SHULMAN FAMILY LAW GROUP REVIEW
This complaint was posted on NAS on 28th Feb, 2022 and is a permanent record located here: https://www.nameandshame.com/shulman-family-law-group-5YOTR/i-absolutely-do-not-recommend-this-law-firm-id5yeax .
I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS LAW FIRM
In March of 2018, I engaged the services of Maya Shulman, Esq, Shulman Family Law Group to represent me in a divorce proceeding initiated by my soon to be ex-husband. In the six (6) months of her representation of me, she was paid a total of 11,400.00 in attorney fees and expenses.
During the initial months of our Attorney/Client relationship, I became frustrated with Attorney Maya Shulman’s representation, both in her lack of productivity and in her lack of advocacy for me. However, having never gone through this type of process before, I had no idea what the “norms” were. It was not until I discharged Attorney Maya Shulman and procured other legal counsel that I was made aware of the grossly unprofessional representation I had received from her. Attorney Maya Shulman’s fruitlessness in her ability prompted me to file a formal complaint with the Bar Association.
Here is a synopsis of her gross mishandling of my Case:
Lack of Strategy: Despite numerous requests, at no time during the six (6) months of representation did Attorney Maya Shulman ever communicate to me a legal strategy to represent my interests in this divorce proceeding even though I would ask her for one over and over.
NO temporary spousal support: At the time the divorce petition was served, I was not employed. Attorney Maya Shulman NEVER suggested filing an RFO (Request For Order) for temporary spousal support nor attorney fees from my husband (Petitioner), despite him having a stable and permanent job, significant assets, including but not limited to owning a 1.5 million dollar home which I contributed to up-keeping.
Moore Marsden Claim: AFTER collecting 11,400.00 in attorney fees, and again without ever offering a strategy, Attorney Maya Shulman, Esq, of the Shulman Family Law Group informed me that in her professional opinion, I was not entitled to any compensation in the dissolution of our seven year marriage. I was subsequently informed of my rights to file a Moore Marsden claim on our home which entitles me to fair compensation for the appreciated value of the property during my marriage. At no time did Maya Shulman ever inform me of this established law practice.
Over two years later, my divorce is still being litigated because of the change in attorneys. However, my now NEW Attorney was able to secure for me some Spousal Support, Attorney Fees, and the Morse Marsden calculations estimates that I am entitled to. All of which is a far cry from “in her professional opinion I was not entitled to any compensation”.
Prejudicial Behavior: I am in possession of email correspondence between Attorney Maya Shulman and a third party, where my case was discussed wherein the third party questioned Maya’s belief that I, her client whom was paying her money to be represented by her, believed that I was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. At best, the ex parte conversation is unprofessional, at worse, I’ll let you speculate. However, it does clearly demonstrate a prejudicial mindset and a lack of advocacy on my behalf. It is not right for Attorney Maya Shulman or ANY Attorney for that matter to take and continue taking money from a client if they KNOW they will not be committed to the best possible outcome for their client, that is simply inhuman, heartless, greedy and wicked.
What makes this even more glaring is the fact that my new Attorney was able to help me move my case forward for A LOT LESS MONEY than Maya Shulman extracted from me.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed. If you are looking for a competent, strategic, “shark-like” Attorney to fight/advocate YOUR Divorce case, then I strongly advise you to save your money, do more research, save your heart and your professional expectations and STAY CLEAR of Maya Shulman, Esq, and the Shulman Family Law Group.
If you are wondering why it took me so long to write this Review, its because I’M STILL suffering the consequences of past gross mishandling, I am STILL in the middle of this Divorce, but thanks to my new Attorney we are moving forward, thus this Review is OVERDUE.
UPDATE TO MY REVIEW ABOVE, I RECEIVED THIS!
EVERYONE, SEE FOR YOURSELF THE LETTER MAYA SHULMAN SENT ME BELOW AFTER SEEING MY HONEST REVIEW #BullyLawyer #FirstAmendmentRight #TruthPrevails #IWillNotBeIntimidatedForSpeakingTruth
June 4, 2020
Re: Defamation of Maya Shulman – CEASE AND DESIST
Dear Ms. Cianci:
It has come to my attention you publicly posted defamatory comments about my firm, Shulman Family Law Group “SFLG”), on Yelp and Facebook. Based on the content of your review, you obviously have the intent to subject SFLG to scorn, ridicule, loss of reputation and economic damages. Please be advised your post is defamatory and actionable, and may subject you toliability for general and special compensatory damages. See e.g. F.A.A. v. Cooper (2012) 132 S.Ct. 1441.
Of particular concern are your accusations SFLG “take the client’s money and run”,” “demonstrate a prejudicial mindset and a lack of advocacy” and that you, the public, should “save your money, do more research, save your heart and your professional expectations and stay clear of Maya Shulman, Esq, and the Shulman Family Law Group of 24025 Park Sorrento, Suite310, Calabasas, CA 91302 AND 7 W. Figueroa Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.
In essence, you alleged theft and at a minimum you sought to damage SFLG’s professional reputation and occupation. Your accusations are false and constitute defamation “per se.” See, e.g. Bikkina v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70. Defamation per se, is presumed to cause damages without Ms. Racquel N. Cianci June 4, 2020 the need for any proof by the defamed person. Cal. Civ. Code §45a. See,e.g., Grenier v. Taylor (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 487. California courts deem that “per se” violations conclusively establish damages. Albertini v. Schaefer (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 822, 829. Indeed, making a per se accusationis actionable defamation whether or not the accusation is believed. See, e.g., Arno v. Stewart (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 955, 963).
Libel per se is presumed to be intentional and, where, as here, is made with malice, also subjects you to punitive damages. See, e.g. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders (1985) 472 U.S. 749, 761. Your malicious intent is established by the posting of the vile Yelp post.
DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE that you permanently cease and desist from disseminating or publishing any statements, written or oral, about SFLG and that you immediately remove your vile post from Yelp and Facebook. Please confirm within three (3) days that you have complied with this demand. Without such confirmation, I will have no choice but to commence a civil action for defamation and seek general, special and punitive damages and an injunction against you.
Nothing contained herein is intended to nor may be construed to be a waiver of any rights or remedies, legal or equitable, or assertions of fact, all of which are expressly reserved hereby.
Very truly yours,