatement case, NNDB RI15-0804. Emailing Ms. Flocchini a document submitted in
such Reinstatement case, with the case number for such Reinstatement case in the caption
thereof (where her actually filing a document therein and appearing in open court necessarily
make her attorney of record) hardly makes Ms. Flocchini attorney of record in the Disability
case before the Nevada Supreme Court in NVSCT 60975, nor does such mean Coughlin
knew Ms. Flocchini was handling such case.
27
10
1715
indication, written or otherwise, by the State Bar of Nevada or Ms. Flocchini that she was
attorney of record in, or even appearing in that mater, Nevada Supreme Court case 60975. Ms.
Flocchini alleges such, but fails to state any basis for such claim or contention. To the extent
4
5
wit
Ms. Flocchini now becomes a witness in this matter, she may have an obligation to withdraw as
counsel.
Why would Coughlin serve Ms. Flocchin given the failure of the State Bar to ever point
r6
out to Coughlin that it, apparently, given Ms. Flocchini's filing, did not feel Bar Counsel Pattee
was an appropriate recipient of the Petition or Supplemental thereto. Ms. Flocchini's admission
of having received Coughlin's Petition and Supplemental thereto in NVSCT case 60975 and
9
10
yet never having filed anything in opposition thereto (much less communicate with
11
Coughlin in any way with regard to such) would seem to indicate that no prejudice would
12
have issued even had the State Bar not received such from Coughlin.
13
14
15
16
If the Panel or Bar would like for Coughlin to answer to the allegation unsupported by
any assertions of facts that he knew David Clark was no longer employed as Bar Counsel at the
time he filed his Petition on 8/27/15, Coughlin will do so, and make no attempt to hide behind
17
SCR 117(4)'s mandate against prosecution and investigation while an attorney is on disability
18
inactive status. However, even if such were to be the case, it is hardly manifest that Coughlin
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
committed some misconduct here by serving such on Mr. Clark, especially where such was then
served on Mr. Pattee (and Mr. King) as well. Mr. Clark's ceasing to be employed as Bar
Counsel hardly alleviates his and the State Bar's duty to coordinate the covering of his cases, and
attendant thereto would be to monitor the email addresses used for electronic service.
Where the State Bar characterizes Coughlin as engaging in gamesmanship here, it is
hard to understand what to make of the State Bar failing to mention to Coughlin it felt he was not
26
27
11
1716
sending the filings to the right attorney, much less the State Bar's failing to bring such to the
Panel's attention until after the Panel issued its Recommendation, despite having from 8/27/15
until such was issued on 10/26/16 to do so. The mere fact that Ms. Flocchini was handling
4
5
wit
NNDB case RI15-0804 does not mean she is attorney of record or in any way attached to
Nevada Supreme Court case 60975, especially where David Clark is still listed as attorney of
record on the docket therein, and where Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee had filed the most
r6
recent filings made by State Bar of Nevada therein in the summer and fall of 2014. See
7
8
Exhibit 2, Bar Counsel Pattee's 9/29/14 filing in NVSCT case 60975.

