MOUNT VERNON — The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld a disciplinary counsel’s recommendation to suspend local attorney Scott Pullins’ law license indefinitely.
related documents
Ohio Supreme Court Ruling: Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins (PDF)
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
In a Slip Opinion released this morning, the Supreme Court of Ohio reiterated Pullins was charged with “numerous counts” of professional misconduct and despite Pullins’ objections to the case against him, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the disciplinary counsel and handed down an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.
“His pattern of unfounded, intemperate, and unprofessional attacks on the judicial system and his misuse of the power entrusted to him by virtue of his stature as an attorney demonstrate a profound disrespect for the legal profession,” the opinion stated.
Pullins has argued his actions, though some were sanctionable, were not malicious nor worthy of an indefinite suspension. His recommendation was a public reprimand.
“This process has not been fair or just from the beginning and the court merely continued the trend,” Pullins told the News this morning. “It’s a sad state of affairs when attorneys that steal from clients, harm their clients and commit crimes are punished less severely than me.”
Pullins must wait two years before applying for reinstatement, according to Michael Murman, attorney for the disciplinary counsel.
Murman said that once Pullins is served with an order to suspend his practice he will have 30 days to return any unearned fees or property belonging to his clients such as retainers, notify opposing counsel and courts of any open cases and close his practice.
The Slip Opinion, according to Murman, is an unedited version of the court’s findings and is open to editing but stands as the court’s final ruling.
Pullins has the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which hears only about 100 cases a year from thousands of submitted cases. Murman said he feels confident this case, if appealed, would not be heard because there are no constitutional questions involved in the proceedings.
