You are on page 1of 15

1

2
3
4
5
6

Electronically Filed
May 07 2014 08:37 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

IN RE: THE MATTER OF


ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
ESQ.
NEVADA BAR NO: 9473

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case

12
13
14
15

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10)


COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his
attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby petitions this Court

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

for an Order granting reinstatement of Mr. Coughlin's law license and lifting the
temporary suspension originally entered on June 7th, 2012 in case 60838. This Petition
is made and based on the exhibits attached hereto, the points and authorities submitted
herewith and the attached certificate of Zachary Barker Coughlin.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23
24
25
26
27
28

The relevant portion of SCR 111 states:


10. Reinstatement. An attorney suspended under the
provisions of subsection 7 or 9 of this rule may be reinstated
by filing a certificate with the supreme court demonstrating
that the underlying conviction has been reversed, but
reinstatement will not terminate any formal proceeding
1
Docket 65587 Document 2014-14653

1
2

pending against the attorney, the disposition of which shall be


determined by the hearing panel on the basis of the available
evidence.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

On June 7th, 2012, Mr. Coughlin was temporarily suspended from the practice of
law incident to a November 30th, 2011 Judgment of Conviction and Court Order of the
Reno Municipal Court finding him guilty of petty larceny of a candy bar and or
cough drops. See attached Judgment of Conviction and Court Order, filed November
30th, 2011 in Exhibit A. Coughlin appealed such and on March 15th, 2012, the Second

10
11

Judicial District Court, consistent with NRS 189.035 in light of the RMC's failure to

12

file the transcript required by NRS 189.030(1), remanded the matter for a new trial.

13
14

The Reno City Attorney's Office has decided not to pursue a new trial.

15

Accordingly, Mr. Coughlin hereby respectfully requests that his SCR 111

16

suspension be lifted so that he may be reinstated to practice of law in Nevada as

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

contemplated by SCR 111(10). Mr. Coughlin understands that the operation of SCR
111 does not terminate any formal proceedings pending against him. Alternatively, Mr.
Coughlin requests that good cause also exists under SCR 111(7) to lift his temporary
suspension on the ground that not only was the Judgment of Conviction not affirmed
on appeal, but the Reno City Attorney's Office has declined to pursue a new trial.

24
25
26
27

Further, Coughlin's temporary suspension has now lasted 23 months, all


occuring beyond the March 15, 2012 Order in the appeal of such November 30th, 2011
Judgment of conviction remanding such matter for a new trial consistent with NRS

28

1
2

189.035 in light of NRS 189.030(1) and the RMC's choosing not to file the transcript
of such matter. Indeed, the RMC did not report such conviction as required under

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

SCR 111(3), consistent with the remand and the Reno City Attorney's decision not to
pursue a new trial.
SCR 123(3) allows for comparing this matter to In Re Beckett in case 57763:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=25910 . Mr. Beckett's
conviction was dismissed on 1/21/11. On 2/14/11 Beckett filed Petition for

10
11

Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). Mr. Beckett's law license was reinstated six

12

weeks later by an Order Granting Petition for Reinstatement on April 4th, 2011.

13
14

Mr. Coughlin is a licensed patent attorney (ie, an active license, not a suspended

15

license before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which, even

16

aside from the Judgment of Conviction at issue here not being affirmed on appeal,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

refrained from seeking even a temporary suspension of Mr. Coughlin's law license,
deeming such alleged misdemeanor theft of a candy bar and some cough drops to
not be a serious offense sufficient to invoke 37 CFR 11.21, with the USPTO's Office
of Enrollment and Discipline's prosecutor noting to Coughlin: The interim discipline
type under 11.25 is only for serious crimes as defined in 11.1 and petty theft does

24
25
26
27

not appear significant enough for the PTO to take interim discipline on that
alone. See Exhibit A. See SCR 114 for analogy and In Re Pierce, 122 Nev. Adv.
Op. 8, (Nev. 2006), holding the USPTO another jurisdiction for purposes of SCR 114.

28

1
2

Further, Mr. Coughlin is innocent of the charge alleged, and such arrest was
due, rather, to Mr. Coughlin's antagonizing, though not larcenous, behavior instant to

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

being suddenly unable to obtain his anti-depressant shortly prior to the arrest at issue in
such matter. Mr. Coughlin is now well maintained on such medication by a licensed
psychiatrist at Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health (NNAMHS) in such a manner
that he will encounter no further such difficulties in so obtaining such medication.
Additionally, NNAMHS provides Mr. Coughlin with regular psychotherapy and

10
11

Mr. Coughlin is active in Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, and has been, since 2003.

