Sanford A. Schulman

Mr. Schulman, P-43230, entered into a "Criminal Retainer Agreement" via my wife on Oct. 15, 2002 to correct inaccurate info contained in my MDOC Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSI), specifically the "Investigator's Description Of The Offense", of which the Mich. Parole Board solely relied on t...o continually justify denial of parole despite an exemplary institutional record. His first priority was to locate & acquire my Trial & Sentencing Transcripts to ascertain the merit of the issue's I raised. Six months passed and no transcripts or communication from Mr. Schulman. My wife had to contact other counsel for guidance in the search, then acquired and delivered them to his office on April 25, 2003. Again, no communication from him until Oct. 2003. In early Dec. 2003 Mr. Schulman sent a letter stating a hearing would occur on Fri. Dec. 13, 2003 at 9 am. Turns out the 13th fell on Saturday and my wife unknowingly went to courthouse only to find it wasn't open. On Dec. 14, 2003 she wrote a letter to the State Of Mich. Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) complaining he did nothing for the first year, ignored her phone calls & letters, and had kept her in the dark causing "much mental and emotional stress". In Mr. Schulman's ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the AGC , dated Jan.17, 2004,(FILE NO. 3481/03) , he blamed the wife for not procuring transcripts, she was "not the client", but most incredible was the fact he went on to describe my case as "which could only be compared with conduct by the Nazis during world War ll." Mr. Schulman knowingly proceeds to recount, verbatim, those shocking allegations contained in the inaccurate PSI of which he was exclusively retained to address. Moreover, merely 3 months earlier his Motion To Correct Or Modify Presentence Report dated Oct. 27, 2003 states: 7. "That because the Court failed to make findings of fact, the presentence report heavily relied on the investigators description of the offense, which is inaccurate." 9. "The investigator's description was based sole on the allegations made by the complainant and related to charges to which the defendant was found not guilty." Furthermore on Jan. 08, 2004, that being merely 8-9 days prior to his AGC Answers, the Hon.Maggie W. Drake did order the Granting to correct or modify my PSI removing merely 2 paragraphs, one being those shocking allegations used by the Parole Board to deny parole beginning in 1999 and for many hearings thereafter. The folly and/or vindictiveness of this Atty. would only continue more so in that it took another 2 years (Feb. 09, 2006), and 2 other parole hearings resulting in parole denied, to finally receive the corrected PSI and only on account of me filing a COMPLAINT FOR MALPRACTICE against him dated (Jan. 03, 2006.)