Further, Coughlin had corresponded with Mr. Pattee via email about Nevada Supreme
9
10
11
Court case numerous times throughout 2014 and 2015. See Exhibit 3, emails to Coughlin from
Bar Counsel Pattee regarding NVSCT case 60975.
12
Given the above, the undersigned respectfully disagrees with Bar Counsel Flocchini's
13
assertion that ...Further, Coughlins attempt to e-mail former employees of the Office of Bar
14
15
16
Counsel and an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel, but not the Assistant Bar Counsel handling
his Reinstatement matter, is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Asst. Bar Counsel
17
Pattee is hardly an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel when it comes to NVSCT case 60975, and
18
David Clark, Esq., is still listed as attorney of record therein, and Patrick King, Esq., filed the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Disability Petition in NVSCT case 60975. Likewise, Ms. Flocchini fails to actually even state
that NVSCT case 60975 was her case, and noticeably absent is any affidavit from Phil Pattee
stating that he reassigned the matter to her, much less communicated such to Coughlin.
What this seems to come down to is the fact that Coughlin did not simply serve such on
Mr. Clark, but went above and beyond and served such on Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee, as
well. The attached documentation and Ms. Flocchini's failure to allege any specific basis for her
26
27
12
1717
1
2
3
4
5
wit
h
contention that Coughlin knew she was handling this matter make unsupported the claim that
Mr. Pattee was somehow an unrelated Assistant Bar Counsel.
Finally, Bar Counsel asserts that Coughlin emailed her requesting a stipulation to make
up the 30 days just lost to the Panels taking longer than 30 days from the hearing's conclusion
to issue a Recommendation noting that Coughlin asserted that the Panel Chair indicated the
hearing would conclude when I provided the proposed monitoring plan to the Panel." Bar
r6
Counsel argues that such is directly contradicted by the Panel Chairs statements that if your
submission is received tomorrow. . . the panel will meet at its earliest convenience, deliberate,
and conclude this matter.
9
10
Bar Counsel's argument does not account for the difference between a matter and a
11
hearing. A matter refers to something broader than a hearing, and such may continue past
12
the conclusion of a hearing. Regardless, Bar Counsel, in contrast to earlier in her Motion
13
where she pronounces Coughlin's writings respecting whether the Panel intended to recommend
14
15
16
for Coughlin's reinstatement to violate an RPC, here, no such claim that such email did, in
fact, violate an RPC is made. Rather, such seems to have been included merely for prejudicial
17
effect. That effect borne of Coughlin coming across as someone who lacks the appropriate level
18
of gratitude to the Panel, and, instead, is whining about enduring a longer wait than he
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
envisioned for the Panel to issue its Recommendation. The undersigned agrees such email, sent
only to the Bar and in an attempt to obtain a stipulation that would serve judicial economy,
contained a lack of perspective and gratitude and hereby apologizes for such.
Bar Counsel concludes with a bit of a non-sequitur where she writes the
misrepresentation is particularly troubling when the Panel Chair rejected Coughlins assertion
that the Panels decision must be issued within 30 days of August 25, 2015...Coughlins
26
27
13
1718
1
2
assertion in his October 30, 2015 email is a misrepresentation of what happened at the
August 25, 2015 Hearing.
3
4
5
wit
Such is a non-sequitur given that Coughlin's email concerns whether SCR 117 requires
the Panel to issue its Recommendation 30 days from the hearing's conclusion, whereas Bar
Counsel proceeds to base her argument on whether such 30 days runs from August 25th, 2015,
claiming that is what Coughlin indicated in his email. A careful reading of Coughlins' email of
r6
10/30/15 and the transcript of the Reinstatement Hearing reveals that Coughlin correctly relayed
7
8
that the 30 days mentioned in SCR 117 runs from the conclusion of the hearing, and that the
Panel Chair at least arguably indicated to Coughlin the hearing would conclude upon receipt of a
9
10
proposed Monitoring Plan from Coughlin.16 Coughlin submitted such monitoring plan on
11
8/26/15.
12
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 187:18 to 187:23): MR. COUGHLIN: SCR

117.4, I believe, requires this panel issue its findings within 30 days. MS. JENKINS: It says the
panel shall render a written decision within 30 days of the hearing's conclusion. And the
hearing will not conclude until that additional information is received.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Pages 188:23 to 189:18) MS. JENKINS: While I

appreciate your disappointment, perhaps, the rule requires within 30 days of the hearing's
conclusion. This hearing will not be concluded until the panel receives that additional
requested information. ...MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. And if I submit it tomorrow, will it then -will a decision be made within 30 days of tomorrow? MS. JENKINS: If your submission is
received tomorrow,... the panel will meet at its earliest convenience, deliberate, and conclude
this matter. MR. COUGHLIN: So then a decision -- it would conclude? MS. JENKINS: It
would.
20
Under the undersigned's understanding of that portion of the hearing, the hearing
21
22
concluded upon Coughlin's submitting such proposed Monitoring Plan on 8/26/15.
23
24
25
26
16
An 11/5/15 email to Coughlin from Bar Counsel seems to indicate that the hearing's
conclusion would occur, in her view, upon the Panel reconvening to deliberate outside of
Coughlin's presence. The undersigned did not interpret these matters in that way given
such would seem to result in an ex parte hearing process (not to suggest the Bar would be
present during such a reconvening, but merely that Coughlin would not be).
27
14
1719
Nonetheless, out of great respect for and deference to the Panel Coughlin made no
1
2
attempt to press the point and instead waited for the Panel's Recommendation. Perhaps the
disagreement here relates to just what it was Coughlin was referring to when he was asking if it
4
5
wit
h
would conclude.17 The entire point of Coughlin's question to the Panel Chair (see pages 187189 of the transcript from the Reinstatement Hearing) related to the interplay between the
conclusion of the hearing and the issuance of the Panel's Recommendation under SCR 117(4),
r6
and whether Coughlin may do anything to bring about the conclusion of the hearing. Not the
conclusion of the matter.18 The undersigned respectfully disagrees with any assertion that his
email of 10/30/15 contained any sort of misrepresentation or other reason for reconsidering the
9
10
Panel's Recommendation.19
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17
REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 189:15 to 189:17) MR. COUGHLIN: So then a

