FRAUDSTER IN A SUIT? RANDY “ROCKET” SHOCHET

Lawyer Who Lied to Dental Board Now Accused of Misleading Federal Court

By Rick LaRivière and Richard Luthmann

Tooth Decay to Court Decay

Randall “Randy” Shochet built his legal career on a shaky foundation of deceit. Decades ago, as a dentist, he was caught billing insurers for phantom procedures and lying under oath to conceal the fraud. Missouri regulators suspended his dental license in 1992 after he admitted “he committed insurance fraud and perjury.”

When Shochet attempted to circumvent the suspension by secretly profiting from his practice anyway, he was caught again and surrendered his license to avoid a harsher punishment.

He even sued the Missouri lawyers who tried to help him, claiming malpractice.

Shochet then set his sights on becoming a lawyer, but Arkansas officials slammed the door. In 1998, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a decision denying Shochet admission to the bar due to a lack of good moral character.

The state’s examiners, by a 10-1 vote, found he failed to prove the “good moral character” required for admission. The court recounted how Shochet had “knowingly engaged in fraud and misrepresentation” and even “resorted to perjury” to thwart investigators.

It found his explanations “disingenuous” and concluded he was unable “to accept responsibility for his actions.”

Despite this damning history, Florida welcomed Shochet to its Bar in 2005.

His admission, gained just a few years after Arkansas branded him dishonest, now faces renewed scrutiny.

Observers are asking how a man with such a record “was able to gain admission to the Florida Bar” in the first place.

Fraudster in a Suit: False Affidavit and Courtroom Shenanigans

Fast forward to the present, and Shochet’s conduct in court is raising fresh alarms. He represents anti-Semitic failed preacher and YouTube personality Jeremy Hales in a federal lawsuit against Hales’s critics, accusing them of defamation, extortion, and other alleged offenses.

Many of the defendants are poor or unable to hire a lawyer. Shochet and Hales know this.

The case hinged on a jurisdictional twist: Hales needed to convince the court he’s an Ohio resident (not a Floridian) to sue in federal court.

Shochet filed an affidavit from Hales swearing he lives in Ohio – a claim disputed by evidence that Hales was effectively based in Florida.

Attorney Bruce Matzkin, who previously represented indigent parties in the case, flatly accuses Shochet of “suborning perjury” by submitting an affidavit he knew was false.

Matzkin believes that Shochet “100% suborned a false, sworn affidavit” to mislead the judge. He called it an “intentional fraud on the court.”

Northern District of Florida Federal Magistrate Judge Zachary Bolitho even relied on Hales’s sworn claims when allowing the case to proceed.

Critics say Shochet didn’t stop there. He allegedly padded the lawsuit with sensational but baseless charges. For example, he labeled the defendants’ antics as “extortion” under Florida’s racketeering law.

The judge quickly tossed that claim.

Simply “making false and embarrassing statements about someone does not constitute extortion,” the court ruled, dismantling Shochet’s theory.

Matzkin and others argue that this pattern – bending facts and law to gain leverage – mirrors Shochet’s old habits.

Matzkin calls the Hales lawsuit a “planned, orchestrated fraud on the court” by Shochet and his client.

Fraudster in a Suit: Ethical Complaints and Pattern of Misconduct

Shochet’s checkered record has prompted formal complaints and calls for discipline.

Earlier this month, media personality David “SupaDave” Teschendorf filed a grievance urging the Bar to probe whether Shochet “obtained admission to the Florida Bar by fraud or material omission.” Teschendorf’s letter recounts Shochet’s history of fraud, perjury, and the 1998 denial by the Arkansas bar.

“If any of this was omitted or misrepresented,” Teschendorf wrote, it would be a ‘fraud upon The Florida Bar’ that warrants disbarment.

He also argues that Shochet’s conduct in Florida “appears to follow the same troubling patterns” of unethical behavior.

Chicago-based journalist Michael Volpe also filed an ethics complaint with the Florida Bar due to Shochet’s knowing misrepresentations and lack of candor to the tribunal for failing to correct false material facts.

