I,

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
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
Case No: NGI2-0204, NG12-0435 and NG12-0434
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD
STATE BAR OF NEVADA,
Complainant,
vs.
ZACHARY B. COUGHLI N, ESQ.,
Bar No. 9473
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
THIS MATTER came before a designated Formal Hearing Panel of the Norther Nevada
Disciplinar Board (the "Panel") for heaing on Wednesday, November 14, 2012. The Panel
consisted of John P. Echeverria, Esq., Chairman; Lay-Member Karen Pearl, Stephen Kent, Esq.,
Clark V. Vellis, Esq., and Michael K. Johnson, Esq .. The State Bar of Nevada (the "State Bar")
appeared and was represented by Deputy Bar Counsel, Patrick O. King, Esq.. The Respondent,
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Nevada State Bar No. 9473 (the "Respondent" or "Coughlin") appeared
in propria persona.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the pleadings fled, the documentary evidence admitted as Hearing Exhibits 1
through 16, and the testimonial evidence of the Honorable Judge Bruce Beesley, Richard Hill, Esq.,
Paul EIcano, Esq., the Honorable Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes, Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq. and
Mary Barker presented at the hearing of these proceedings, the Panel makes fndings of facts as
follows:
1. Coughlin is an attorey licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada. At all
relevat times prior to ad at the time of the fing of the Complaint in this matter, the Respondent's
principle ofce, as fled with the State Bar of Nevada in accordance with Rule of Professional
'"
.
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
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
Conduct ("RPC") 79(1)(a), was Post Ofce Box 3961, Reno, NV 89505. See Hearing Exhibit I at
0001, lines 7-10 (State Ba of Nevada vs. Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Case No: NGI2-0204, NGI2-
0435, NG I 2-0434, Complaint at PI (fled August 23, 2012
2. Coughlin was admitted as a member of the State Bar of Nevada on March 25, 2005.
See Hearing Exhibit 1 at 0001, lines 7-8 (State Bar of Nevada vs. Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq., Case
No: NGI2-0204, NG12-0435, NGI2-0434, Complaint at PI (fled August 23, 2012
3. On September 9, 2011, Coughlin shoplifed a candy bar and cough drops from a
Wal-Mart store wm a approximate value of fourteen dollars ($14.00). On November 30, 2011,
Municipal Court Judge Kenneth R. Howard found Coughlin guilty of the ofense of Petit Larceny, a
violation of RMC 8.10.040. Coughlin appealed the judgment of conviction. On March 15, 2012,
the Honorable District Court Judge Steven P. Elliot afrmed the judgment of conviction on appeal.
See Hearing Exhibit 1 at 0002, 5, lines 11-15; (State Bar of Nevada vs. Zachary B. Coughlin, Esq.,
Case No: NGI2-0204, NGI2-0435, NGI2-0434, Complaint at P2 (fled August 23, 2012
4. Coughlin'S conduct during the ta of the petit laceny case on November 30, 2011,
in which Coughlin appeared in propria persona, was so disruptive that Judge Howard found
Coughlin in direct contempt of court and sentenced him to jail that same day to be released on
December 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM. Judge Howad specifcally found Coughlin's conduct to be
disorderly and was either contemptuous or behavior insolent toward the judge in that Coughlin
refsed:
... to obey directives of the Judge, continuing lines of inquiry afer
being advised by the Court to refrain from doing so; demeaning the Court
with statements such as "WOW" in response to court rulings; laughing
during testimony and frther questioning the court and its authority.
See Hearing Exhibit 11, ORDER FOR SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF CONTEMPT
COMMITTED I THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND PRESENCE OF THE COURT, November 30,
2011.
5. On June 7, 2012, the Supreme Cou of the State of Nevada, upon petition of Bar
Counsel for the State Bar of Nevada pursuant to SCR 111, ordered Coughlin temporaily suspended
from the practice of law in Nevada. The Order fher directed that the matter be referred to the
- 2 -


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
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
appropriate disciplinary board, as mandated by SCR 111 (8), with directions for the board to
institute a formal heaing "before a hearing panel in which the sole issue to be determined shall be
the extent of the discipline to be imposed." In the Matter of Discipline of ZACHARY B.
COUGHLIN, Esq., Bar No. 9473, No. 60838, June 7, 2012.
6. On November 15, 2011 Coughlin was arrested and charged with three violations of
the Reno Municipal Code. The charges of Failure to Provide Evidence of Security or Insurance (a
violation of RMC 6.06.555(a)) and Failure to Provide Vehicle Registration (a violation of RMC
6.06.560(a)) were dismissed at arraignment. On February 27, 2012 a trial was held in Reno
Municipal Court before the Honorable Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes on the remaining charge of a
Right of Way Stop Sign violation at an intersection (a violation of RMC 6.06.170(a)). Coughlin
again appeared in propria persona. The trial commenced at 3 p.m. and was concluded by the Court
at 4:30 p.m., without a verdict, afer the court held Coughlin in criminal contempt of court for his
behavior and activities committed during the course of the trial and in the presence of the Court.
See Hearing Exhibit 4, ORDER FINDING THE DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND
IMPOSING SANCTIONS.
7. Judge Nash Holmes ordered Coughlin into custody on February 27, 2012 ad to be
incacerated at the Washoe County Regional Detention Facility for the term of fve (5) days.
Alteratively Coughlin could pay a fne of $500. The Court's sentence was based on its detailed
fndings regarding Coughlin's conduct in his own defense.