decision -- it would conclude? MS. JENKINS: It would.
18
This interpretation of pages 187-190 of the Reinstatement Hearing transcript is made
even more plausible by the Honorable Panel Chair's indication to Coughlin in an email sent to
both Coughlin and the Bar on 8/26/15 wherein the Panel Chair wrote: I received and have
reviewed your emails and attachments. I fully expect that the panel will find an acceptable
time to reconvene the hearing within 2 weeks to consider the evidence presented and your
submission. Thereafter, I will prepare and circulate a draft Order among the members, gather
their input, make needed changes, and sign and submit the final Order of the Panel, which
then will be distributed to the Office of Bar Counsel and to you. The process may not meet
your desire to have everything done immediately, but is will be accomplished within a
reasonable time, and within the Rule. .
19
Please further consider the following: REINSTATEMENT HEARING, (Page 191:3 to
191:9) MR. COUGHLIN: If I may ask that the panel take what I believe is 30 days from
today or tomorrow, if I file the brief tomorrow, to use that time to review the materials I
spent a great deal of time and effort putting together -- MS. JENKINS: Mr. Coughlin, rest
assured the panel will give you your due process.
27
15
1720
1
2
3
4
5
wit

deposes and says under penalty of perjury and certifies the following is true and correct: 1. I am
subject attorney in the above-referenced matter, have personal knowledge of the facts contained
herein and am competent to attest thereto, and I hereby declare that all assertions I have made
herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Everything I have attached hereto is a
true copy of what it purports to be.
Dated this November 23rd, 2015,
h
r6
7

Petitioner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
16
1721
1
2
3
4
5
wit
h
r6
7
I certify that on November 23rd , 2015 I mailed and or emailed a true and correct copy of
this OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon the following by
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
and to
Dated this November 23rd, 2015
8
9
10

Petitioner
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
17
1722
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
1
2
3
Description
Exhibit 1
Coughlin's email to the State Bar of 8/27/15 in which was attached the Petition
for Rehearing that Ms. Flocchini's Motion asserts was not received via email on such date.
4
5
Exhibit 2
Bar Counsel Pattee's 7/11/14 filing in NVSCT case 60975
wit
Exhibit 3
Emails to Coughlin from Bar Counsel Pattee regarding NVSCT case 60975
Exhibit 4
11/5/15 email to Coughlin from Bar Counsel
r6
Exhibit 5
10/22/15 NVSCT Order Denying Coughlin's Petition in 60975
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
18
1723
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
1724
11/10/2015
Print
Close
NRAP40orRequestforHearing
Sent: Fri8/28/154:12PM
To: aingersoll@nvcourts.nv.gov(aingersoll@nvcourts.nv.gov)tlindemann@nvcourts.nv.gov
(tlindemann@nvcourts.nv.gov)davidc@nvbar.org(davidc@nvbar.org)
1attachment
82715NRAP4060975InReCoughlinseekingtosetasideorderplacingondisability
inactivestatuswithsixexhibits.pdf(3.3MB)
DearChiefDeputyClerkIngersoll,
Pleasefindattachedacopyofmysubmissionforfilingincase60975.Please
letmeknowifIamrequiredtosubmitacheckfor$250withit,or,if,dueto
suchbeinga"BarMatter"thereisnosuchrequirement.Imaynottechnically
beaPetitionforRehearinggiventhecruxofmyargumentisthatInevergota
hearinganywherepriortobeingplacedonsuchdisabilityinactivestatus.
Iknowonecannottypicallyelectronicallyfileinconfidentialcases,but,a
reviewofthe6/18/12filingattributedtomeincase60975seemstoindicated
thatsuchwasacceptedelectronically.
ThankyouforyourassistancewhenIspokewithyoulastweek.
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
cell7752760779
1725
1/1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
1726

)
3 BAR NO. 8789
)
4
Case No. 60975
--------------------------)
5
6

1.

11
2.
12 (30) days:
13
a.
14
15
16
b.
17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
1
1727
3.
5 hereby informing this Court regarding the status of this matter.
6
4.
9 forwarded immediately to Laura Peters ("Peters"), the OBC's paralegallinvestigator in
12
5.
13 (See attached Exhibit 1, Affidavit alLaura Peters, Paragraph 1).

