Richard Pullman has a proven track record litigating business matters for over fifty years. His cases involve commercial litigation, real estate, banking, securities, trademark disputes, contract, landlord/tenant, estate and trust coverage, bankruptcy, professional malpractice, and partnership disputes. He is trained in mediation, also handles appeals in Federal and State courts throughout the country from the local level to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is renowned for his ability to handle complex cases that require knowledge and expertise.

Richard completed the “Learn from the Masters” mediation course and is actively developing mediation practice.  To give back to the profession, he is committed to pro-bono mediation with ADR at the Dallas County Dispute Resolution Center.

Skills and Honors

  • American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) since 1990
  • Texas Super Lawyer 2003 and 2006
  • The Best Lawyers in America 2007 through 2023, currently included in the practice areas of Commercial Litigation, Banking & Finance Litigation, Bankruptcy, Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, Corporate Law, and Real Estate Law
  • Texas’ Best Lawyers 2009 through 2023
  • Member of the Morris Harrel Professionalism Committee and Courthouse Committee of the Dallas Bar 2012 – 2023
  • Member of the Judicial Independence Committee of ABOTA
  • 2015 Impact Award from the Dallas County Dispute Resolution Center.  
  • 2019 Volunteer of the Month for April, the Dallas Count Dispute Resolution Center.

Lecturer

  • “Landlord Tenant Litigation,” Dallas Chapter of the Institute of Real Estate Management (November 1988)
  • “What You Should Know About the Law Affecting Commercial Property Management (Eviction, Negotiation, Distress Warrants and General Collection Litigation of Commercial Leases),” Greater Dallas Board of Realtors (March 1992)
  • “Alternative Dispute Resolutions Pursuant to NAFTA,” Texas Section of the American Board of Trial Advocates (April 1994)
  • Lectured on the topic of Real Estate Litigation to various groups, including the 1997 International Council of Shopping Centers Legal Conference and the 1997 Business Litigation Symposium sponsored by Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Knox, L.L.P.

Author

  • “Long-Arm Statute Reaches International Corporation – Duple Motor Bodies Limited v. Hollingsworth,” 24 Southwestern Law Journal, 532
  • “Leary v. United States; Marijuana Tax Act-Self-Incrimination,” 23 Southwestern Law Journal, 939

Representative Significant Cases

Richard Pullman was lead counsel in the following significant cases:

