PH UHQUDSH U OIUBI SHB HO DB IB@BIUBU BS QIBCBUBH BHU SHB HO DB CBU BS B@B BUHOIg. L 13.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A <
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF
ZACHARY B. COUGHLIN, ESQ., BAR
NO. 9473.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
No. 60838
FIL!D
JUL 242013
On June 7, 2012, we issued an order temporarily suspending
attorney Zachary B. Coughlin from the practice of law and referring him
for disciplinary proceedings, based on his conviction of petit larcenyltheft.1
Coughlin has since fled motions entitled: (1) Motion for Leave to File
Opposition to Suspension and Opposition to Petition of Bar Counsel for
Temporary Suspension from the Practice of Law Pursuant to SCR 111 and
Request for Extension of Time to Supplement Opposition (hereafter,
Motion for Leave to File Opposition); (2) Motion for Leave to Supplement
or Amend Emergency Motion to Alter or Amend, or Set Aside Temporary
Suspension and Notice of Supreme Court Clerk's Failure to Timely File
Opposition to Bar Counsel's Petition for Temporary Suspension (hereafter
Motion for Leave to Supplement); (3) Motion for Leave to File Opposition
to SCR 117 Petition (hereafter, SCR 117 Motion); and (4) Motion for Order
to Show Cause Regarding Improper Attempt by Bar Counsel and,
Possibly, NNDB to Delay and Obstruct Hearing Required by Court's June
lWe note that our order was based solely on Coughlin's conviction.
It was not based on any alleged failure to report the conviction or on the
SCR 117 petition subsequently filed by bar counsel.
7th, 2012, Order in Case 60838 and Coughlin's SCR 102(4)(d) Petition in
Case 61426 (hereafter, Motion for Order to Show Cause).
With regard to all the motions, we note that none of them
comply with the rules of appellate procedure pertaining to motions. NRAP
27. Further, we have disregarded factual assertions in the motions which
are not supported by references to the record or which are outside the
record. Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank, 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635
P.2d 276, 277 (1981). To the extent the motions attempt to relitigate the
conviction underlying the instant matter or other legal problems Coughlin
faces, this SCR 111 proceeding is not the proper forum for doing so. We
therefore do not address such claims.
With regard to the Motion for Leave to File Opposition filed
June 11, 2012, we elect to treat it as a motion to set aside the suspension
pursuant to SCR 111(7). We are unconvinced by Coughlin's arguments
that good cause exists to set aside our order, however, and therefore deny
the motion.2
With regard to the Motion for Leave to Supplement filed June
18, 2012, we note that Coughlin was properly advised to seek leave of
court in writing; moreover, he was not prejudiced by any alleged failure to
timely fle his opposition, because he succeeded in filing an opposition and
we have considered it on the merits. Despite Coughlin's attempts to
elaborate on claims made in his previous motion that good cause exists to
2To the extent these arguments can be construed as claims that
mitigating circumstances exist, such contentions are more properly
addressed in the context of the disciplinary proceedings. SCR 102.5(2).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A <

C.J.
Pickering
J .
-
, J.
Saitta
set aside our order, we remaIn unconvinced. We therefore deny the
motion.
With regard to the SCR 117 motion fled June 18, 2012, it is
identical to the Motion for Leave to Supplement fled that same day. It is
therefore likewise denied.3
Finally, with regard to the Motion for Order to Show Cause
fled October 5, 2012, such claims are more properly addressed in the
context of the petition for a writ of mandamus fled in Docket No. 62104.
We note, however, that the language in our June 7, 2012, order stating
that "the sole issue to be determined shall be the extent of the discipline to
be imposed" does not limit the hearing panel from considering other
disciplinary matters. Rather, it limits the hearing panel from making a
contrary factual fnding that no crime was committed. SCR 111(5). We
therefore deny the motion.
It is so ORDERED.
3To the extent it challenges the SCR 117 petition fled in Docket No.
60975, such claims are more properly addressed in the context of that
proceeding.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A <
3
cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Zachary B. Coughlin
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A <
4