Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky

Citation: 2013 WI 100

Docket Number: 2012AP000740-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 100 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP740-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOROKHOVSKY  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 17, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 100
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP740-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 17, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky be publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
professional 
misconduct. 
That 
misconduct 
consists of:  (1) committing criminal acts that reflect 
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
2 
 
lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b),1 and (2) making false 
statements of fact or law to a tribunal and engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)2 and SCR 20:8.4(c).3  In addition 
to a public reprimand, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Gorokhovsky pay the costs of this proceeding.  As of April 29, 
2013, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) reported costs of 
$13,835.76. 
¶2 
No appeal has been filed.  Thus, the matter is 
submitted to the court for its review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).4  
In conducting our review, we will affirm the referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we 
will review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis.  
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
2 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states a lawyer shall not knowingly "make 
a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) says it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
4 SCR 22.17(2) provides as follows: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
3 
 
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, 
¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶3 
After our independent review of the record, we approve 
the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and adopt 
them.  We agree that Attorney Gorokhovsky should pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary hearing.  We do not, however, accept 
the 
referee's 
recommendation 
that 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's 
misconduct be sanctioned by a public reprimand.  The serious 
nature of Attorney Gorokhovsky's misconduct combined with his 
recent disciplinary history render a public reprimand an 
insufficient response.  We therefore impose a 60-day suspension 
of Attorney Gorokhovsky's Wisconsin law license. 
¶4 
Attorney Gorokhovsky was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  His disciplinary history consists of the 
following:    
• Private reprimand in 2009 for charging an unreasonable 
fee, failing to treat a client's funds as trust property 
until there was an accounting and severance of the 
relationship, failing to timely refund any advance 
payment 
of 
fees, 
and 
failing 
to 
provide 
accurate 
information to the OLR during its investigation.  Private 
Reprimand, No. 2009-23.  
• Public reprimand in 2012 for failing to provide competent 
representation to a client, failing to consult with a 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
4 
 
client and abide by a client's decisions concerning the 
objectives of the representation, failing to keep a 
client reasonably informed and promptly comply with the 
client's reasonable requests for information, accepting 
compensation for legal services from someone other than a 
client without obtaining the client's prior consent, 
having a compensation arrangement that interfered with 
his independent professional judgment and with the 
client-lawyer relationship, discussing a client's case 
with the party paying for his legal services without the 
client's 
consent 
and 
allowing 
that 
party 
to 
make 
decisions about the representation, misrepresenting to 
the OLR the date of a letter he allegedly sent to a 
client, and charging an unreasonable fee.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Gorokhovsky, 2012 WI 120, 
344 Wis. 2d 553, 824 N.W.2d 804. 
¶5 
On April 9, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Gorokhovsky that alleged three counts of professional 
misconduct, the third of which the OLR later dismissed.  The 
OLR's 
complaint 
sought 
a 
60-day 
suspension 
of 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's license to practice law.  Attorney Gorokhovsky 
filed an answer that admitted some of the factual allegations of 
the complaint, denied others, and denied any violation of the 
Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.   
¶6 
This court appointed Attorney James J. Winiarski as 
referee.  The referee held an evidentiary hearing on January 28 
and 29, 2013.  On April 8, 2013, the referee filed a report 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
5 
 
containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well 
as his recommendation for discipline.  The referee's report and 
the exhibits received at the evidentiary hearing may be 
summarized as follows. 
¶7 
Count One concerns Attorney Gorokhovsky's misdemeanor 
convictions of two counts of battery and one count of disorderly 
conduct in Ozaukee County circuit court, all as acts of domestic 
abuse against his then wife.  These convictions were the result 
of a jury trial held on August 11, 2010.5  The circuit court 
sentenced Attorney Gorokhovsky to concurrent 18-month terms of 
probation for the two battery charges and a 60-day jail term for 
the disorderly conduct conviction.   
¶8 
The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
these 
criminal 
acts 
reflected 
adversely 
on 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's 
honesty, 
trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).   
¶9 
Count Two concerns certain representations Attorney 
Gorokhovsky made to the Cook County circuit court (hereinafter 
"the Illinois court") in 2010.  Attorney Gorokhovsky entered an 
appearance on behalf of his client, Providence Home Health Care 
(hereinafter "Providence"), in February of 2007, after being 
admitted to appear pro hac vice.  Providence was the plaintiff 
in the Illinois case.   
                                                 
