1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
SCOTT J. DREXEL, No. 65670
CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
RUSSELL G. WEINER, No. 94504
DEPUTY CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, No. 104342
ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
DONALD R. STEEDMAN, No. 104927
SUPERVISING TRIAL COUNSEL
SUSAN 1. KAGAN, No. 214209
DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 538-2037

9
THESTATEB

10

COURT

REVIEW DEPARTMENT - AN FRANCISCO

11

12

13

In the Matter of

) Case No. 0 -M-13755

ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN,

)
) OPPOSITI N TO MOTION FOR LATE FILING OF
) REQUEST OR REVIEW; OPPOSITION TO
) REQUEST ORSLJMMARYREVIEW

12115
16

)~<

)
An Applicant for Admission.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ) (Rules Proc of State Bar, rules 301)

17
18

To: The Review Department of the State Bar ourt: Applicant filed a motion for late

19

filing of request review and request for summary revi w in this matter on or about November 28,

20

2007. The State Bar opposes applicant's motion for ate filing of request for review on the basis

21

that the motion is untimely and does not set forth go d cause. The State Bar moves to deny

22

applicant's request for summary review pursuant to

23
24
25

STATEMENT 0
1. On August 20, 2007, the Hearing Dep

Ie 308(e)(3).1
FACTS
nt issued a decision denying applicant's

application for admission to the State Bar of Califo .a on the basis that applicant currently

26
27
28

1Unless otherwise noted, all further reference to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar
of California will be referred to as "rule."
-1-

lacked the requisite good moral character necessary or admission to the practice of law.

2. On or about September 13,2007, applica t attempted to file a request for review;

request for summary review. However, he did not s rve a copy of the request on the State Bar.

Accordingly, on September 18,2007, the Court issu d a notice of rejection of applicant's request

for review.

3. On September 27,2007, applicant filed a equest for review; request for summary

review. In the motion, applicant requested the folIo ing: "the costs for transcription be waived

or that he be given an extension oftime to pay this c st pursuant to a payment plan."

4. On October 5, 2007, this Court issued an rder designating applicant's request as

10

"only a request for review under rule 301." On the i sue of costs, the Court ordered as follows:

11

"No good cause shown, applicant's request that the osts of the trial transcript be waived, or that

12

he be given an extension oftime to pay pursuant to t e payment plan is denied." The Court

13

further noted that applicant's request for review "wil be dismissed unless, within 15 days after

14

service of this order;tne appIicanftenders the requir ddeposit and shows good cause why it was

15

not timely paid, or shows good cause why other arra gements satisfactory to the court have not

16

been made."

17

5. On or about October 22,2007, applicant s bmitted a letter to the Court, stating: "I

18

currently do not have the funds to pay for a trial tran cript. I do not have any means of being

19

able to secure these funds in the near future. I ask th t the Review Department consider

20

providing some option for a payment plan or waiver fthese fees." Applicant did not serve a

21

copy of this letter on the State Bar.

22

6. By letter dated October 25,2007, the Cou notified applicant that his letter of October

23

22, 2007 was not filed on the basis that his request w s not in the form of a written motion and

24

was not served on the opposing party. Thereafter, ap lie ant did not file a motion demonstrating

25

that he tendered the required deposit for the trial tran cripts and demonstrating good cause why

26

the deposit was not timely paid, or otherwise provid good cause demonstrating why other

27

arrangements have not been made.

28

7. On November 27,2007, the Court issued n order dismissing applicant's request for
-2-

1 review, stating that applicant: "failed to tender the r quired deposit or show good cause why
2

other arrangements have not been made. In fact, ap licant failed to file any response to the

court's October 5, 2007 order."

8. On or about November 28,2007, applica t filed a motion for late filing of request for

review; request for summary review. On the issue 0 costs, applicant solely states as follows:

"Applicant was previously unable to afford the tran ription costs associated with a Request for

Review. Applicant is now able to afford the transc

this Motion for Late Filing of Request for Review."

tion costs and asks that this Court grant

DISCUSS ON

10

THE MOTION FOR LATE FILING OF RE VEST FOR REVIEW IS

UNTIMELY AND FAILS TO SET FORTH OOD CAUSE.