  • Hyman L. Miller v. Puritan Fashions Corporation d/b/a Barnsville, 516 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. App. – 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.).  In this case, Richard represented Puritan Fashions, the predecessor to Calvin Klein Industries.  This is the first case in which Texas courts applied the Federal Arbitration Act to a dispute wherein interstate commerce was involved.
  • Western Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Atkinson Financial Corporation, 747 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth 1988, no writ) (this case was settled before the Supreme Court heard the Writ).  In this case, Richard represented a property owner in litigation against Western Federal Savings and Loan Association.  This case further explains and emphasizes the requirements for accepting an option and when same creates a binding agreement.  Richard’s client was successful in obtaining a summary judgment in the amount of $5.8 million against Western Federal Savings and Loan and same was affirmed and collected upon settlement only with a reduction in post-judgment interest.
  • Sam Kartalis v. Commander Warehouse Joint Venture, 773 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1989, no writ) and Sam Kartalis v. Lakeland Plaza Joint Venture, 784 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1989, writ denied).  In these two cases, Richard represented the joint ventures and upheld on appeal the basic postulates that a joint venture is generally covered by the same principles of law as apply to a partnership and that one joint venturer may sue another without resorting to accounting where the fact situation is so simple and free from complexity that it can be disposed of easily. 
  • Bartley, et al. v. National Union Fire, et al.  This case was filed in September 9, 1991 in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, before Judge Barefoot Sanders.  The case involved the liability or lack thereof, of National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA (an AIG company) as to claims made by the FDIC against all of the directors and officers of First Republic (at that time Texas’ largest bank). The trial team lead by Richard obtained a final judgment on December 11, 1992 “…that plaintiffs and intervenors take nothing by their suit against National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, and that this suit is dismissed with prejudice at plaintiffs’ cost.”
  • Mercury House, Inc. and Raye Reynolds v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Corporation and Harold O. Brandt, Individually, No. 90-14442-E, in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 101st Judicial District.  Richard defended this case before a jury in August of 1993.  Plaintiffs claimed damages in excess of $40 million for breach of contract regarding utilization of the railroad’s right-of-way and tort damages related to the business relationship between Plaintiffs and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.  Defendants obtained a “take nothing” verdict from the jury and were awarded judgment of approximately $250,000 on their counterclaim against the Plaintiffs.
  • Hayes, et al. v. LaFarge Coppee SA, et al.  No. 3:94-cv-01566-T. This case emanated from the bankruptcy of National Gypsum Company. Our clients, John P. Hayes and Joseph A. Keller, were among the shareholders who assisted in bringing National Gypsum private and then sold to Anchor Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of LaFarge Coppee, SA.  The issue was whether Mr. Hayes and Mr. Keller were entitled to their retirement benefits owed by Anchor Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of LaFarge Coppee, SA, a very substantial French corporation. Judge Steven A. Felsenthal denied our clients’ claims; however, upon appeal, Senior Judge Robert A. Maloney, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, heard the appeal and ruled for Richard’s clients. Our clients collected a judgment of approximately $7,000,000 on November 28, 1994.
  • Mayfair Development Corporation v. City of Dallas, Civil No. 3:95-CV-1594-H in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  This case related to the Cinemark litigation against the City of Dallas. Richard Pullman led the team representing the City of Dallas and obtained a Summary Judgment on November 27, 1996 on behalf of the City of Dallas that Plaintiff Mayfair Development Corporation “…take nothing by its suit against Defendant and that this suit be, and it is hereby, Dismissed on the merits at Plaintiff’s cost.”  The Judgment was granted by Barefoot Sanders, then Senior Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
  • Alfred C. Glassell, Jr., et al. v. J. Ralph Ellis, Jr., 956 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. App.– Texarkana 1997, appeal denied).  The Texarkana Court of Appeals ruled in a ten-page opinion and affirmed Mr. Ellis’ (our client) Application for Certification of Class Action in an oil and gas royalty owners’ claim against the working interest holders and the case settled.
  • Raymond Honeycutt, et al. v. Brian Warner a/k/a “Marilyn Manson,” et al., in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Richard Pullman was lead counsel for Brian Warner and the Manson Band defendants. This case involved copyright infringement as to the base line of one of the Marilyn Manson band’s songs.  The case was dismissed with prejudice by agreement on September 11, 1999, once Richard’s clients were able to show that Plaintiffs’ alleged “base line” actually was part of an earlier song of the Manson band that was earlier than Plaintiffs’ song.
  • Ironclad, L.P. and Ironclad, Inc. v. Poly-America, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  This case was tried before a jury during November of 1999; the trial team led by Richard obtained a “take nothing” jury verdict on behalf of Poly-America.  The claim was trademark infringement involving the majority of plastic trash bags sold at Sam’s during the prior five years. Plaintiffs’ claim was over $30,000,000.
  • International Mill Service, Inc. and Ameristeel Corp. v. Intermountain Lining Systems, Poly-Flex, Inc. and John Does 1-10.  Richard was lead counsel in this case before the Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County, Utah.  The matter involved environmental contamination purportedly caused by the polyethylene liner manufactured by Poly-Flex. The trial team lead by Richard obtained a summary
  • Allegiance Capital Corporation v. Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, et al. Richard Pullman represented a Canadian gaming corporation and the other Defendants, in one of Canada’s casino companies.  The case was originally filed in 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  Richard’s clients removed to federal court in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  Plaintiff’s claims included fraudulent inducement, stock transaction fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and violations of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). By memorandum opinion, Judge Jerry Buchmeyer granted Defendants’ Motion on September 30, 2004.judgment in favor of Poly-Flex that Plaintiffs take nothing.
  • Southwest Securities, Inc. v. Bruce A. Lewin.  FINRA Case No. 11-02651. Richard prosecuted on behalf of Southwest Securities, Inc. a claim to collect a promissory note accepted as an inducement to commence employment with Southwest Securities, Inc. Mr. Lewin filed many affirmative defenses and counterclaims. After a 3-day Arbitration, the award was 100% to Southwest Securities, Inc., only reducing Southwest Securities’ attorney’s fees. Southwest Securities has since settled with a payout.