12

Based on this rehabilitation, Mr. Coughlin respectfully asserts that he should further

13
14

qualify for reinstatement to the practice of law in Nevada. Additionally, Mr. Coughlin

15

is a source of support to his mother, who is retired and suffers from rheumatoid

16

arthritis, and has recently had a serious knee operation, and his nieces and nephew.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Finally, Mr. Coughlin's current temporary suspension presents an obstacle to his


former employer Washoe Legal Services, a non-profit legal aid organization which
provides legal services to indigents, being able to restore him to his previous position
as a domestic violence victim's rights attorney incident to Washoe Legal Services
having rehired Coughlin.

24
25

Respectfully submitted DATED this 5/6/14

26
27
28

/s/ Zachary Barker Coughlin


4

Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.


Nevada Bar No 9473
1471 E. 9th St.
Reno, NV 89512
Tel and Fax: 949 667 7402
Attorney for Petitioner

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CERTIFICATE/DECLARATION OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN


PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10)
STATE OF NEVADA)
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHOE)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

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.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2. The conviction from which my current 23 month temporary suspension


springs was not affirmed on appeal, but, rather, consistent with NRS 189.035 (in light
of NRS 189.030(1)), remanded for a new trial, which the Reno City Attorney's Office
chose not to pursue. I do not have a conviction as a result of that case.
3. Additionally, I have been treated by a licensed psychiatrist and psychologist

24
25
26
27

at Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health since March 2013. Originally, shortly prior
to the arrest at issue here, I was suddenly unable to afford my medication and office
visits, causing me to experience a severe adverse reaction incident to the abrupt

28

1
2

cessation of my medication.

Should I be similarly unable to afford such in the future,

NNAMHS has accepted me for treatment at no cost. I am further continuing my

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

involvement with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, which I voluntarily joined in 2003
and have been an active participant in since such time.
4. I am a licensed patent attorney before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO), which, even aside form the Judgment of Conviction at issue here not
being affirmed on appeal, refrained from seeking even a temporary suspension of my

10
11

law license, deeming such alleged misdemeanor theft of a candy bar and some cough

12

drops to not be a serious offense sufficient to invoke 37 CFR 11.21, with the

13
14

USPTO's Office of Enrollment and Discipline's prosecutor noting to me in the attached

15

correspondence from the USPTO's Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED): The

16

interim discipline type under 11.25 is only for serious crimes as defined in 11.1

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

and petty theft does not appear significant enough for the PTO to take interim
discipline on that alone. See Exhibit A.
5. I am completely innocent of the charges alleged, and such arrest was due,
rather, to my antagonizing behavior instant to being suddenly unable to obtain my antidepressant shortly prior to the arrest at issue in such matter, and the adverse reaction I

24
25
26
27

experienced as a result of the abrupt cessation of the administration of such


medication. I am now well maintained on such medication by a licensed psychiatrist at
Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health (NNAMHS) in such a manner that I will

28

1
2

encounter no further such difficulties in so obtaining such medication should I again


face financial difficulty preventing me from being able to afford the costs associated

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

with such prescription and office visits. Additionally, NNAMHS provides me with
regular psychotherapy and I am active in Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, and have
been, since 2003.
6. Additionally, I am increasingly necessary as a source of support to my
mother, who is retired and suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, and my nieces and

10
11
12
13
14

nephew.
7. Further, my current temporary suspension presents an obstacle to Washoe
Legal Services, a non-profit legal aid organization which provides legal services to

15

indigents, being able to fully restore me to my previous position as a domestic violence

16

victim's rights attorney incident to Washoe Legal Services having recently rehired me.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

5. Accordingly, I am respectfully requesting that based on the certified copy of


the order remanding the appeal of such conviction consistent with NRS 189.035 in
light of NRS 189.030(1), and the Reno City Attorney's Office having declined to
pursue such a new trial, that this Court reinstatement my license to practice law in
Nevada.

24
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND MAILING


I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 6th, 2014 a true and correct copy of the foregoing
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) was submitted
for electronic filing to be electronically served upon the State Bar of Nevada's Patrick
O. King and or David Clark and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
mailed on the 5/6/14 by depositing a true and correct copy in a sealed envelope, first
class mail, postage pre-paid, in the United States Post Office, to the following:
STATE BAR OF NEVADA
ATTN: DAVID CLARK, BAR COUNSEL
600 E. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104

10
11
12

STATE BAR OF NEVADA


ATTN: PATRICK O. KING, ASST. BAR COUNSEL
9456 Double R Blvd, Reno, NV 89521

13
14
15
16

Dated this 5/6/14

17

/s/ Zach Coughlin


Zach Coughlin,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBIT A

5/ 6/ 14

O ut look. com Pr int M essage

RE: 5 U.S.C. 558(c) RE: tolling agreement


From: McBride, Thomas (Thomas.McBride@USPTO.GOV)
Sent: Wed 2/13/13 2:23 PM
To: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
1 attachment
Coughlin Tolling Agreement.docx (20.6 KB)
Dear Mr. Coughlin,
I am attaching a copy of a proposed tolling agreement for your review.