14
6.
18 Court.
19 III
20 III
2
1728
7.
5
8.
9
9.
14
10.
17
11.
19 III
20 III
3
1729
12.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

DAYID A. CLARK, BAR COUNSEL
1f?vl

Bar No. 4021
Reno,NV 89521
(775) 329-4100
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4
1730
Exhibit 1
1731

2
STATE OF NEVADA
COUNTY OF WASHOE
) ss:
3
4
5
says as follows:
6

7
8
Bar of Nevada;
9
1.
10
11
12

13
2.
14

15
3.
16
17
18
19
4.
20
21
address) via first class mail, certified mail and e-mail.
22
Mr. Coughlin was also sent
copies of both the aforementioned April 23 rd and June 30th Orders for his ready
23
reference.
24
25
1732
5.
Affiant called Mr.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

July, 2014.
~QQlkQ fZJ~
NOTA Y PUBLI
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1733
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
July 9,2014
7012 2920 0002 4909 0520

phon. 702.382.2200
toU &.:.800.254.2797
u:702.385.2878
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street
Reno,NV 89502
9456 Double R Blvd.. Ste. B

Reno. NY 89521-5977
phon. 775.329.4100
u:775.329.0522
RE:
Supreme Court Case No. 60975/ In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. www.nvbar.org
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

expert and; 2) file a report regardirlg the status of its efforts to arrange for said examination.
Phillip J. Pattee
CJ
(Domestic 'Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
..
ru
U1
CJ
[J'"
PJP/lp

CJ
. . . ..
0 F FI CI
[J'"
Postage
::l"
Enclosure
ru
AL
US E
Certified Fee
Postmark
Here
CJ
Return Receipt Fee
CJ (Endorsement Required)
CJ
Cl
..
Restrfcted Delivery Fee

ru
[J'"
ru
Total Postage & Fees
~ r:<iA;n:;;"tr,:;O--:-"'~--~~--:-~-",--....-v--.=b-----+--'-1~---~
::2 ;ijf/i::::'~-~--------------h----~;-~-------"Jki-
C~SiBiii:Z1p.;::ii"--------;}.---~-k..........
PS Form 3800. August 2006
1734
-
------------_..._- -- ------------_..
_----------------
Exhibit 2
1735
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
July 9, 2014

70122920000249090520

phone 702.382.2200
toU &ee800.254.2797
fu702.385.2878
Zachary Coughlin
1471 E. 9th Street
Reno,NV 89502
9456 Double R Blvd.. See. B

Reno. NY 895215m
phone 775.329.4100
fu775.329.0522
RE:
Supreme Court Case No. 609751 In the Matter o/Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.
WWW.
nvb~r.org
Dear Mr. Coughlin:

Phillip J. Pattee
PJP/lp
Enclosure
CJ
ru
U1
CJ
IT"
CJ
IT"

. ..
. ..
. .
..
'
OFFICIAL USE
.::r-
Postage
ru
Certlfled Fee
CJ
Return Receipt Fea
CJ (Endorsement Requlrad)
CJ
CJ
Restricted Delivery Faa

IT"
Total Poataga & Fees
Postmark
Hera
ru
ru
ru
nt
.....
I _~
t.. ~
~ ;70:::!P~~_0::::~~~~?::- ......
CJtY.SiBie:Z(P+4+~.........Ji.~.
1736
1
2
5
6
7
Zachary B. Coughlin
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno NY 89505
8
9
10
Laura ters, an employee of

