1 THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA 2 BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MORAL CHARACTER AND FITNESS IN THE MATTER OF ZACHARY B, COUGIILIN Lee) PE 4° PREHEARING BRIEFS {> Ai on Fey 7 ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, by and through is counsel, Peter S, Christiansen, Esq. of 8 | Christiansen Law Office, hereby submits his Prehearing Brief for consideration at the hearing 9 || scheduled for Friday, June 21, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. before the Committee on Moral Character and 10 | Fitness, u I 12 FACTS 13 On or about the last week of July, 2001, the Applicant, Zachary Coughlin, undertook and 14 J subsequently passed the bar exam for the State of Nevada. Mr. Coughlin passed the exam prior 15 } to his graduation from the University of Las Vegas Boyd School of Law (hereinafier referred to 16 J as“UNLV”), Mr. Coughlin subsequently completed the required courses in the winter semester 17 | of 2001and received his diploma contemporaneous therewith. Because of a number of instances 18 } involving Mr. Conghlin’s academic career at UNLV as well as an arrest by the Las Vegas 19 | Metropolitan Police Department, the State Bar deemed it appropriate to stay Mr. Coughlin’s 20 | admission pursuant to Supreme Court Rule $1(4) and hold a hearing wherein the burden would 21 | upon Mr. Coughlin to establish that he: 2 4)... is of good moral character and is willing and able to abide by the high ethical standards required of attorneys and 23 counselors and law 24 SCR 51(4). 25 ‘That initial hearing was scheduled for March 1, 2002, and the State Bar had subpoenaed 26 Dean Richard Morgan from the UNLV Boyd School of Law. Mr. Coughlin appeared at the 27 | *frementioned hearing without counsel and after some dialogue, said hearing was continued to 2 allow Mr. Coughlin the ability to obtain counsel. The hearing is now scheduled for June 21,woe 10 12 13 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 7 2002, at 9:00 a.m., at the Offices of the State Bar of Nevada. (See Notice of Formal Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) Attached to the Notice of Formal Hearing is a notice that Dean Richard Morgan will also appear and offer “a") testimony, (See Exhibit ‘The transcription of the March 1, 2002 hearing wherein Committee Members discussed concerns over the aforementioned areas has been provided to the undersigned. To be concise, it appears the Committee has three basic areas of concer, to wit: 1) Zack Coughlin’s arrest by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department on or about October 22, 2001; 2) Mr. Coughlin’s unprofessional reactions in confrontational situations both in employment as well as in the academic field; and 3) Mr, Coughlin’s emotional state at the me of the previous hearing before this Committee on March 1, 2001 Mr. Coughlin understands that it is his burden to establish his high moral and ethical character pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules and intends to offer as witnesses Dr. Tim Coughlin, the Applicant's father, as well as Dr. Robert E. Hunter, Ph.D. Dr. Hunter's address is 1640 Alta Drive, Suite 11, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106. The three areas of concern will be addressed in the order presented. nL. - LEGAL ARGUMENT While it is undisputed the burden must fall upon the Applicant, Zachary Coughlin, to establish his high moral character, it is of import for the Committee to recall the standards set by the Nevada Supreme Court in defining this issue. In State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 756 P.2d 464 (Nev. 1988), the Nevada State Bar readmitted the applicant, Claiborne, who has been previously convicted in Federal Court of a crime involving moral turpitude. In a seventy-one (71) page opinion, the Court discussed how it was important to go beyond just the fact that a conviction was present to determine whether the applicant, a convicted felon, could subsequently regain the requirements for professional moral character. In deciding that Henry Claiborne should be allowed to practice law in the State of Nevada, the Court astutely noted the reasons behind our Supreme Court Rules which are the “fundamental concerns of protecting the public 2from unethical behavior, preserving public confidence in the judicial system and legal profession, and faimess to the applicant.” Id. (See Petition of Burmingham, 866 P.2d 1150 (Nev. 1994).) In {he instant matter, these fundamental concerns as laid out by our Supreme Court can clearly be addressed and the burden overcome by Applicant, Zachary Coughlin. Therefore, the ultimate question for the Committee members and Supreme Court is what, if any, conditions should be Placed upon the admission of Zachary Coughlin to practice law in the State of Nevada. Any qualification short of an unconditional license “must have a rational connection with th applicant’s fitness or capacity to practice law.” Application of Nort, 605 P.2d 627 (Nev. 1980). As the following Points and Authorities will clearly demonstrate, Mr. Coughlin is fit to practice law in the State of Nevada. Neither Mr, Coughlin, his father, Dr. Hunter, nor the undersigned will submit that some of his past actions have been anything short of unprofessional. However, when the Committee hears the facts and circumstances ‘surrounding the life of Mr. Coughlin as well as the extreme stresses on both a personal and scholastic nature under which he was ‘operating, it is believed the Committee will see fit to grant an unconditional admission to practice law, Additionally, Mr. Coughlin has taken affirmative steps to ensure