The court fmds that defendant's contemptuous conduct consisted of his
rude, sarcastic, inappropriate, insubordinate, disrespectfl, antagonistic,
deceitfl, disruptive, argumentative and childish behavior during trial, all
of which appeared to be done to vex and annoy the court, the witness, and
the opposing party, and to disrupt the trial process. The court fnds that
the following occurred, and constitute contempt: 1) defendat's mime
like, clownish antics of making faces at the court; sagging down into his
seat and hanging his head; looking behind himself and inside his coat as if
searching for a better way to ask a question; rolling his eyes; and
mimicking others words; 2) defendant's incessant arguing with the court,
talking over the court, and interrupting the court; 3) defendant's repeatedly
restating matters afer being told by the court to "move on" or "ask the
next question;" 4) defendant's repeatedly injecting allegations of briber,
perur, and police retaliation into the matter afer the court instrcted him
not to, and directed him to limit himself to issues pertaining to the facts of
the "Boulevard Stop;" 5) defendant's repeatedly trying to insert" Richard
- 3 -
Hill" into his questions ad statements when such person was not relevant
to the proceeding and the defendant had been ordered to stop discussing
that; 6) defendant's disregading the rules of evidence and court procedure
by continually posing improper questions afer being directed by the court
to properly phrase his questions 7) defendant's continually accusing the
court 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 would make you happy;" 9)
defendant's lying to the cout in response to direct questions posed by the
court with regard to his recording the proceedings; and 10) defendant's
failing and refsing to properly 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.
See Hearing Exhibit 4, ORDER FINDING THE DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND
IMPOSING SANCTIONS.
8. The trial of the matter was continued to March 12, 2012. Coughlin failed to appear
and failed to contact the court to explain or excuse his absence. However, afer serving the fve-day
Contempt of Court sanction and afer being released fom custody, Coughlin fax-fled a 224-page
document entitled "Notice of Appeal of Summary Contempt Order; Motion to Retu Personal
Property Confscated by Reno Municipal Courts and Its Marshalls; Motion for New Trial and to
Alter or Aend Sum ary Contempt Order." See Hearing Exhibit 5, ORDER, P 2, lines 1
-
6.
9. Judge Nash Holmes observed that the pleading fled by Coughlin failed to address
most of the topics listed in the caption. Rather, she observed, the document contained rambling
references to Coughlin's personal life, his father's football career in college; dozens of pages of
string citations taken from the interet and other unrelated references. Judge Nash Holmes found
the pleading to be disjointed and incoherent and a "pathetic demonstration of what might once have
been legal and academic prowess that appears to now be greatly damaged." See Hearing Exhibit 5,
ORDER, P2, lines 9-15; P2, lines 16-20.
10. Judge Nash Holmes also found that Coughlin, afer being released from custody
following the Februar 27, 2012 Contempt of Cou incaceration, fled other nonsensical pleadings
including a 218 page document
- 4 -

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
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
.,. purported to be yet aother motion in this case entitled "Motion
to Retu Cell Phones; Motion to Set Aside Sumary Contempt Order;
and Notice of Appeal of Summar Contempt Order." With scant
discussion of, or relevance to, the above captioned matter, said document
mostly agues against Judge Howard in a Department 4 case and again
contains more than 200 pages of sting legal citations; lyrics to rocks (sic)
songs; Mr. Coughlin's personal family history; discussion of an eviction
case ad another contempt case; disjointed legal citations and other
nonsensical matters that have no apparent relevace to his tafc citation
case.
See Heaing Exhibit 5, ORDER, P3, lines 11-19.
11. Afer observing that Coughlin's conduct had been inappropriate, bizarre, dishonest,
irrational and disruptive, Judge Nash Holmes concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Coughlin had committed numerous acts of attorey misconduct, including, but not limited to,
violating Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 3.3(a), 3.1, 3.2, 3.4(c), 1.3 and 1.1. See
Hearing Exhibit 5, ORDER, P,3, lines 25-26; P4, lines 5-23.
12. Judge Nash Holmes also concluded that Coughlin violated Nevada Supreme Court
Rule 229, section 2(b), as amended by ADKT 449 on August 1, 2011 by surreptitiously recording
the trafc court proceedings without advance permission and lying to the court when questioned
regarding the matter by denying that he had done so. See Hearing ExhibitS, ORDER, P,4, lines 24-
28.
13, Judge Nash Holmes ordered, among other orders, that the traffc court matter be
continued and a proceedings relating to the trafc court matter b tolled pending referral of the
matter to te State Bar of Nevada. See Hearing Exhibit 5, ORDER, P,4, lines 7-I8
14. On March 14, 2012, Judge Nash Holmes referred the matter of Coughlin to State Bar
Counsel David Clark and suggested the matter had some urgency. See Hearing Exhibit 8, Letter
dated March 14, 2012 from Reno Municipal Court Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes to Ofce of State
Bar Counsel, Nevada State Bar.
15. Judge Holmes testifed at the hearing of this disciplinary matter that one of the
purposes of her March 14, 2012 Order was to provide the panel to hear this matter with clea ad
convincing evidence, based on her experience and background asa attonc
)
, prosccutorundjudgc,
- 5 -
PRINTED ON
1 that Coughlin had violated numerous provisions of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. See
2 Transcript of Proceedings, Wednesday, November 14,2012, P 137, L 22 -P 138, L 9.
3 16. u.s. Banruptcy Judge Bruce Beesley was called to testif at the hearing of this
13 17. Judge Beesley becae concered, wrote a letter to the State Bar explaining his
14 experience wit Coughlin and indicated that he did not believe Coughlin, in his current state, was
15 able to adequately represent his clients. See Trascript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14,
16 2012, P 13, L 24 -P 14, L 7.
17 18. In Judge Beesley's opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law. See
18 Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14,2012, PIS, L 11 - 15.
19 19. State Bar Counsel called attorey Richard Hill to testi(at the hearing of this matter:
20 M. Hill has been a member in good standing with the State Bar of Nevada for 33 yeas. See
21 Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 36, L 22 - P 37 L 4. Mr. Hill was
22 retained by Dr. Merliss to assist Dr. Merliss in a landlord tenant dispute with his tenant Coughlin.
