Biography

Tamara Schiffner Pullin is a trial lawyer whose practice encompasses all forms of business-related litigation in both state and federal courts, as well as commercial arbitration.  Tamara’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, principally in the areas of computer technology, trademark, copyright, cyber-piracy, antitrust, business fraud, fraudulent transfer, and franchising matters. Tamara also represents Native American tribes in relation to asserting their rights to federal funding as well as to acquiring land into trust within Indian Country. Recently, Tamara has extended her practice to include representation of Oklahoma employers in labor and employment litigation.

On behalf of plaintiffs as often as defendants, Tamara manages all aspects of civil litigation cases, from inception through completion, including motion practice, written discovery, depositions, hearings, settlement negotiations, client management and counseling. Tamara's practice extends to appellate advocacy, having represented clients before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, and the Texas Court of Appeals.

Prior to joining McAfee & Taft in 2006, Tamara worked as a litigation associate in the Dallas, TX, office of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP and the Houston, TX, office of Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP.  Her experience with those firms included cases involving complex commercial litigation, computer technology, copyright infringement and antitrust litigation. 

An example of Tamara’s work can be found in the published opinion of Yokogawa Corporation of America v. Skye International Holdings, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005), in which Tamara represented a group of defendants accused of violating the Texas Fraudulent Transfer Act, among other claims, in relation to a business acquisition and subsequent sale of assets.  Tamara successfully defended all claims through resolution on motion for summary judgment, which was affirmed in all regards by the Texas Court of Appeals.

Tamara's achievements have earned her recognition as a "future star" in the 2009 edition of Benchmark Litigation as well as inclusion in Oklahoma Rising Stars for the past two years. While practicing in Texas, she was twice named a "Texas Rising Star."

She is the author of  “The Employer Escape Chute from Punitive Liability Under Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n”, 54 Oklahoma Law Review 181 (2001). She also authored "Local Courts Clarify Importance of Crafting Enforceable Noncompete, Nonsolicit Clauses" for the December 2009 issue of Oklahoma Employment Law Letter.
 

Representative Experience Representation, on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants, in matters involving the alleged failed installation of software technology Representation of a financial institution in a class action that alleges violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, among other claims Representation of employers sued by former employees for wrongful termination and/or alleged discrimination Representation of title insurance companies in an antitrust investigation by Texas Attorney General Successful representation of a shipper on an Oklahoma intrastate pipeline in obtaining a temporary restraining order and injunction to prevent pipeline from exercising monopoly power in excluding shipper from use of the pipeline when pipeline attempted to unilaterally impose a new and highly restrictive sulfur content standard Successful appeal to the Tenth Circuit to have agency action of the United States Department Housing and Urban Development overturned as arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.  The result was reinstatement of funding to Indian tribe under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act.  Published opinion available at 567 F.3d 1235. Successfully defended motion to dismiss case of breach of Indian trust fiduciary duty pending in U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  Government had moved to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1500, arguing that a related case filed the same day in the Eastern District of Oklahoma divested the U.S. Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction.  The court rejected the government's argument that cases filed the same day should be considered per se pending within the meaning of Section 1500.  Instead, the court looked to factual evidence to determine that the case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims was filed earlier in the day than was the case in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  Published opinion available at 86 Fed. Cl. 183. Obtained summary judgement in federal district court in an age discrimination suit by presenting competent evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for plaintiff's termination.

View Next Attorney