MOUNT VERNON — The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected four of Scott Pullins’ requests in his objection to a recommended indefinite suspension. The ruling also catapults the case closer to a conclusion.
related documents
Pullins' request to strike count four and for sanctions for frivolous conduct against relator (PDF)
Relators's memorandum objecting to respondent's request for remand (PDF)
Pullins' Request for Judicial Notice (PDF)
Pullins' Request for Remand (PDF)
Adobe Acrobat Reader required to read pdf
related articles
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
Pullins asks for psych evaluation June 17, 2010
Pullins’ request for remand overruled June 29, 2010
Supreme Court issues four rejections to Pullins July 21, 2010
Hearing date set for Pullins August 5, 2010
The court denied Pullins’ request the case be remanded back to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Pullins argued Michael Murman, counsel for the board, introduced Pullins’ mental state, information not previously released in case documents filed with the OSC.
"[Pullins] was under stress, and was having difficulty with his psychiatric medications when most of the questionable conduct occurred,” Murman wrote.
The request for judicial notice of a failed appeal with the Knox County Court of Appeals was also denied.
On June 28, Pullins filed a motion requesting the court to strike Count 4 of the disciplinary action and place sanctions on Murman for frivolous action.
Count 4 references Pullins’ issue of subpoenas on a case that was suspended. Pullins concluded any potential for misconduct was previously investigated resulting in no action.
All four matters were rejected by the court.
Along with his ruling, Chief Justice Eric Brown ordered the case be scheduled for oral argument.
When asked if he thought he was filing too many motions or requests, Pullins told the News via e-mail he did not believe that to be the case.
“No, I would like to keep my license and the Court needs to know that this process has been unfair and misleading from the beginning,” Pullins said.
“The fact that if I am disciplined as Mr. Murman has requested, then no attorney in the county is safe,” Pullins said in a later submitted statement.