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1737
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3
1738
11/16/2015
Print
Close
RE:SCCase60975
From: PhillipPattee(philp@nvbar.org)
Sent: Tue7/22/1412:36PM
To: ZachCoughlin(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Thankyou.
Phil
PhillipJ.Pattee
AssistantBarCounsel
600E.CharlestonBoulevard
LasVegas,NV89104
Office:(702)3822200
Fax:(702)3828747
1739
1/4
11/16/2015
From :ZachCoughlin[mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sen t :Tuesday,July22,201411:48AM
To:PhillipPattee
Su bject :RE:SCCase60975
DearMr.Patee,
IamnowscheduledtobeevaluatedonFriday,July25th,byDr.NielsenathisofficeonWillowSt.
Sincerely,
ZacharyBarkerCoughlin,Esq.(USPTO)1471E.9thSt.Reno,NV89512Tel7753385334Fax:949667
7402ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
From:philp@nvbar.org
To:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject:RE:SCCase60975
Date:Tue,22Jul201415:46:40+0000
1740
2/4
11/16/2015
Zach,
Thankyouforyourmessage,andforyourefforts.IshallkeeptheSupremeCourt
informed.
Phil
PhillipJ.Pattee
AssistantBarCounsel
600E.CharlestonBoulevard
LasVegas,NV89104
Office:(702)3822200
Fax:(702)3828747
1741
3/4
11/16/2015
From :ZachCoughlin[mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sen t :Monday,July21,20149:30PM
To:LauraPetersPatrickKingPhillipPattee
Cc:aingersoll@nvcourts.nv.govtlindemann@nvcourts.nv.gov
Su bject :RE:SCCase60975
DearNVBar,
IhavebeentradingvoicemailswithDr.Nielsenandfinallyjustaskedhimto
tellmeadateandtimeandindicatedIwouldbesuretoshowupforsuchfor
theevaluation,andaskedifhewouldletmeknowofanyreleasesorrecords
hewouldliketohaveinconnectionwiththeevaluation.Ilefthimanother
messagetoday.
Sincerely,
ZacharyBarkerCoughlin,Esq.(USPTO)1471E.9thSt.Reno,NV89512Tel7753385334Fax:949667
7402ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
From:laurap@nvbar.org
To:ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject:SCCase60975
Date:Wed,9Jul201419:14:31+0000
Pleaseseeattachment
LauraPeters
Paralegal
OfficeofBarCounsel
1742
4/4
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4
1743
11/16/2015
Print
Close
RE:Requestedstipulation
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
KaitFlocchini(KaitF@nvbar.org)
Thu11/05/1510:03AM
ZachCoughlin(zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
LauraPeters(laurap@nvbar.org)BrianKunzi(briank@nvbar.org)
DearMr.Coughlin
YourrepresentationregardingthedeadlineforthePaneltofileitsRecommendationistroubling.The
PanelChairstatedthattheywouldreconveneafteryousubmittedtherequestedMentoringPlannotonthe
daythatyousubmittedit.TheydidreconveneafterAugust26,2015notonAugust26,2015.Their
Recommendationwassubsequentlyfiled.
TheStateBarwillnotstipulatetonotopposetheRecommendation.IanticipatethatIwillbefilinga
MotionforReconsiderationofthePanelsdecisioncitingthefilingswiththeNevadaSupremeCourtthat
misconstruedtheHearingPanelspositionandthatyouemailedtopeopleyouknewdidnotworkfortheState
Bar(andPhilPatteeintheLasVegasoffice)andnotme.IanticipatethatIwillberaisingtheseissueswiththe
SupremeCourtinoppositiontotheRecommendation,ifthePaneldoesnotreviseitsRecommendation.
Sincerely,
KaitFlocchini
R.KaitFlocchini
AssistantBarCounsel
OfficeofBarCounsel
1744
1/3
11/16/2015
StateBarofNevada
9456DoubleR.Blvd,SuiteB
Reno,Nevada89521
MainLine:(775)329-4100
DepartmentFax:775-329-0522
www.nvbar.org
NoticeofConfidentiality :Theinformationtransmittedisintendedonlyforthepersonorentitytowhomitisaddressedand
maycontainconfidentialand/orprivilegedmaterial.Anyreview,retransmission,disseminationorotheruseof,ortakingany
actioninrelianceupon,thisinformationbyanyoneotherthantheintendedrecipientisnotauthorized.
From:ZachCoughlin[mailto:zachcoughlin@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday,October30,20159:16AM
To:KaitFlocchini<KaitF@nvbar.org>
Cc:LauraPeters<laurap@nvbar.org>
Subject:Requestedstipulation
DearAssistantBarCounselFlocchini,
IamwritingtoindicatethatIwillnotbefilinganyoppositiontothePanel'sRecommendationandto
seekastipulation,ifyouareamenable,thatmayallowformycasetomakeupthe30daysjustlostto
thePanel'stakinglongerthan30daysfromthehearing'sconclusiontoissueaRecommendation.The
1745
2/3
11/16/2015
ChairindicatedthehearingwouldconcludewhenIprovidedtheproposedmonitoringplantothe
Panel.Iprovidedsuchon8/26/15.SCR117requirestheRecommendationtobeissuedwithin30days
oftheconclusionofthehearing.TheRecommendationwasfiled10/26/15.
TherecordisduetobefiledwiththeNevadaSupremeCourtwithin30daysofthat10/26/15filingof
theRecommendation.Bothpartieswouldthenhave30daystofileanyoppositionthereto,and,
shouldnonebefiled,thematterwouldbesubmittedfordecision.
Iamwritingtorequestthattherecordbefiledatyourearliestconvenienceandaccompaniedbya
stipulationofsomesortindicatingthatbothpartieschoosenottofileanyoppositiontothe
recommendationandrequestforthemattertobesubmittedatthetimetherecordisfiledwiththe
NevadaSupremeCourt.
Pleaseconsider:
SCR117:"Thepanelshallrenderawrittendecisionwithin30daysofthehearingsconclusion,whichshallbefiledwith
barcounselsofficeandservedpursuanttoRule109(1).
decisionsentry.Receiptoftherecordshallbeacknowledgedinwritingbythesupremecourtclerk.Thepartiesshallhave
30 days from the date the supreme court acknowledges receipt of the record within which to file any objection to the
panelsrecommendation.Ifnoneisfiled,thenthemattershallbesubmittedfordecision".
Thankyouforconsideringthisrequest.Also,ifitisnottoomuchtrouble,wouldyoumindemailingmethepdfcontaining
thefilestampedRecommendation?
Sincerely,
ZachCoughlin,Esq.
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.comTele:7752760779Fax:9496677402
RegisteredpatentattorneybeforetheUSPTO
1746
3/3
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
1747
R ER DE. ~Yf1 G R liE 1 f ;G