23 See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 37, L14 - 20. Mr. Hill
24 represented Dr. Merliss in Reno Justice Court and Washoe County District Court and two appeals to
25 the Nevada Supreme Cour in the matters involving Dr. Merliss and Coughlin. See Transcript of
26 Proceedings Wednesday, November 14,2012, P 39, L 13 - 24. Mr. Hill has also reviewed flings in
27 a case in which Coughlin is involved with Washoe Legal Serices. See Transcrip of Proceedings
28 Wednesday,. November 14,2012, P 39, L 25 -P 40, L 3.
RECYCLED PAER
-6-
1 20. In the eviction proceeding between D. Meriiss and Coughlin, Mr. Hill's fr
2 obtained a eviction order allowing Coughlin one week to vacate the premises. Ultimately,
3 Coughlin failed to comply with the eviction order and was convicted of criminal trespass. See
4 Trascript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 41, L 18 -P 44, L 12.
5 21. On behalf of his client Dr. Merliss, Mr. Hill sought and obtained an order in favor of
6 Dr. Merliss and against Coughlin awarding Dr. Merliss attorey's fees in the amount of $42,065.50.
7 Washoe District Cour Judge Patrick Flanagan entered the order on June 25, 2012. See Transcript
8 of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 47, L 3-7. -See Hearing Exhibit 2, P 3, L 10-11.
9 The motion seeking attorey's fees was based on Coughlin's conduct in the defense of the eviction
10 matter, which conduct was chaacterized as frivolous and vexatious and presumably so found by
11 Judge Flanagan. See Hearing Exhibit 2, P 2, L 8-13; P 3, L 4-11.
12 22. Based on Mr. Hill's experience and background, his review of the pleadings in the
13 litigation between Dr. Merliss and Coughlin and his review of the pleadings in Coughlin's litigation
14 with Washoe Legal Services, Mr. Hill is of the opinion that Coughlin is not competent to practice
15 law. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 39, L 1 - 12.
16 23. Based on Mr. Hill's experience in litigating with Coughlin, Coughlin was not
17 truthful with either counsel or the court. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14,
18 2012, P 53, L 6 - 16. M. Hill felt that Coughlin's flings were abusive, at one point calling Mr.
19 Hill's associate a lichen. Coughlin has accused M. Hill of bribing the Reno Police Department to
20 have Coughlin arrested. Mr. Hill's staf is terrorized by Coughlin. See Transcript of Proceedings
21 Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 54, L 4 - 15..
22 24. State Bar Cousel called attorey Paul Elcao to testif at the hearing of this matter.
23 M. Elcano is the executive director of Washoe Legal Services that provides legal services to
24 indigents. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 88, L 25 -P 89, L 14.
25 Coughlin was employed by Washoe Legal Services from August 29, 2007 to May 11, 2009. See
26 Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 93, L 17 - 20. Mr. EJcano became
27 aware of an order entered by Judge Gardner on April 10, 2009 in te mater of Joshi v Joshi and, as
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
- 7 -
1 a result, reviewed the taped transcript of the hearing. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday,
2 November 14, 201 2, P 94, L 22 -P 95, L 6.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
25. Judge Gardner's order in the Joshi matter indicated that Coughlin had conducted no
discovery in the case and failed to present any documentary evidence at the trial of the matter on
behalf of his client Mrs. Joshi. See Hearing Exhibit 3, P 1 2, L 4 - 6. Afer commenting on various
negative aspects of Coughlin's representation of hs client Mrs. Joshi, (See Hearing Exhibit 3, P 1 2,
L 9 -P 1 3, L 40) Judge Gardner specifcally held:
The most troubling aspect of this case was Mr. Coughlin's rde, sarcastic
and disrespectfl presentation at trial; Mr. Coughlin's inability to
understand a balance sheet; his failure to conduct discovery; and his lack
. of knowledge with regard to the rules of evidence and trial procedure. All
of ts was compounded with a continuously antagonistic presentation of
the case that resulted in a shif from a fairly simple divorce case to a
.
contentious divorce trial lasting an excessive amount of time.
1 3
See Hearing Exhibit 3, P 1 3, L 5 - 1 0
1
4
26. Judge Gardner sanctioned Coughlin personally and awarded attorey's fees to Mr.
15
Joshi in the amount of $934 to be paid personally by Coughlin within 30 days of the order. See
1 6
Hearing Exhibit 3, P 1 3, L 1 4 - 1 7
1 7
27. Based on the order and Coughlin's conduct in the Joshi matter, Coughlin was
1 8
terminated by Washoe Legal Services. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 1 4,
1 9
201 2, P lO, L 7 -8
20
28. In Mr. Elcano's opinion, Coughlin is not competent to practice law. See Transcript
2 1
of Proceedings Wednesday, November 1 4, 201 2, P 94, L 3 - 8.
22
29. State Bar Counsel called Coughlin to testif at the hearing of the matter. Coughlin
23
was questioned with regard to a letter dated February 14, 201 2 from Assistant Bar Counsel King to
24
Coughlin in which Bar Counsel forarded to Coughlin correspondence received from Richad G.
25
Hill. See Transcript of Proceedin Wednesday, November 1 4, 2012, P 163, L 1 3 - P 1 64, L 23.
26
See Hearing Exhibit 6. Coughlin's response, dated March 9, 201 2, asked for additional time in
27
which to respond. See Heaing Exhibit 7. No evidence was presented that Coughlin substantively
28
responded to Ba Counsel's letter of Februar 1 4,201 2 prior to the filing of the Complaint in this
PRlTEDON
RCYCLED PAER
-
8
-
1 matter. Coughlin failed to directly respond to Bar Counsel's questions inquiring if Coughlin ever
2 subsequently responded to Bar Counsel's letter of February 14, 201 2. See Transcript of
3 Proceedings Wednesday, November 1 4, 201 2, P 1 69, L 1 3 -P 1 72, L 1 6.
4 30. Coughlin also failed to directly respond to questioning regarding whether or not he
5 had substantively responded, prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter, to a letter forwarded
6 to him from Bar Counsel regarding the letter received by the Nevada State Bar from Judge Dorothy
7 Nash Holmes and dated March 1 4, 201 2. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 1 4,
8 201 2, P 1 74, L 1 3 - P 1 80, L 4. See Hearing Exhibit 8.