11

12

Pursuant to this Court's order of October 5, 007, applicant was required to file a motion

13

by October 25,2007/ demonstrating that he tendere the required deposit for the trial transcripts

14

and setting forlfigoo(lcausewny the costs were not imeiy paid, or otherwise provide good

15

cause why other arrangements have not been made.

16

. As set forth above, applicant failed to file a

otion in compliance with the Court's order

17

by October 25,2007. As a consequence of this failu e, the Court dismissed applicant's request

18

for review. Hence, applicant's motion is not only

19

Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court ha not dismissed this appeal on November 27,

20

2007, applicant's motion for late filing should be dis issed since it does not comply with the

21

Court's October 5, 2007 order. Specifically, applica t failed to demonstrate that he tendered the

22

deposit for the trial transcripts and failed to set forth ood cause for his failure to timely do so.

23

His unverified statement regarding his inability to af ord costs does not rise to the level of good

24

cause.

25

III

26
27
28

2This represents fifteen (15) days from Octob r 5,2007, plus five days for mailing under
rule 63 and section 1o13 (a) of the Code of Civil Pro edure.
-3-

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVIE

Pursuant to the Court's October 5, 2007 ord r, applicant's September 27,2007 request

3
4

SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

was designated as a request for review in accordanc with rule 308(e)(3).

Rule 308(e)(3) provides in pertinent part: "I both a request for summary review under

this rule and a request for review under rule 301 are imely filed in the same proceeding, the

matter shall proceed pursuant to rules 301-304, subj ct to subparagraph (2) othis paragraph."

As set forth above, applicant again filed a re uest for review at the same time as his

request for summary review. In accordance with rul 308(e)(3), if the matter is to go forward, it

should proceed pursuant to rules 301-304. Therefor, applicant's request for summary review

10
11

should be dismissed at this time.

Moreover, applicant has not established that

is matter is appropriate for summary

12

review. On summary review, applicant would be bo nd by the Hearing Department's "material

13

findings. " (See rule 308(a).) In this matter, the Hea ng Department made adverse factual

14

findings concerning applicant' s monil character. Sin e applicant would be bound by those

15

adverse factual findings, he cannot demonstrate that e would prevail on summary review.

16

Therefore, applicant's request for summary review s ould be denied.

17
18

Applicant's request for review is untimely an does not set forth good cause. Based on

19

the foregoing, the State Bar respectfully requests that applicant's request for review; request for

20

summary review be dismissed.

21
TE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
F THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

22
23
24
25

Dated: December

1D

,2007

26
27
28
-4-

DECLARATION OF S

VICE BY MAIL

CASE NUMBER: 06-M-13755

I, the undersigned, over the age of eighteen (18) yea s, whose business address and place of
employment is the State Bar of California, 180 Ho rd Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
declare that I am not a party to the within action; th I am readily familiar with the State Bar of
California's practice for collection and processing 0 correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service; that in the ordinary course of e State Bar of California's practice,
correspondence collected and processed by the Stat Bar of California would be deposited with
the United States Postal Service that same day; that am aware that on motion of party served,
service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation da or postage meter date on the envelope or
package is more than one day after date of deposit fI r mailing contained in the affidavit. That in
accordance with the practice of the State Bar of Cali ornia for collection and processing of mail,
I deposited or placed for collection and mailing in t e City and County of San Francisco, on the
date shown below, a true copy of the within

6
7
8
9

10

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LATE FILIN OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW;

OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR SUMMAR REVIEW
(Rules Proc. of State Bar, rules 301)

11

12

in a sealed envelope placed for collection and maili g at San Francisco, on the date shown
below, addressed to:

13

Zachary B. Coughlin

14

Reno, Nevada 89503

15

in an inter-office mail facility regularly maintained y the State Bar of California addressed to:

94~W. 12th~reet

16
17

18

Honorable Patrice E. McElroy

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of he State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, Califo ia, on the date shown below.

19

DATED: December 20,2007

20
21

22

23
24

25
26

27

28

Paula H. D' Oyen

Declarant