this Committee that such lapses in judgment will not continue in his professional career. Combining these two factors and weighing them against light of the three areas of concern should result in the Applicant's admission... Following the aborted hearing with the State Bar on March 1, 2002, Mr. Coughlin, on the advice of counsel, made an appointment and began psychotherapy with Dr. Robert E. Hunter. As of May 21, 2002, Mr. Coughlin had completed six sessions, was “compliant with therapy and appear[ed] to be deriving some benefit from the process.” (See May 21, 2002 correspondence from Dr. Robert E. Hunter attached hereto as hibit “B” and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) Dr. Hunter is of the opinion that Mr. Coughlin suffered from an adjustment reaction, Dr. Hunter described this diagnosis as implying a “normal” person undergoing substantial situational stress. Dr. Hunter concluded “I strongly believe Mr. Coughlin is fit for the practice of law. . despite the obvious lapse in judgment evident in some of his recent actions 3]which 1 attribute to stress, he shows excellent pre-morbid adjustment and displays no sign of impairment.” (See Exhibit “B”.) Dr. Hunter's conclusion after more than six hours of sessions as well as a diagnostic session with the Applicant, Zachary Coughlin, should not be taken lightly. Mr. Coughlin is a young man who, in addition to the stresses of taking the bar in the State of Nevada, had, just Prior to the last Committee hearing, taken the bar in the State of California. He was undergoing Severe financial stress as will be attested to by his father, Dr. Tim Coughlin. Combined with those financial stresses were some personal stresses such as a break-up of a long term relationship, parental problems, and a general lack of support system. A thorough review of the tunprofessional e-mails sent by Mr. Coughlin support this contention. Hopefully, the following can put into context the issues over which the Committee has previously expressed concern. J. Mr. Coughlin’s arrest by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Zack Coughlin was arrested on or about October 21, 2001 by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter referred to as “LVMPD”) and charged with three misdemeanors by the Clark County District Attomey’s Office. Mr. Coughlin appeared at his initial arraignment, met with Chief Deputy William Hehn from the Clark County District Attomey’s Office, and all three of those charges were dismissed. Mr. Coughlin was not convicted of any charge nor has he Previously been cited for anything other than minor traffic violations save and except the incident in question, Less than one week after he was arrested by LVMPD, Mr. Coughlin notified the State Bar of Nevada, (See October 29, 2001 correspondence from Mr. Coughlin to Patricia Eichman, Director of Admissions, attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) Mr. Coughlin also informed Ms. Eichman of the results, eg. the dismissal ched of these charges on or about December 4, 2001. (See December 4, 2001 correspondence att hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) The Committee members previously questioned Mr. Coughlin about the incident involving his illegal entry into a movie theater to watch a show without paying and a subsequent fleeing of the scene, Nobody will contest the entrance and especially the exit from the movie theater are examples of very poor judgment. This scenario occurred in the midst of the formal 4student investigation on Mr. Coughlin regarding academic dishonesty. While that investigation will be discussed in greater detail below, the timing of the incident with LVMPD comports with the diagnosis of Dr. Hunter of Mr. Coughlin’s stress disorder. While it does not excuse the unprofessional and immature actions and reaction of Mr. Coughlin, his prompt notice to the State Bar as well as his ability to professionally follow up and handle the situation which resulted in a dismissal of all charges, do support his strong moral character. In light of the Claiborne decision, it would scem that dismissal of these charges alone should prompt the Committee to disregard this area as a barrier to Mr, Coughlin receiving uncond nal approval to practice law in the State of Nevada. 2. Zack Coughlin’s unprofessional reactions in confrontational situations both in employment as well as in the academic field. Itis expected Dean Richard Morgan will testify at the hearing on June 21, 2002. The undersigned spoke to Dean Morgan on or about May 15, 2002 regarding Mr. Coughlin. As Dean of the law school, Mr. Morgan’s duties cause him to be familiar with any and all student investigations or incidents. He was, therefore, familiar with Mr. Coughlin and a number of issues relating to Mr. Coughlin's employment at the law library and academic record. After reviewing the inappropriate e-mails and allegations regarding the propriety of his actions while ‘employed at the-law library, it does not appear that any of these accusations, standing alone, would hinder or cause the Committee pause in granting unconditional admission. The one area which does deserve some explanation is the investigation surrounding Mr. Coughlin’s status in a Internet Law class taught by Professor Mark Tratos. Mr. Coughlin contended he tumed in a paper which Professor Tratos was later unable to find, This paper and class were undertaken in Mr. Coughlin’s second to last semester simultaneous to studying and sitting for the Nevada bar exam. At the last hearing, the Commitice suggested an affidavit of student or students who saw Mr. Coughlin tum in the paper in question might be advisable. The