1
hea "ng eluea. _

i
0 '
RED.
-----'-'
cc
% ch
1748
Case No: R115-0804
3
4
5
7
8
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
10
IN RE:
11
12

BAR NO. 9473
13
Respondent.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OBTAINED AFTER PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE CONCLUDED IN HEARING
15
16
17
The State Bar of Nevada, through Assistant Bar Counsel, R. Kait Flocchini, replies
18
in support of its request that the Hearing Panel reconsider its recommendation that Zachary
19
Coughlin, Esq.'s Nevada law license be reinstated to active status.
20
This reply covers three points raised in Coughlin's Opposition: 1) whether the Motion
21
for Reconsideration is procedurally appropriate, (2) the relationship between R115-0804
22
and Supreme Court Case No. 60975, and (3) how to characterize Coughlin's post-hearing
23
conduct.
24
25
1//
1
1749
1
2
Legal Authority for Reconsideration.
Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 119 (3) provides that U[e]xcept as otherwise provided
in these rules, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and the Nevada Rules of Appellate
Procedure apply in disciplinary cases."
Although the Panel's Recommendation is not exactly a judgment, it could be
reasonable to apply the provisions of NRCP 59. Pursuant to NRCP 59, the information
provided in the Motion must be material to the State Bar and was not available prior to the
hearing. The information is material, not collateral, because Coughlin's representations to
10
the Supreme Court regarding this Panel's "intent" and his service of documents on the
11
State Bar are similar to his conduct which resulted in the State Bar, through Northern
12
Nevada Disciplinary Board Chair Thomas Susich, filing the Petition Seeking a
13
Determination of the Attorney's Competency Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117(2). The
14
information was not available at the time of the hearing because it occurred post-hearing.
15
Nonetheless, it is relevant and should be considered by the Panel before being submitted
16
to the Nevada Supreme Court for its consideration in whether to approve the Panel's
17
recommendation.
18
Alternatively, the Motion can be deemed procedurally appropriate because
19
substantially different evidence is being introduced subsequent to the Panel's initial
20
Recommendation.
21
Jolley, Urga & Wirth LTD., 113 Nev. 737, 741 (1997) ("A district court may reconsider a
22
previously decided issue if substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced or
23
the decision is clearly erroneous.") Here, Coughlin's post-hearing conduct is substantially
24
different evidence that may change the Panel's decision on whether Coughlin is fit to
25
resume the practice of law.
See Masonry and Tile Contractors Assoc. of Southern Nevada v.
1750
Under either standard, it is appropriate for the Panel to reconsider its
Recommendation and to account for Coughlin's post-hearing conduct in that
reconsideration.
R115-0804 is a result of Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 60975.
On May 31, 2012, the Petition Seeking a Determination of the Attorney's
Competency Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 117(2) was filed under Nevada Supreme
Court Case No. 60975. In that same case, on June 18, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court
issued an order placing Coughlin on disability inactive status.
On June 23, 2015, Coughlin filed a Petition for Reinstatement to Active Status
10
Pursuant to SCR 117(4).
Coughlin's Petition was given matter number RI15-0804.
11
Coughlin's Petition referenced the State Bar's Petition and Order from Nevada Supreme
12
Court Case No. 60975. But for Case No. 60975, R115-0804 would not have existed.
13
Moreover, Coughlin's August, 27, 2015 and September 12, 2015 filings in Case No.
14
60975 essentially sought to undue the order which then necessitated the reinstatement
15
matter and this Panel's hearing.
16
Flocchini regarding the reinstatement matter, but not communicate with the same Assistant
17
Bar Counsel regarding the Nevada Supreme Court matter that could have a direct effect
18
on the reinstatement matter.
19
All Conduct Referenced in Motion for Reconsideration is Post-Hearing Conduct.
It is unclear why Coughlin would communicate with
20
The State Bar defers to its original arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration
21
regarding the characterization of Coughlin's statements to the Supreme Court in the
22
Petition for Rehearing and Supplement thereto and in his October 30, 2015 e-mail to
23
Flocchini. The State Bar clarifies its position on (i) Coughlin's service of documents filed
24
with the Supreme Court and (ii) why his post-hearing conduct is relevant to the Panel's
25
decision.
3
1751
11/
Service of Supreme Court filings
Coughlin argues that he did e-mail serve the Petition for Rehearing on former Bar
Counsel David Clark on August 27, 20'j 5. See Opposition at 9:3-'10:3. The documents
that Coughlin references to support his position show (i) an affirmation that David Clark
was "mailed and or emailed" the Petition for Rehearing at the State Bar's Las Vegas office,
with no reference to an e-mail address and (ii) Coughlin e-mailed the Petition for Rehearing
to "davidc@nvbar.org" on August 28, 2015. See Motion, Exhibit 1 and Opposition, Exhibit
1. This is after Flocchini personally discussed with Coughlin on the phone, in late July,
10
2015 or August, 2015, that David Clark was no longer Bar Counsel. Further, Coughlin's
11
"courtesy copy" of the Petition for Rehearing was sent ten judicial days after it was filed
12
with the Supreme Court.
13
Coughlin's Post-hearing Conduct is Akin to his Pre-Disability Conduct
14
The petition which requested that Coughlin be placed on disability referenced his
15
behavior in court when he was "disorderly, contemptuous or insolent" and "questioned the
16
judge's authority" in Reno Municipal Court and was "rude, sarcastic and disrespectful" in
17
Judge Gardner's courtroom during a divorce trial. Coughlin's recent statements to the
18
Nevada Supreme Court do not rise to this level of inappropriateness, but they are indicative
19
that he still does not have a firm grasp on what is appropriate adversarial behavior. 1
20
11/
21
22
III
23
24
25
1 Coughlin argues that conduct that has a potential disciplinary result is irrelevant. See Opposition at 4: 1320. But, conduct that could be found to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct is also indicative of a
lack of fitness to resume the practice of law. This is exactly what the Panel is considering in this
reinstatement matter, and thus, Coughlin's post-hearing conduct is relevant.
1752
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing and the Motion for Reconsideration, the State Bar
respectfully requests that the Panel reconsider its recommendation that Coughlin be
reinstated pursuant to SCR 117.
6
7
DATED this
BO-!>
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

