Vincent Vadim Shulman was admitted to the California Bar 5th June 2000, but has since been disbarred. Vincent graduated from San Fernando Valley College of Law.

Lawyer Information

NameVincent Vadim Shulman
First Admitted5 June 2000 (25 years ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number207105

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number310-551-1550
Fax Number310-551-1553

Schools

Law SchoolSan Fernando Valley College of Law (Woodland Hills CA)
Undergraduate SchoolLoyola Marymount University (Los Angeles CA)

Address

Current Address1801 Century Park E #1430
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Map

History

21 August 2014Disbarred (10 years, 10 months ago)
Disbarment 12-C-12361
7 July 2014Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 11 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 11-O-15874
27 September 2013Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 8 months ago)
Interim suspension after conviction 12-C-12361
9 August 2013Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 12-C-12361 (11 years, 10 months ago)
10 May 2013Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 11-O-15874 (12 years, 1 month ago)
17 July 2012Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-O-15874 (12 years, 11 months ago)
8 December 2011Private reproval, public disclosure 09-O-14679 (13 years, 6 months ago)
2 August 2011Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 09-O-14679 (13 years, 10 months ago)
6 October 2004Active (20 years, 8 months ago)
6 September 2004Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 9 months ago)
5 June 2000Admitted to the State Bar of California (25 years ago)

Discipline Summaries

September 27, 2013

VINCENT VADIM SHULMAN [#207105], 43, of Los Angeles, was placed on interim suspension Sept. 27, 2013, following a conviction for grand theft. He was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

May 10, 2013

VINCENT VADIM SHULMAN [#207105], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect May 10, 2013.

Shulman stipulated that he failed to promptly respond to a client’s inquiries about her case. In mitigation, he stipulated to the facts in his discipline case, allowing it to be resolved sooner, did extensive pro bono and community work and reduced his contingency fees for working on the client’s case as well as apologizing directly to her. He also put in place tools and procedures to more efficiently respond to client inquiries.