Affidavit of Amy Jones, who was also a student in the Internet Law Class, swears under penalty of perjury that on or about December 2001, she personally witnessed Mr. Coughlin tum in a hard copy of the paper. (See Affidavit of Amy Jones6 attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) What followed was a series of e-mails, some of which are most gracious, most of which are unprofessional at best. The Committee must remember, this issue comes at a time when Mr. Coughlin is studying for or awaiting the results of the bar and is awaiting only his diploma to practice law in the State of Nevada. He was financially hard pressed and receiving no help whatsoever from any family members. Additionally, his loans were late in arriving and he was living in garages and extra rooms as his friends saw fit to donate. While none of these offer an explanation for the idiotic e- mails sent to Professor Tratos, the end result should weigh heavily in the Committee's consideration. Professor Mark Tratos gave Mr. Coughlin a passing grade on the paper (which was ultimately found in rough draft form and submitted). (See Exhibit “F” attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) Furthermore, prior to receiv’ 1g any grade in the class in question, Mr. Coughlin sent an apology letter to Professor Tratos laying out in great detail his acknowledgment of the impropriety of the correspondence previously sent via e-mail (See correspondence to Professor Tratos attached hereto as Exhibit “G” and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.) Professor Tratos, who had the final say in the class and paper in gave Mr. Coughlin a passing grade and this Committee’s recommendation sh question, follow suit. iN ‘One other potential problematic afea in terms of Mr. Coughlin’s employment history with the law library at the Boyd School of Law involved two instances. ‘The first was Mr. Coughlin’s pasting of mailing labels in a files that his superiors found unacceptable. Mr. Coughlin will acknowledge that he did it as a Eintish and immature response to being asked to paste labels. The second, involved Mr Coughlin moving a computer so that he could personally use it within the law library, Exhibit “H” attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein is Mr. Coughlin’s notification to Patrice Bichman that a One Hundred Dollar ($100.00) fine was assessed because staff time was used to check and sce if he had correctly plugged the computer monitor, keyboard, and mouse into the hard drive. While both of these incidents are childish in nature, there was never a finding by the Student Judicial Affairs Officer that any academic 61] dishonesty was committed. In light of that fact, it is respectfully requested the Committee follow 2 | suit and recommend an unconditional approval of Zack Coughlin admission to the bar. Of 3 || import is Mr. Coughlin’s timely notice to the State Bar of the student investigation again 4 || demonstrating some level of maturity and responsibility. 3. Zack Coughlin’s presentation of March 1, 2002 before the Bar Commitee. While the undersigned was not present at the last hearing, it appears quite clear from the transcript, Mr. Coughlin was undergoing emotional stress that he did not handle correctly and 8 || resulted in an emotional outburst. The Committee, to its credit, stayed the remainder of the 9 | hearing and strongly advised Mr. Coughlin to seck counsel and/or professional advice. Mr. 10 ] Coughlin followed those recommendations and sought the professional psychological advice of 11 } Dr. Rob Hunter. He has spent numerous hours with Dr. Hunter who has conducted many types 12 || of tests and evaluated Mr. Coughlin as previously having a poor ability to handle stressful 13 }| situations. It is the professional opinion of Dr. Hunter that Mr. Coughlin has learned a great deal 14} from the sessions in question and is now better equipped to handle the stress of practicing law in 15 ] light of the high moral standards the State Bar of Nevada requires, (See Exhibit “B”,) 16 | Hopefully, Dr. Hunter will appear at the hearing and express his opinion to the Committee in 17} person. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Zachary Coughlin is an extremely bright and successful young man who over the last 20 | cight or nine months has exhibited a half dozen inappropriate and unprof onal responses to 21 | stressful situations. Not only has Mr. Coughlin leamed form those situations with the 22 | professional guidance of Dr. Hunter, but has prior to that, tried to work his way through them 23 | alone. He promptly notified the State Bar when he had problems, he followed up on his own 24 | issues and did the best he could, Mr. Coughlin wholeheartedly concedes the assistance of Dr. 25 | Hunter has been invaluable. He now has mechanisms to deal with stress which he did not 26 | possess in the past. He understands life as a practicing attorney may be stressful and that, quite 27 | candidly, more stress is yet to come. However, itis submitted he is prepared to deal with the 28 | stress and would therefore respectfully request the Committee recommeng to the Supreme Court 726 28 of Nevada his unconditional admission to practice law in the State, If the Committee has any hesitancy or wants to place any condition on Mr. Coughlin’s ability to practice law, itis requested that Mr. Coughlin be required to show proof of ongoing outpatient therapy with Dr. Hunter on a monthly basis for a period of one year DATED this_1& day of June, 2002. Respectfully submitted by: CHRISTIANSEN LAW OFFICES eS Nevada Bar No. 00525 520 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorney for ZACHARY COUGHLIN