9 3 1 . On March 7, 201 2 Coughlin caused to be filed an "Afdavit of Poverty in Support of
10 Motion to Proceed Inorma Pauperis." See Hearing Exhibit 9. In his Afdavit, Coughlin
1 1 represented that he was self-employed as a "Jack of all Trades." See Hearing Exhibit 9. The
1 2 Afdavit does not identif Mr. Coughlin as a lawyer or identit any income fom the practice of
1 3 law. See Hearing Exhibit 9.
1 4 32. The record also indicates that Coughlin had also fled a motion on November 1 4,
15 201 1 to proceed it Forma Pauperis in case number I1CR 221 76 pending in the Reno Municipal
1 6 Court before Judge Kenneth R. Howard. See Hearing Exhibit 1 0. Judge Howard's Order denying
1 7 Coughlin's motion specifcally noted that Coughlin's "afdavit of poverty" did not identif any
1 8 income fom the practice of law yet Coughlin had implied to the court when sentenced to
1 9 incarceration for contempt that his incarceration would adversely afect his clients. See Hearing
20 Exhibit 1 0, P 2, L 1 9 - 23.
21 33. Although Coughlin claims to sufer the impairment of attention defcit disorder, for
22 which he is prescribed medication and which medication he took on the day of his hearing, he does
23 not feel he needs any additional help. See Tran. scripL9J Procedings Wednesday, November 1 4,
24 2012, P 199, L 13 -P 204, L 9.
25 34. On August 23, 201 2, the State Bar of Nevada fled its Complaint in this matter and
26 served it upon Respondent Coughlin by Certified Mail to his address then registered with the State
27 Bar of Nevada. See Pleadings Docket. Complaint.
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
- 9 -
PRINTED ON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
35. Not having received a response to the Complaint, on October 9, 201 2 the State Bar
of Nevada fled and served on Respondent Coughlin, by certifed mail, a "Notice of Intent to
Proceed on a Default Basis." The Notice attached an additional copy of the Complaint and
indicated that unless a responsive pleading to the Complaint was received by the State Bar by
October 24, 2012, the matter would proceed on a default basis. See Pleadings Docket, Notice of
Intent to Proceed on a Default Basis.
36. On October 31, 2012 Panel Chair Echeverria issued the Panel's Order denying
Coughlin's "Motion to Dismiss" fled October 16, 2012; Denying Coughlin's "Motion for Order to
Show Cause Regarding Improper Attempt by Bar Counsel and, Possibly, NDB to Delay and
Obstruct Hearing Required by Courts (sic) June 7, 2012 Order in Case No. 60838 and Coughlin's
SCR 102(4)(d) Petition in Case 6 1426 fled October 2, 2012; Granting Coughlin's Motion to
Review and Inspect Bar Records fled October 16, 2012 and Denying Coughlin's Motion to
Bifurcate Hearing and Motion to Dismiss for (sic) Complaint (sic) Failure to Sufciently State the
Charges with Specifcity and Support and for Utter Failure of Bar Counsel to Perform Reasonable
Investigation." See Pleadings Docket, Order Dated October 3 1, 2012. In that Order, Chairman
Echeverria frther ordered that the Formal Hearing would proceed on a default basis unless
Coughlin fled a Verifed Answer to the Complaint by November 9, 2012. See Pleadings Docket,
Order Dated October 3 1,2012, P 2, L 7-10.
37. Again on November 7, 2012, Chairan Echeveria, in an Order Granting the State
Bar's Motion to Quash certain Subpoenas reminded Coughlin that unless a Verifed Answer to the
Complaint was fled by 5:00 p.m. on November 9,2012 the panel would proceed on a default basis.
See Pleadings Docket, Order Dated November 7, 2012, P 2, L 8 - 13.
38. Following a lengthy attempt to determine whether or not Coughlin believed he had
24 filed a timely verifed answer or response to the State Bar's Complaint, Coughlin attempted, at the
25 hearing of the matter, to transform a pleading previously fled in the Reno Municipal Court into a
26 "New Verifed Response (sic) Pre-Hearing Motion to Dismiss/Sum ary Judgment, Memorandum
27 of Law (See Hearing Exhibit 14) and to transform an "Emergency Ex Pate Motion to Dismiss ... "
28 previously dated November 12, 2012 and altered at the hearing to reflect a date of November 14,
RECYCLED PAPER
- 10 -
1 2012 into a "Declaation and Verifed Response." See Hearing Exhibits 1 5 and 1 6. See Transcript
2 of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14,2012, P 244, L 1 6 - P 270, L II.
3 39. During the course of the heaing of this matter Coughlin continued to demonstate a
4 patter of conduct simila to, if not identical to, conduct in other forums for which he had repeatedly
5 been sanctioned. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14,2012. Pleadings in this
6 matter fled by Coughlin were exceedingly lengthy, demonstated a lack of focus ad understnding
7 of the issues involved, were rabling ard incoherent ad contained discussion of irrelevant issues.
8 cc cy HcwngLxbL 14, 15 and 16. See also, PlcangsDockct, "Mouon lorOrder to Show
9 Cause .. . " dated October 2,201 2; "Motion to Review ad Inspect Ba Records . . . " Filed October 1 6,
1 0 2012; Pleading entitled "Well Would You Look at That ... " dated November 7,2012; "Emergency
11 Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss or Quash ... " Filed November 1 3,2012.
12 40. Coughlin's conduct at the hearing included conduct not refected in the tascript of
13 the proceedings by way of facial gestures, body language, voice intonation and volume. See
14 Trascript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 1 4, 201 2, P 181, L 19- P 1 82, L 1 .
15
16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Pael hereby issues the following Conclusions
18
of Law:
19
(A) The Pael was desigated by te norther Nevada Disciplinay Boad Chair to
20
adjudicate the Complaint fled by the State Bar of Nevada aganst Zacha B. Coughlin, Case Nos.
21
NGI2-0204, NG12-0435 ad NG12-0434 and to determine the extent of the discipline to be
22
imposed pursuant to the Nevada Supreme Court Order of Temporay Suspension and Referral to
23
Disciplinary Board entered in Case No. 60838, In the Matter of Discipline of Zachary B. Coughlin,
24
Esq., Bar No. 9473, entered June 7, 201 2.
