Sanford A. Schulman

My family hired Mr. Schulman’s Law Office to handle my brother’s case. He was recommended and referred by Vonda’s Law. Beware! Our experience with this firm has been fraught with frustration and dissatisfaction. The communication with this office was consistently poor. Our numerous attempts to con...tact Mr. Schulman for updates were frequently met with silence or inadequate responses. Paperwork was not filed, nor were court appearances met as a result of his lack of attention on my brother’s behalf. I believe he took advantage of my brother’s situation causing my family financial hardship and jeopardizing my brother’s chances for a fair 6500 motion and investigation by the Criminal Integrity Unit (CIU). We paid Mr. Schluman 10K for his representation which was not rendered effectively. Moreover, once the verdict was rendered, unbeknownst to Mr. Schulman, he requested additional money to file an appeal. This level of negligence is unacceptable and unprofessional, particularly for a law firm that advertises itself as competent and reliable. The final outcome of my brother’s case was unfortunately affected by the poor legal services rendered by this office. We feel that had Mr. Schulman and his team been more diligent, attentive, and proactive, the result might have been different. I strongly advise against seeking legal representation from Mr. Schulman’s Law Office. Our experience has been overwhelmingly negative and families seeking thorough, competent, and companionate legal services for their loved ones should avoid this office at all cost.

I had an outstanding felony gun case that was 11 years old that I desperately needed to resolve. I hired Mr. Schulman to represent me and help me too finally get this matter behind me so that I could move forward with my life and pursue getting my Marine Engineer's License. From the beginning to the... end, Mr. Schulman was straight forward and honest with me about my case and what he'll be able to do for me. He stayed in contact with me and replied back to any messages I may have sent. He not only kelp me from going to jail but we're in the process of getting the case dismissed! I would definitely recommend Mr. Shulman if you need a good, experienced attorney.

Mr. Schulman was dedicated to us as clients. He answered all our questions and always kept us updated. He saved our family business and we will always be grateful to him. He's very knowledgeable and in and out of the courts daily. My family would refer him to anyone who was in need of a smart and cap...able attorney.

I had a white collar case with the attorney general for the state of michigan. Sanford did not defend me well at all, failed to deliver on ANYTHING he said he would do...period. Did not communicate with me much during the investigation. Seemed like he had everything under control....up until the day ...of sentencing. I would not recommend hiring Sanford

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.)