In response to your question below, we are presently in 11.22 investigation (see 37 CFR 11.22 (f) and (h)). There
are three types of general discipline at the PTO, including direct, interim, and reciprocal. The direct 11.22 type is
focusing on direct discipline related to everything taken as a whole. The interim discipline type under 11.25 is only
for serious crimes as defined in 11.1 and petty theft does not appear significant enough for the PTO to take
interim discipline on that alone. The reciprocal discipline type under 11.24 (especially 11.24(e) and related 37
CFR 10.23(c)(5)) requires final adjudication, not interim, from another jurisdiction such as Nevada.

Please review the attached tolling agreement and let me know if it is acceptable to you.

Sincerely,
-Tom

Tom McBride Jr.


Office of Enrollment and Discipline
ht t ps: / / bay176. m ail. live. com / ol/ m ail. m vc/ Pr int M essages?m kt =en- us

1/ 5

5/ 6/ 14

O ut look. com Pr int M essage

United States Patent and Trademark Office


Phone: (571) 272-0231
Email: thomas.mcbride@uspto.gov

FILED
Electronically
03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court

Transaction # 2829786

2
3
4
5

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE


***

7
8
9

ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,

10
11

Appellant,
VS.

Case No.:

CR11-2064

Dept. No.:

10

12
13

CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation,


Respondent.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RP

AF IR Ik

E EN

.A

Presently before the Court is an Appeal from a ruling of the Reno Municipal Court,
filed by Appellant ZACHARY BAKER 'COUGHLIN (hereafter "Appellant") on December 23,
2011. Following, on February 7, 2012, Appellant filed his Opening Brief on Appeal.
Thereafter, on February 23, 2012, Respondent CITY OF RENO (hereinafter "Respondent')
filed its Answering Brief. The matter is now before the Court for its consideration.
This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Municipal
Court. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation of
RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with

the Court.
Although Appellant's arguments on appeal are unclear, Appellant raises a wide
variety of issues, Including, inter alla: that he was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to
Counsel, that the Municipal Court erred in failing to grant him a continuance, that the
prosecution engaged in misconduct that he was refused an opportunity to testify on his
I hereby certify this as a true and correct copy of the o
the records of the Reno Municipal Court, Reno, Washoe
Nevada, and that the Clerk of the Court Is the custodian
original record ansUllat I am authori2ad to make this

1 own behalf, that certain evidence should have been suppressed pursuant to the Fourth
2 Amendment of the United States Constitution, that his conviction is not supported by
3 sufficient evidence, and that "fflurther improprieties and due process deficiencies"
4 occurred.
5

Unfortunately, Appellant neither supports his arguments with relevant authority nor

6 citations to relevant portions of the record. Most importantly, Appellant has failed to
7 provide this Court with a copy of the transcript of relevant proceedings in the Reno
8 Municipal Court. The Nevada Supreme Court has held that an "[a]ppellant has the ultimate
9 responsibility to provide this court with 'portions of the record essential to determination of
10 issues raised in appellant's appeal.'" Thomas v. State, 120 Nev. 37 n. 4, 83 P.3d 818
11 (2004) (citing NRAP 30(b)(3). Further, NRAP 28(e) provides that "[e]very assertion in
12 briefs regarding matters in the record shall be supported by a reference to the page of the
13 transcript or appendix where the matter relied on is to be found."
14

While Appellant did provide this Court with a Compact Disc containing a recording of

15 the Municipal Court proceedings, Appellant did not cite to the portions of the Compact Disc
16 that he felt supported his arguments, and it is not the responsibility of this Court to guess
17 which portions of the Compact Disc might support Appellant's arguments. In short,
18 Appellant did not satisfy his responsibility to supply and cite to relevant portions of the
19 record merely by producing a Compact Disc recording of the entire Municipal Court
20 proceeding.
21

In light of Appellant's failure to provide this Court with an adequate appellate

22 record, and Appellant's correspondent failure to cite to such a record, this Court is unable
23 to conduct a meaningful review of Appellant's appeal. Thus, Appellant has failed to meet
24 ///
25 ///
26 /1/
27 ///
28 ///

-2-

1 his burden in providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affirm the ruling
2 of the Reno Municipal Court. 1
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ruling of the Reno

4 Municipal Court is AFFIRMED.


5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the Reno

6 Municipal Court for all further proceedings.


7
8

DATED this

day of March, 2012.

9
10
11

TEVEN PfELLIOTT
District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.


CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

1
2
3
4
5

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
ZACHARY COUGHUN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHUN
PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CrTY OF RENO

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED this

/1/46-

day of March, 2012.

E DI HO P
Judicial Assistant