An Attorney Should Not be Permitted to Lie in Front of the Ohio Supreme Court

A few months ago I had the honor and privilege of arguing a case in front of the Ohio Supreme
Court. Unfortunately, the case is about a well connected local judge's efforts to unfairly strip me
of my law license.

Nonetheless, I was pleased by my first oral arguments in front of Ohio's highest court. But I
wasn't very pleased with opposing counsel and his false statements made in his arguments. And
the biggest problem about those false statements was the fact that I could do little about them. I
only had approximately 2 minutes to rebut his numerous falsehoods. Fortunately, on November
30, 2010 an attorney was granted permission by the Supreme Court to clarify the record of oral
argument. This ruling gave me the opening I needed and I filed a similar motion which you can
view here.

The statements made by this attorney are clearly and categorically false. For example:

- Opposing counsel stated that I filed a document with the Ohio Supreme Court that stated
that this local judge was incompetent. However, no such document was ever filed with the
court nor was such a statement made to the court. The documents, or lack thereof, simply do not
lie.

- Opposing counsel stated that I accused two judges of engaging in an ex parte

conversation without providing any evidence or investigation. I provided testimony, exhibits,
affidavits, and the opinion of the appellate court which overturned this underlying case because
the judge in question went into the jury room on multiple occasions ex parte and tried to force a
verdict. Ohio judges have been disciplined multiple times for similar such behavior.

- Opposing counsel stated that Judge Eyster had an open door policy and that I could have
just walked into his office and apologized to him. However, Judge Eyster testified that this
"open door" policy applies to any attorney but me, and that not only did he refuse to meet with
me, he would only meet with me if a court reporter was present to transcribe our words. You can
read Judge Eyster's testimony here.

- Opposing counsel stated that I had my staff try to set up a meeting with Judge Eyster's
staff and then complained in a letter about his refusal to meet. I think this letter, that you can
read here, speaks for itself. I apologized respectfully, professionally, and completely for my
mistakes.

- Opposing counsel stated that I had my wife prepare an affidavit of disqualification, that
was false evidence, had no basis in fact and dishonest, and file it with the Ohio Supreme
Court. This affidavit certainly had a basis in fact because it was granted by the late Tom Moyer,
Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. You can read his well written order here. The
allegations of dishonesty were dismissed by a unanimous panel and board.

- Opposing counsel stated that I signed my wife's name to an affidavit that was used to try
and obtain a civil protection order and restrain a man's liberty. Again, simply not true. I
signed my wife's name to a verification of a pleading, with her permission, for a restraining order
to prevent a board on which she served from unlawfully removing her. The court later reinstated
her to this board. This affidavit had nothing to do with a civil protection order or restraining
anyone's liberty.

If this were the first time these things happened with this attorney, it would be one thing. But it
is not. Throughout this process this attorney has lied, exaggerated, tried to utilized evidence that
doesn't exist, and abused the disciplinary process. In most cases he has issued these fabrications
in documents that I am not permitted to respond pursuant to Ohio Supreme Court rules.

In fact, in my latest filing he does not even dispute the fact that I have accused him of lying in
front of the Ohio Supreme Court. Instead, he argues that I have no right to point out to the court
that he lied. You can read his filing here. Utterly ridiculous.

I know that I've been relatively quiet about this disciplinary issue. Frankly, its embarrassing, its
aggravating, and I don't know whether you want to hear me whine about how our legal system is
being unfair to me. But the simple fact is that this case has much bigger ramifications than me.

If this report is upheld it stands for the proposition that our attorney disciplinary system can be
used to personally benefit a overly angry and well connected judge and his wife. By the way, the
judge involved here, Otho Eyster, is also the chair of the committee that recommended that I be
disciplined. Justice Paul Pfeiffer, Ohio's longest serving supreme court justice, called this issue
the "elephant in the room."

It also would stand for the fact that a single, out of control special prosecutor , with a reputation
for politically motivated witch hunts, can get away with personally lying and exaggerating in
front of Ohio's highest court. An attorney should never be permitted to do such a thing. Never,
ever.

The Pullins Report is a publication of the Pullins Group LLC.