25
(B) The Pael has jurisdiction over the Respondent and the subject matter of these
26
proceedings. See Nev. Sup. Ct. R. 99.
27
(C) Venue in this matter is properly with the Norther Nevada Disciplinary Board and in
28
the County of Washoe, State of Nevada. Nev. Sup. Ct. R. 105.
PRD ON
RECYCLED PAPE
- 1 1 -
PRITED ON
1 (D) Coughlin received notice and a copy of the Complaint, notice of his right to respond,
2 as well as notice of te evidence and witesses upon which the State Ba intended to rely at a foral
3 hearing. Notice of the formal heang was sered on Coughlin. Coughlin appeared in the matter,
4 fled numerus motions, appared at the hearing of the matter, crss-examined witesses and testifed
5 on behalf of the State Bar and on his own behalf. Accordingly, the State Bar complied with the
6 procedural requirements of SCR lOS.
7 (E) Coughlin was aforded ample opportuty to prepare a verifed answer or response to
8 the allegations of the Complaint and failed to timely do so. See Findings of Fact 34, 3S and 36.
9 Accordingly, the matter could proceed on a default basis and the allegations of the Complaint deemed
10 admitted. SCR 10S(2) Notwithstanding the fact that the matter could have been decided on a default
11 basis, the Panel permitted the State Bar and Coughlin to present evidence.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(F)
Counsel)
Tribunal)
Submited to te panel for decision are the following issues:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(S)
(6)
Whether Coughlin violated RPC 1.1 (Competence).
Whether Coughlin violated RPC 1.2 (Diligence).
Wheter Coughlin violated RPC 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions)
Whether Coughlin violated RPC 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal).
Whether Coughlin violated RPC 3.4 (Fairess to Opposing Paty and
Whether Coughlin violated RC 3.5 (Imparialit ad Decorum of the
\
21 Whether Coughlin violated RPC 3.SA (Relations with Opposing Counsel)
(8) 22 Whether Coughlin violated RPC 4.1 (Truthflness in Statements to Others)
(9) 23 Whether Coughlin violated RPC 4.4 (Respct for the Rights of Third Persons)
(10) 24 Whether Coughlin violated RPC 8.1 (Disciplina Matters)
(11) 25 Whether Coughlin violated RPC 8.2 (Judicial and Legal Ofcials)
26 Whether Coughlin violated RPC 8.4 (Misconduct) (12)
27 The extent of the discipline to be imposed pursuat to SCR III a a result of
(13)
28 Coughlin's conviction of the "serious" crime of Petit Larceny.
RECYCLED PAPER
- ]
2 -
PRINTED ON
1 (G) The State Ba must prove by clea and convincing evidence that Coughin violated
2 RC 1.1,' 1.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5,4.1,4.4, 5A (sic), 8.1, 8.2, and 8.4. See Nev Sup. Ct. R. 105(2)(e); In
3 re St 108 Nev. at 633-634, 837 P.2d at 856; Gentle v State Ba, 106 Nev. 60, 62, 787 P.2d
4 386,387 (1990).
5 Competence
6 (H) RC 1.1 states "A lawyer shall provide comptent representation to a client.
7 Competent rpresentation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
8 reasonably necessa for te representation."
9 (I)
The record clealy and convincingly establishes that Coughlin lacks the comptency
10 to represent clients, including himself
11
\
First, the record demonstrates severe criticism by the trial court in the handlig of the
12 Joshi matter, including Coughlin's lack of understding of a balace sheet, his failure to conduct
13 discovery, his lack of knowledge of the rules of evidence and tial procedure. Supra' 25
14 (K) Second, Judge Beesley testifed tt the pleadings fled by Coughlin on behalf of his
15 client i a bankruptcy case were "lengthy, didn't make any sense, and just sort of rambled through a
16 geat deal of irrelevat stuf." Judge Beesley also testified tat Coughin's pleadings ad arguments
17 on behalf of his client "didn't make ay sense." Supra' 16 Judge Beesley became concered
18 enough about Coughlin's competency as a lawyer that he contacted the State Bar. Supra' 17
19 (L) Third, Judge Nash Holmes questioned Coughlin's competency as a lawer and in her
20 Order fmding Coughlin in Contempt of Cou noted that Coughlin disregaded the rles of evidence,
21 continually imposed imprpr questions, failed to properly examine witnesses, repeatedly asked the
22 same question, misstated answers, injected irrelevant material, agued with witesses and
23 mischaracterized testimony. Supra' 7
24
|^
Fouh, Judge Nash Holmes found that Coughlin's pleadings failed to adress topics
25 listed 'in te caption, contained rambling references to Coughlin's prsonal life and other irrelevat
26 material, were overly lengthy, disjointed and incoherent. Supra' 9 & 10
27 () Fifh, te State Bar called two ludges and two practicing atoreys, each with
28 signifcant experience with Coughlin and each of whom rendered a expert opinion regarding
RECYCLED PAPER
- 13 -
PRINTED ON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Coughlin's competency as a lawyer. Judge Beesley testifed that in his opinion, Coughlin was not
competent to practice law. Supra 18. Judge Nash Holmes testifed that in her opinion, Coughlin
violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct including his lack of comptency to prctice law.
Supra 15. Attorey Richard Hill also testifed that in his opinion Coughlin is not competent to
practice law. Supra 22 Attorey Paul Elcano, who once supervised Coughlin as a lawyer and
ultimately terinated him fom Washoe Legal Services, als testifed that, in his opinion, Coughlin is
not competent to practice law. Supra 28
(0) Sixth, the record establishes that Coughlin ofered no expert opinion or evidence as to
his comptency.
Diligence
(P) RPC 1.2 states "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptess in
12 representing a client."
13 (Q) The record is less clea as to whether or not Coughlin violated RPC 1. 2 on more tha
14 on occasIOn.
