MOUNT VERNON — Before the Ohio Supreme Court could set a hearing date to hear objections to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, attorney Scott Pullins requested the case be remanded, or sent back, to the board.
Pullins' Request for Judicial Notice (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)
Pullins' Request for Remand (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)
Recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)
More counts filed against Pullins April 9, 2009
Panel recommends Pullins be suspended May 13, 2010
Pullins files lengthy objection June 4, 2010
Ohio Supreme Court to decide Pullins’ fate June 12, 2010
Following disciplinary council Michael Murman’s reference to Pullins’ mental health in his objection answer, Pullins is now seeking an order for a psychiatric examination that would “determine his mental condition to practice law, his present mental condition, and his mental condition at the time of the alleged misconduct.”
He has also requested the remand because the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Knox County denied Pullins’ appeal in the case of Kathryn Elliott Pullins, et al., v. Jeff Harmer, et al. Pullins contends Murman relied on an “erroneous matter of law” from the case.
“[Murman] essentially adopted the position of the defendants in a case that was in the midst of litigation. That position was categorically rejected ...” Pullins said.
Pullins’ third and final argument for remand is Murman’s stance that Pullins’ individual actions did not show cause for alarm.
“This directly contradicts [Murman’s] summation and conduct throughout these proceedings for which the majority of the panel heavily relied upon,” Pullins said.
He also stated Murman “repeatedly characterized [him] as a paper terrorist.”
In his answer, Murman did state the individual offenses would not raise red flags, but went on to say “the number of occurrences, and the persistent misconduct of [Pullins] that is the [most significant part] of this matter and warrants an indefinite suspension.”
Pullins feels the three reasons, independently and collectively, are more than enough cause to send the case back to the board for further action.
The board issued a recommendation of an indefinite suspensions for various acts of misconduct on Pullins’ behalf last month.
Pullins also filed a request for judicial notice in regard to the Elliott v Harmer case.