Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins
2010 Ohio 6241
Ohio2010Background
- Respondent Scott Pullins, admitted 2003, faced a seven-count amended misconduct complaint (Mar. 27, 2009).
- Board found multiple rule violations based on affidavits of disqualification, improper notary use, subpoenas in a stayed case, and ex parte allegations against judges and a prosecutor.
- Respondent challenged the board’s findings; court overruled objections and adopted the board’s conclusions.
- Conduct spanned 2005–2008 and involved judges Eyster and Curran, and other court communications.
- Disciplinary Counsel sought indefinite suspension; Board recommended indefinite suspension; court imposed indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditions.
- Court also noted potential underlying mental-health issues and required compliance with reinstatement procedures and OLAP monitoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 1–7 establish professional misconduct. | Disciplinary Counsel asserts repeated unethical actions. | Pullins contends responsible conduct with reasonable bases. | Counts sustained; multiple violations proven. |
| Whether affidavits of disqualification violated privacy and code rules. | Disciplinary Counsel argues privacy rules were violated. | Pullins contends some disclosures were permissible. | Privacy violations proven; disclosures barred. |
| Whether subpoenas in stayed/ inactive cases constitute misconduct. | Subpoenas misuse; prejudices administration of justice. | Respondent claims legitimate discovery and intent. | Misconduct found; improper subpoenas confirmed. |
| Whether notarization of wife’s signature violated DR 1-102 and related rules. | Notarization of false signature violates multiple rules. | Power of attorney justification; notary error only. | Violations established; notary and falsified affidavit found. |
| Whether the conduct warranted indefinite suspension and mental fitness condition for reinstatement. | Indefinite suspension appropriate given pattern of misconduct. | Public reprimand or shorter sanction argued; potential mitigation. | Indefinite suspension ordered; reinstatement conditioned on medical fitness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416 (2003-Ohio-4048) (requires sanction for unfounded accusations against judiciary; public interest in integrity of judiciary)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Frost, 122 Ohio St.3d 219 (2009-Ohio-2870) (multifaceted misconduct; pattern over years; aggravating factors; mental-health considerations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Baumgartner, 100 Ohio St.3d 41 (2003-Ohio-4756) (discipline context for professional misconduct; multiple offenses)
- In re Disqualification of Squire, 105 Ohio St.3d 1221 (2004-Ohio-7358) (privacy limits on uncertified grievances; confidential records)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke, 81 Ohio St.3d 93 (1998-Ohio-) (notary responsibilities; fraud on the court cautions)