15 (R) Judge Howard, in the Joshi case, certainly found that Coughlin failed to conduct
16 discovery on behalf of his client in that matter. Supra 25
17
18
19
20
21
22
(S) The record and Pleading Docket in this case establish that Coughlin failed to provide a
verifed responsive pleading even in the defense ofms own disciplina action. Supra 38
(1 The record ad Pleadig Docket in this case establish that Coughlin habitually fles
numerous, untimely and repetitive motions
Meritorious Claims and Contentions
U1
RPC 3.1 in pertinent part states "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or
23 assert or contovert an issue therein, uless there is a bais in .law and fact for doing so that is not
24 frivolous, which includes a good fait argument for a extension, modifcation or reversal of existing
25 law."
26 (V) The record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin continuously and
27 repetitively fles irrelevat pleadings. pleadings unelated to the issue at had ad continuously ad
28 reptitively injects irrelevant matters into proceedings.
RECYCLED PAPER
- 14 -
PRlNTEDON
(W) Judge Nash Holmes found, for example, that Coughlin repeatedly injected allegations
2 of bribery, perury and police retaliation in a simple tf c cae involving the failure to stop at a stop
3 sig. Supra 7 She aso found that Coughlin repeatedly injected attorey Richard Hill into questions
4 and statements when M. Hill was in no way involved in the tf c citation tial. Supra 7 She also
5 foud that pleadings filed subsequent to Coughlin's incarceration were lengthy (more than 200 pages)
6 contained scat discussion of, or relevance to, the matter and contained irelevant discussion of facts
7 urelated to the proceedings at had. Supra. 10
8 (X) The record establishes that in the Merliss eviction action, Coughlin's conduct wa so
9 vexatious and fivolous as to result in substantial saction of attorey's fees. Supra 21 See Hearing
10 Exhibit 2, P 2, L 8 -13; P3, L 4 -11.
11 (Y) The Pleading Docket in this matter establishes also that Coughlin's flings, even in his
12 own defense of the disciplinary matter, inject lengthy, irrelevant fcts ad legal issues into this
13 proceeding.
14 Candor to the Tribunal
15 (Z)
RPC 3.3(a)(1) states "A lawyer shall not knowingly: (m)ake a false statement of fact
16 or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement .of material fact or law previously made to the
17 tibunal by the lawer."
18 (AA) The rec. ord clealy and convincingly establishes that Coughlin violated RPC 3.3(a)(l)
19 when he lied to Judge Nash Holmes as to whether or not he was surreptitiously ad without
20 prmission to record the proceeding. Supra 7 Of note, Coughlin did not deny that he had lied to
21 Judge Nash Holmes. Instead, his cross examination of Judge Nash Holmes focused on how she had
22 leaed of te tue facts. See Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday, November 14, 2012, P 139, L
23 IO-P 146, L 14.
24 (BB) Attorey Richard Hill testifed that based on his experience in litigating with
25 Coughlin, Coughlin was not truthfl with either counsel or the Court. Supra 23
26 (CC) The record also establishes that Coughlin was less than candid with the Court in
27 two separate applications to proceed in forma pauperis, when he failed to disclose his true
28 occupation as an attorey ad instead indicated he was self-employed as a "Jack of all Trades" and
RECYCl.ED PAPER
-
1
5
-
PRITED ON
1 failed to identif any income fom the practice of law afer having represented to the court that his
2 incarceration would adversely a ect his clients. Supra 31 & 32
3 Fairess to Osing Par and Counsel
4 (DD) RC 3.4(c) states "A lawyer shall not: (k)nowingly disobey an obligation under the
5 rules of a tibunal except for an op
,
en refsal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists."
6 (EE) The recor clealy and convincingly establishes t Coughlin has a clea ad
7 continuing pater of knowingly igoring and disobying instctions from the Court.
8 (FF) In his Order of Contempt, Judge Howard found that Coughlin refsed to obey
9 directives of the Judge ad continued lines of questioning afer being instucted to refain fom doing
10 so. Supra 4
11 (O) Judge Nash Holmes, in her Order of Contempt, found that Coughlin incessatly
12 argued with the Court, interpted the Court, repeatedly restated matters afer having been
13 admonshed to refain fom doing so, disregaded directives to ask properly phrased questions and
14 disobeyed nwerous admonitions by the court to stop repeating questions, misstating answers,
15 injectng irrelevant material, arguing wit the witess ad mischaracterizing testimony. Supra 7
16 (H The trasript of the heang in this mater clealy demonstates that Coughlin
17 repeatedly ad incessantly interrupts witesses, counsel, Panel members ad Panel Chairma and
18 refses to heed admonitions to refin fom doing so. See generaly Transcript of Proceedings
19 Wednesday, November 14, 2012.
20 Impartialit and Decorum of the Tribunal
21 (II) RPC 3.5(d) states "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a
22 tbunal."
23 (J1) The disruption must have occurred in the couroom. One canot disrupt a tribunal
24 with conduct outside of the couroom. In re Michael Stf, 108 Nev. 629, 837P.2d 853 (1992)
25 (K) The record overhelmingly, clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin
26 repatedly conducts himself in a manner that is disruptive of the tbunal while in the courtoom.
27
28
RECYCLED PAPER
- 16-
(LL) The various orders of contempt or imposing sanctions issued by Judges Kenneth
2 Gardner, Linda Gardner, Dorothy Nash Holmes and Patrick Flaaga each describ a similar patter
3 of conduct and behavior that is intentionally disruptive of the tibunal. Supra 4, 7, 10, 21 and 25
4 (M) The tnscript of the proceedings in this matter reveal a continuation of a simila
5 patter of conduct by Coughlin despite his having been sactioned tice wth an adverse awad of
6 attorey's fees and twice by incarceration. See generaly Transcript of Proceedings Wednesday,
7 November 14,2012.
8 Relations with Opsing Counsel
9
\
RC 3.5A states "When a lawyer knows or reasonably should know the identity of a
10 lawyer representing an opposing party, he or she should not tae advantage of te lawyer by causing
11 any default or dismissal to be entered witout fIst inquiring about the opposing lawyer's intention to
12 proceed."