STANLEY C. HUNTERTON, BAR COUNSEL
8
9
10
11
12
By:~J~
R.
alt Flocchlnl, NV Bar No. 9861

Reno, Nevada 89521
(775) 329-4100
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
1753

The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of
Motion for R~consideration Based on Additional Information Obtained After
Presentation of Evidence Concluded in Hearing was placed in a sealed envelope,
postage prepaid, in Reno, Nevada, addressed to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W
12th Street, Reno NV 89503. The document was also served in electronic form to
zachcoughlin@hotmail,com and justcci@gmail,com
---O"t!J
Dated on this...,-" ~)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
1754
I, Laura Peters, certify that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, a
resident of Washoe County, and not a party to the within action. I am an employee of the State
Bar of Nevada and my business address is 9456 Double R Blvd., Suite B, Reno, Nevada
89521.
6
7
8
I hereby certify that I served a copy of the RECORD ON APPEAL, Volumes 1-x, in
electronic format to:
Zachary Coughlin at zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
DATED thQ day of February, 2016.

9
10
11
12
Laura Peters, Paralegal

State Bar of Nevada
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1755
Case No: R115-0804
2
3
4
5
6
STATE BAR OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
In Re:
Petition for Reinstatement of

State Bar No. 9473
11
Petitioner.
----------~~~-------------
12
)
)
)
) DATE OF HEARING:
) TIME OF HEARING:
)
)
January 6, 2016
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING
13
14
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an evidentiary hearing has been scheduled for and
15
will be held on Wednesday, January 6, 2016, beginning at the hour of 9:00 a.m. The
16
17
18
The hearing will have a limited scope to receive evidence directly related to the
19
Motion, Opposition and Reply to the Motion for Reconsideration in this matter.
The
20
Panel will only accept new testimony and consider new evidence directly related to the
21
reconsideration pleadings.
22
Following the evidentiary hearing, the Panel will deliberate whether to issue a
23
new panel recommendation or uphold its original recommendation to the Nevada
24
Supreme Court.
25
III
-1-
1756
Any witnesses or documentary evidence the parties wish to present at the

