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.