13 (00) Although the State Bar pled a violation of RPC 3.5A in its Complaint, no evidence
14 was presented that Coughlin ever violated the rule. Accordingly, the Pael finds that the State Bar
15 failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue as an evidentiay matter but fnds that as a matter of
16 default te violation may be deemed admitted.
17 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
18 (PP) RPC 4.1 (a) states "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowngly:
19 (a) (m)ae a false statement of material fact or law t a third person."
20 (QQ) Although the evidence established that Coughlin knowingly made false statements to
21 Court and Counsel (See (^), (BB) and (CC no evidence was presented that Coughlin
22 knowingly made false statements of material fact or law to a third person. Accordingly, the Panel
23 fmds that the State Bar failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue as a evidentiary matter but
24 fmds that as a matter of default the violation may b deemed admitted.
25
Respect for the Rights of Third Persons
26 (RR) RPC 4.4(a) states '"In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no
27 substatia pus other tha to embarass, delay, or burden a thrd prson ... "
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
- 1
7 -
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
(SS) The record establishes clearly and convincingly that in the Merliss eviction action,
Coughlin conducted himself in a manner that wa abusive, vexatious and for purpses of delay. The
matter wa a simple eviction action that appaently lasted through several proceedings at the
Municipal Court level, an appeal to the District Court and two appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court
and which also resulted in Coughlin' s conviction for criminal tespass. Supra 19 and 20
Coughlin's conduct in the proeedings wa so egregious that Judge Flanagan ordered Coughlin to pay
Dr. Merliss $42,065.50, a amount that is still unpaid. Supra 21
(I) The record also establishes that Coughlin habitually prolongs proceedings
unnecessarily; fles lengthy, irrelevant, nonsensical pleadings requiring cour, staf and counsel to
spend unnecessay efort in evaluating and/or responding to the pleadings. Supra 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
16, 21, 23, 25, 27, 39 ad 40
Disciplar Maters
U
RC 8.1(b) provides, in pertinent part, " . . . a lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary
matter, shall not: (b) . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawfl demand for information fom an
admissions or disciplinary authority . . . "
l I
The record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin kowingly failed to
respond to the State Ba's request for inforation in the disciplina proceeding and failed to timely
fle a required verifed responsive answer or pleading to the Complaint.
(W) First, Coughlin asked for an extension of time to respond to the letter of Febr 14,
201 2 regading the Richard Hill Complaint ad then faled to respond at all. Supra 29
(X) Second, Coughlin failed to respond to a subsequent letter from the State Bar regarding
the Complaint filed with the Ba by Judge Nash Holmes. Supra 30
(YY) Third, Coughlin ignored SCR 105(2) when he failed to timely fle a verifed response
or answer to the Complaint, despite several waings to do so. Supra 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Coughlin
compounded this violation when he attempted, during the course of the hearing in this matter, to
tansform a pleading previously fled in Reno Municipal Court into a "New Verifed Response (sic)
Pre-Hearing Motion to DismissSuary Judgment, Memorandum of Law by crossing out the
original caption ad hadwriting the "new" caption. Supra 38 Coughlin also attempted, duing the
-
18 -
1 hearing, to transform a pleading he had filed the day before the hearing entitled "Emergency Ex Pate
2 Motion to Dismiss . . . " by handwriting the words "Declaration and Verified Response . . . " onto the
3 caption of the pleading. Supra ' 38
4 (Z) The conduct describd herein not only demonstrates a lack of cooperation with the
5 State Ba, but a lack of competency a well.
6 Judicial and Legal Ofcials
7 (A) RPC 8.2(a) states "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be
8 false or with reckless disregad as to its tth or falsity concering the qualifications or integrity of a
9 judge, adjudicatory ofcer or public legal ofcer. . .
1 0 (BBB) During the course of the heaing, Coughlin accused Judge Nash Holmes of lying
1 1 during her testimony. Coughlin has expressed simila views concering Judge Nash Holmes in
1 2 vaious pleaings fled in this proceeding as well as others. Coughlin h also uttered other
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
derogatory remarks about vaious judges with whom he has interacted.
(CCC) The State Bar presented scant evidence on this issue ad no evidence fom which the
panel could conclude that the expressions were knowingly false as opposed to a expression of
opinion. While the conduct displayed is, in the view of the Pael reprehensible, the Pael concludes
that te State Ba failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue as an evidentia matter but fmds that
as a matter of default the violation may be deemed admitted.
Misconduct
(DDD) RPC 8.4 provides (in perinent pas):
It is professiona misconduct for a lawyer to :
(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct . . .
(b) Comit a crimnal act that refects adversely on the lawyer' s honesty,
tustwortness or ftness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, faud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
25 (EEE) The Pleadings, Hearing Exhibits ad Transcript of these proceedings overhelmingly,
26 clearly and convincingly establish a repeated, tmlenting and obstinate patter of misconduct by
27 Respondent Coughlin evicing numerous and repeated violations of several provisions of RPC 8.4 in
28 violation ofRPC 8. 4(a).
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
- 19 -

..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
(FFF) Coughlin was convicted of petit larceny on November 30, 201 1 , a violation of KC
8.4(b). Such violation is sufcient alone to tigger application of SCR 1 1 1 . Te Nevada Supreme
Court referred the matter to the appropriate disciplinary panel for a deterination of the extent of
punishment tat should follow fom the conviction. Supra 5
(GO) The record also establishes that Coughlin was convicted of criminal trespass in the
prolonged eviction proceedings involving Dr. Merliss, a violation of RPC 8.4(b). Supra 20
(HH) The Complaint in this matter alleges that Coughlin has been a ested and is awaiting
tial on . a laeny chage involving a cell phone and on a charge of abusing 9 1 1 emergency
procedures. However, no evidence was presented on these charges but as a matter of default the
allegations may be deemed admitted and would constitute additional violations of RPC 8.4(b).
(JJ1) The record, as described at length above, establishes several violations of RPC 8. 4(c).