2
hearing, other than those attached to and already submitted with the filed pleadings
related to the Motion for Reconsideration must be disclosed to and received by the
opposing party not later than noon on Monday, January 4, 2016, or they will not be
considered by the panel.
DATED this
Ii.? #! day of December, 2015.
7
8
9
10
BY:~~
Caren JFidin\ , Esq.
F:::a:9Chair
Northern evada Discipline Board
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2-
1757
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copies of the foregoing
Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Evidentiary
Hearing were placed in a sealed envelope and sent by first class mail from Reno,
Nevada, postage fully prepaid thereon for first class regular mail addressed to:
7
8
Zachary Coughlin
945 W. 12th Street
Reno,NV 89503
And served electronically to zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
10
11
Laura Peters, an employee of the State

Bar of Nevada
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1758
Case No: RI15-0804
4
5
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
9
10
11
INRE:
)
)

BARNO. 9473
)
)
Petitioner.
12
13
ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION
)
)
----------------------------~)
14
15
)
)
On November 9, 2015 the State Bar of Nevada flied and served a Motion for Reconsideration
Based on Additional Information Obtained After Presentation of Evidence Concluded in Hearing.
16
On November 23, 2015 Petitioner Zachary Coughlin flied and served an Opposition to Motion for
17
Reconsideration. On November 30, 2015, the State Bar of Nevada flied and served its Reply in
18
support of its Motion.
19
Based upon the foregoing and good cause appearing, the Motion for Reconsideration Based
20
on Additional Information Obtained After Presentation of Evidence Concluded in Hearing is hereby
21
granted. The Hearing Panel will reconvene on January 6, 2015, for the limited scope of presenting
22
new evidence supporting the Motion, Opposition and Reply to Motion for Reconsideration.
23
III
24
III
25
III
1759
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this I", -rI\ day of
V~cem~015.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
5
6
By:
~
Car~Esq.,-Chair
-..
Formal
. 19 Panel
Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1760
I, Laura Peters, certify that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, a
resident of Washoe County, and not a party to the within action. I am an employee of the State
Bar of Nevada and my business address is 9456 Double R Blvd., Suite B, Reno, Nevada
89521.
I hereby certify that I served an electronic copy of the attached SUPPLEMENT TO

RECORD ON APPEAL bye-mailing a copy to:
Zachary Coughlin at zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
DATED the 5th day of April, 2016.
9
10
11
12
13
Laura Peters, Paralegal

State Bar of Nevada
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1761

2 8 16 ROA 1 To 1761 69723 Coughlin Reinstatement Complete 0804 Reduced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

2 8 16 ROA 1 To 1761 69723 Coughlin Reinstatement Complete 0804 Reduced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

IN RE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT )

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS PURSUANT TO SCR 117(4)

Petitioner ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. hereby respectfully

placing Coughlin in disabled inactive status.

Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

9456 Double R Blvd, Suite B Reno, NV 8952]

Douglas Rands, Esq.

Dated this June 23rd, 2015,

-'"'Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.

Case No: RI15-0804

STATE BAR OF NEVADA

NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ.,

Caren C. ] enlcins, Esq., Ch~

s R. Rands, Esq., Chairman

Order Appointing Reinstatement Hearing Panel Chair was placed in a sealed

addressed to Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., 945 W 12th Street, Reno NV 89503.

And electronically served to ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com and justccj@gmail.com

DATED this 2,d day of July, 2015.

Laura Peters, an Employee

Case Number: R115-0804

NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ.

Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.

Barth F. Aaron, Esq.

Sara Almo, Esq.

Frederick Battcher, Esq.

Mark A. Beguelin, Esq.

Kathleen Breckenridge, Esq.

Marilee Breternitz, Esq.

Gregory Brower, Esq.

Sarah V. Carrasco, Esq.

Trina Dahlin, Esq.

Matthew P. Digesti, Esq.

Craig Denney, Esq.

Edmund J. Gorman, Jr., Esq.

Jill Greiner, Esq

Bruce Hahn, Esq.

Eliot M. Held, Esq.

Richard Hill, Esq.

Joshua Hicks, Esq.

Scott Hoffman, Esq.

Michael K. Johnson, Esq.

Stephen Kent, Esq.

Michael Large, Esq.

Darren Lemieux, Esq.

Gregory Livingston, Esq.

Keegan G. Low, Esq.

Lance Maiss, Esq.

William Q'Mara, Esq.

C. Nicholas Pereos, Esq.

Michael A. Pintar, Esq.

Douglas Rands, Esq.

G. David Robertson, Esq.

Christopher Rusby, Esq.

Tina Russom, Esq.

David M. Stanton, Esq.

Eric A. Stovall, Esq.

Moreen Scully, Esq.

Matthew Sharp, Esq.