A disbarred Pennsylvania attorney convicted of misusing school funds told an ethics panel Tuesday that he deserves a second chance, claiming the disciplinary committee unfairly ignored his remorse while wrongly assuming he had directly profited from the scheme.

Attorney David Shulick, once a well-known education contractor for the Philadelphia School District, urged the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reinstate his license. His counsel, Robert W. Sink, argued that Shulick accepted responsibility for his role in the scandal but maintained that no court had ever found he personally embezzled money.

“No court has found — no jury, no judge, not even the Third Circuit — that he directly embezzled,”
Sink told the board, contending the hearing committee’s interpretation of Shulick’s remorse was unjust.

Background: Conviction Tied to School District Misuse

Shulick was convicted under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 666, for misappropriating school district funds that were meant to operate Philadelphia’s Southwest School. Prosecutors alleged that Shulick redirected portions of the money to Chaka Fattah Jr., the son of former U.S. Congressman Chaka Fattah, who was also convicted on related embezzlement and fraud charges.

In 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disbarred Shulick retroactive to 2018, when he was first suspended following the criminal charges. In July 2024, he filed for reinstatement, arguing that his remorse was genuine and that he had already paid his dues, including serving a federal prison sentence.

Remorse or Resistance? Dispute Over Shulick’s Intent

At the hearing, Sink emphasized that remorse and continued legal appeals are not mutually exclusive. Shulick has long argued that while he misallocated funds, he did not embezzle them for personal gain. He claimed every dollar spent went toward the school’s operations, even if not in strict compliance with district guidelines.

Shulick’s appeals included an attempt to overturn his conviction based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” decision, which limited the scope of federal fraud statutes. His bid failed, but he maintained that his actions constituted mismanagement — not theft.

Sink read from a letter Shulick sent to the Philadelphia School District, where the attorney wrote, “I want to accept responsibility, fully and openly.”

Ethics Prosecutor Does Not Oppose Reinstatement

In a surprising move, Elizabeth Livingston of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel said the office did not oppose Shulick’s reinstatement, acknowledging that he met the legal burden of proof. However, she noted that final credibility decisions rested with the hearing committee.

“The disciplinary board and the hearing committee can reach a different conclusion than the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,” Livingston said, signaling that Shulick’s fate now hinges on the board’s interpretation of sincerity and accountability.

A Fall from Grace — and a Bid for Redemption

Once a respected attorney and education advocate, Shulick’s downfall mirrored a courtroom tragedy — ambition curdling into scandal. He insists he has atoned for his mistakes and that his remorse, though complex, is real.

Whether the Disciplinary Board believes that remorse outweighs the shadow of embezzlement remains to be seen. The board has taken the case under advisement, with a decision expected in the coming months.

Shulick is represented by Robert W. Sink of the Law Offices of Robert W. Sink.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is represented in-house by Elizabeth Livingston.