See
|^).
(BB), (CC),
|^ ),(BBB) ad (CCC).
(K )The entire record in this matter is replete with instances demonstating that Coughlin' s
conduct is prejudicial to the administation of justice. Coughlin ha been repeatedly sanctioned
monetily ad by way of incarceration for his conduct, h repeatedly fled lengthy, irelevant and
nonsensical pleadings requiring stafs, cours and counsel to expend needless and unnecessar time in
responding to such pleadings, has repeatedly disrupted proceedings and failed to follow instctions
and admonitions of the courts. The record establishes that te patter of conduct continues despite
te severe sactons administered and contiues up to and during the disciplinay process and heaing
of this matter.
The Extent of the Discipline to be . imposed pursuant to SCR 1 1 1 As a Result of
Couglin's Conviction of the "Serious" Crime of Petit Larceny
. (LLL) The mater of the referral fom the Supreme Court was considered in conjunction with
the allegations in the Complaint fled by the State Bar. While the conviction at issue in the Supreme
Court Order of June 7, 201 2 may not alone warrant the discipline recommended in ts Pael's
recommendations, taen as a whole and in conjunction with the numerous and repeated other
violations of the Rues of Professiona Conduct, wa at, in this Pael' s view, the discipline
recommended herein.
- 20 -
1 DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
2 In assessing the fonn of discipline to recommend, the Panel has accounted for a number of
3 aggravating and mitigating factors that must be considered. The Panel fnds that the State Bar has
4 shown by clea and convincing evidence the presence of at least eight of the eleven aggravating
5 circumstances to be considered in accordance with the provisions of SCR 1 02.5(1 ).
6 First, while there have been no fonal prior disciplinary proceedings by the State Ba, the
7 record establishes that Coughlin h ben disciplined by way of sanctions on at least four prior
8 occasions.
9 Second, the record refects, at least with respect to the Merliss matter ad the two criminal
1 0 tials, that the patter of conduct was for selfsh reasons: to presere a unlawfl tenancy and to delay
1 1 and prolong criminal convictions.
1 2 Third, the record clealy ad convincingly establishes that the patter of misconduct is
1 3 consistent and includes, without limitation: the disrption of the proceedings; the refsal to heed the
1 4 directions and admonitions of the court; the injection of irrelevant material and matters; te fling of
1 5 lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical pleadings; the willingness to lie to court and counsel and the
1 6 inabilit to understand ad follow the rules of evidence ad procedure.
1 7 Fourth, the record clealy and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has committed multiple
1 8 violations of te Riles of Professional conduct, as more flly discussed above.
1 9 Fifh, the record clealy ad convincingly estblishes that Coughlin engaged in a bad faith
20 obstuction of the disciplinay process by failing to fle the pleading required by SCR 1 05(2) and
21 instead fling several lengthy, irrelevant and nonsensical pleadings, mostly pleadings fled in other
22 matters, ad refled in the disciplinary actin under a similar but diferent caption. In some instances,
23 Coughlin simply crossed out the case name and hand wrote the naes of the parties in the
24 disciplinary proceeding.
25 Sixth, the record clearly and convincingly establishes that Coughlin has refsed to
26 acknowledge the wrongfl nature of his conduct despite having ben sanctioned on at least four prior
27 ocasions.
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
- 21 -
.
'-
!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
Seventh, the record clearly and convincingly establishes tat Coughlin has shown a complete
indiference to maing restitution ad has so fa igored orders to do so.
Eighth, the record clealy and convincingly establishes that some of Coughlin' s misconduct
involves illegal conduct tt evinces fud and dishonesty. For example, he was convicted of one
istce of petit laeny and is awating tial on a second.
Te Panel fmds few potentially mitigating factors to be present. While the Panel finds that
there is a lack of prior public discipline by the State Ba, the Panel notes that Coughlin has been
publicly criticied in the Joshi matter, has been heavily sanctioned wit an adverse award of
substantial attorey's fees in the Merliss matter, and has been incarcerated at least twice for criinal
contempt of court. Although there has ben an absence of prior public discipline by the State Ba,
there have been multiple instces of judicial censure ad sanction.
Although Coughlin suggested at the hearing that he may have personal or emotional problems
or a mental disabilit, he denied that he needed fher help. Furthermore, no medical evidence was
presented regarding the potential impact of a mental disability, no evidence that the disability was te
cause of the misconduct, no evidence of recovery by rehabilitation and no evidence that a recovery
h a ested the misconduct ad that a recurrence is unlikely to occur.
These potentially mitigating factors ae weak at best and do not excuse te well established
numerous ad repeated violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct ad do not outweigh the
aggravating circumstaces established overhelmingly by the State Ba.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Panel recommends that the Respondent b ordered:
(1 ) Irevocably disbard by te Supreme Court. While ir evocable disbarment is clealy
the harshest for of discipline, te unusual circumstances here, compunded by the repetitive nate
of the misconduct prior . to and even during the disciplinary process and hearing, clearly warrat te
level of punishment recommended.
(2) That his tempora suspension be continued pnding fnal resolution of this matter.
(3) Within te (3) days of the efective date of disbarment, to demonstte to Bar
Counsel that he has placed all hs Nevada clients with other cousel, otherwise concluded te
- 22 -
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
representation, or with the assistance of Bar Counsel thereafer attempted to expeditiously aid any
remaining client mfmding new counsel.
(4) To pay the cost associated with these proceedings pursuant to SCR 1 20.
DATED ad ENTERED this
(
ty of December, 201 2.
RA, ESQ., Chair
vada Disciplinary Board Pael
- 23 -
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
The undersigned hereby certifes that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order was
3
deposited in the United States Mail at Reno, Nevada, postage fully pre-pathereon for certified and
4
frst class mail addressed to the following:
5
Zachary B. Coughlin
1 47 1 E. 9th St.
6
Reno NV 89505
7
DATED this 1 4
th
day of December, 201 2.
8
9
La Peters, an employee of
the State Bar of Nevada
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25