Volpe, who has spent a career chasing some of America’s most egregious court corruption, has never seen anything like it.

“I don’t know if I’ve ever seen someone permanently barred from two professions,” Volpe said.

Indeed, since 2005, Shochet has drawn fire for questionable tactics. He was accused of using a public adjuster to improperly solicit clients away from another firm – a “brazen scheme” to poach cases for profit.

In 2018, The Florida Bar admonished Shochet for improperly contacting a represented party, a breach of ethics.

Judges, too, have sounded alarms about Shochet’s conduct. In Arnesen Webb P.A. v. Shochet, Case No. CACE-19-006323 (17th Jud. Cir., Fla.), Judge William Haury found Shochet made “sworn representations to this Court that appear to be blatantly false.”

The court referred the matter to The Florida Bar for investigation, stating the falsehoods “undermine the integrity of the judicial process” and may constitute “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” in violation of Rule 4-8.4(c) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

Florida courts have long held that honesty in bar applications and legal proceedings is non-negotiable. In Florida Board of Bar Examiners re G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1978), the Court wrote: “It is better that a hundred good applicants be rejected than one dishonest applicant be admitted.”

In Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.B.S., 955 So. 2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2007), the Court emphasized that a single false answer or omission “demonstrates a lack of candor that warrants nonadmission to the bar.”

In Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.A.R., 755 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2000), an applicant was denied admission solely for failing to disclose minor legal issues and providing misleading explanations.

In Florida Board of Bar Examiners re L.M.S., 647 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1994), falsifying documents and lying to cover it up led to outright rejection.

Attorneys who deceive regulators or courts often face permanent disbarment. In The Florida Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2007), the Court held that “false testimony under oath is a serious offense” that “undermines the administration of justice.”

With Shochet, critics say, the issue isn’t whether dishonesty occurred—it’s why the Bar hasn’t acted.

Fraudster in a Suit: Questions For Randy Shochet

We reached out to Shochet for his side of the story. As of press time, he hasn’t responded. Here is what we asked:

From: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
Date: On Sunday, July 20th, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Subject: Journalist Inquiry Regarding Bar Admission, Arkansas Denial, and Court Filings
To: rshochet@shochetlaw.com <rshochet@shochetlaw.com>, Attorneys@counsel.insure <Attorneys@counsel.insure>
CC: RALafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, mthomasnast@protonmail.com <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, richard.luthmann@protonmail.com <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, mvolpe998@gmail.com <mvolpe998@gmail.com>

Attorney Shochet,

We are journalists preparing a detailed story for publication regarding your professional history, your current legal practice in Florida, and the federal litigation involving Jeremy Hales.

To ensure accuracy and fairness, we are reaching out to provide you with an opportunity to respond to several specific questions and allegations before publication. We intend to go to press shortly. If you respond after we do, we will incorporate your responses in a follow-up.

Bar Admission and Background Questions:

1. Did you disclose the following to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners prior to your admission in 2004:

If we hear back from Shochet, we will update the readership.

Why Hasn’t the Florida Bar Acted?

For many, Shochet’s saga raises an uncomfortable question: Why is he still practicing law in Florida? The evidence of dishonesty – from his dental fraud to alleged perjury in a current case – would likely disqualify anyone from joining the Bar.

Florida’s own rules forbid lawyers from lying in bar applications or to courts, under penalty of expulsion. If Shochet indeed misled bar examiners in 2004, the integrity of Florida’s vetting process is at stake.

Observers note that had his full past been known, he might never have been admitted.

“If the Florida Bar investigates and concludes he lied… these cases would all be authority that support his disbarment,” Matzkin noted.

Teschendorf’s complaint, too, explicitly urges the Bar to consider disbarment if the facts warrant.

So far, however, Shochet remains a “Member in Good Standing” – fully eligible to practice law.

Insiders warn that the credibility of Florida’s legal oversight is at risk. This has led to mounting pressure on Florida’s legal watchdogs to act decisively.

Will the Bar move to protect the public and its own reputation?

With such a blatant pattern of deceit on the record, critics say anything less than a full investigation – and swift disbarment – would be a grave failure of oversight.