5 Additional charges were tried to the jury; the jury 
returned a verdict of not guilty on one count of battery and two 
counts of disorderly conduct. 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 On 
August 
9, 
2010——two 
days 
before 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's criminal trial in Wisconsin——the Illinois court 
entered a scheduling order setting a trial date of November 8, 
2010.  
¶11 After Attorney Gorokhovsky was convicted and sentenced 
in Wisconsin of battery and disorderly conduct on August 11, 
2010, he decided to seek a stay of the November 2010 trial 
scheduled in the Illinois court.  On or about August 20, 2010, 
Attorney Gorokhovsky filed a motion for stay, claiming to the 
Illinois court that on August 11, 2010, he had "gone through a 
dramatic 
event 
in 
his 
life, 
resulting 
in 
partial 
incapacitation." He stated that he was "going on personal, 
family and health care leave of absence with anticipated 
duration of several months, commencing on August 26, 2010 and 
ending on or about December 3, 2010."  Attorney Gorokhovsky did 
not explain the dramatic event or health-related problem that 
served as the basis for his motion. 
¶12 Despite the fact that Attorney Gorokhovsky told the 
Illinois court that his personal and health-related leave would 
commence on August 26, 2010, Attorney Gorokhovsky appeared that 
day in Ozaukee County circuit court to present argument in a 
postconviction motion hearing in his own criminal case.  As a 
result of this postconviction hearing, the Ozaukee County 
circuit court granted a stay of Attorney Gorokhovsky's jail 
sentence pending appeal. 
¶13 On September 13, 2010, the Illinois court held a 
hearing on Attorney Gorokhovsky's motion for a stay of the 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
7 
 
impending trial.  A different lawyer appeared in Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's place on behalf of Providence.  The Illinois court 
continued the motion to September 22, 2010, and ordered Attorney 
Gorokhovsky to provide a detailed affidavit stating the reason 
for the requested stay.   
¶14 On or about September 20, 2010, Attorney Gorokhovsky 
provided the Illinois court with an affidavit in which he 
averred 
that 
he 
suffered 
from 
severe 
psoriasis 
(a 
skin 
condition) that had been manageable up until August 11, 2010, 
but thereafter substantially interfered with his normal day-to-
day functioning and ability to render competent representation 
to his client.  Attorney Gorokhovsky further averred that on the 
advice of his treating doctors, he needed to "abstain from his 
professional pursuits for a brief period of time" and undergo 
"treatment which in [the] opinion of his treating medical 
professionals will take several months."  Attorney Gorokhovsky 
averred that his client would be "severely prejudiced if this 
Honorable Court [does] not grant a short period of stay of this 
matter until December 6, 2010 to allow your affiant to 
undergo . . . required medical treatment to rectify his health 
impediment and to protect his health and well-being."  In his 
affidavit, Attorney Gorokhovsky did not reveal the fact of his 
criminal convictions in Wisconsin, nor did he refer to the 
sentence imposed or the fact that the sentence was stayed 
pending appeal.    
¶15 In further support of his motion for a stay of the 
impending Illinois trial, Attorney Gorokhovsky provided the 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
8 
 
Illinois court with a letter dated September 21, 2010, from an 
individual named Oleh Cherednyk, whom Attorney Gorokhovsky 
identifies as a doctor of oriental medicine.  Cherednyk wrote in 
his letter to the Illinois court that Attorney Gorokhovsky's 
condition of psoriasis was interfering with his daily activities 
and "poses [a] severe health risk."  Cherednyk wrote that he has 
advised Attorney Gorokhovsky "to avoid any and all instances of 
possible stress by limiting his professional activities to only 
uncontested legal matters" and "not to participate as [a] 
litigation attorney in any litigation-related activities."  
¶16 On September 22, 2010, the Illinois court entered an 
order granting Attorney Gorokhovsky's motion to stay the trial 
scheduled for November 8, 2010. 
¶17 Thereafter, notwithstanding his representations to the 
Illinois 
court, 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky 
appeared 
and 
filed 
documents in numerous court cases through December of 2010.  
These 
appearances 
included 
representing 
defendants 
in 
preliminary hearings in criminal cases, representing parties in 
contested motion hearings, and appearing in court on his own 
behalf in his criminal case and in his own divorce case.  
¶18 One of the defendants in the stayed Illinois court 
case, T.V., learned of and attended an October 2010 hearing in 
Attorney Gorokhovsky's own divorce case in Wisconsin.  T.V. 
observed Attorney Gorokhovsky's active participation in the 
hearing.  
¶19 On or about November 18, 2010, T.V.'s attorney filed 
with the Illinois court a motion for sanctions on behalf of all 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
9 
 
of the defendants in Providence's lawsuit.  The motion alleged 
that Attorney Gorokhovsky misrepresented to the Illinois court 
that he needed a stay of the Illinois proceeding because of his 
own serious medical condition.  The motion included an affidavit 
from T.V. recounting her observations of Attorney Gorokhovsky's 
participation in his October 2010 hearing in his own divorce 
case.  T.V.'s attorney also filed court records showing various 
court appearances Attorney Gorokhovsky made after the stay was 
granted.  
¶20 On February 15, 2011, the Illinois court revoked 
Attorney Gorokhovsky's pro hac vice admission to appear in the 
Providence case.  The court ordered Attorney Gorokhovsky and his 
client to pay $500, jointly and severally, to the defendants for 
their costs in bringing the motion for sanctions.  Providence 
paid the sanction.  
¶21 In 
the 
instant 
disciplinary 
case, 
the 
referee 
concluded that Attorney Gorokhovsky's actions in the Providence 
matter violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c).  The referee 
determined that Attorney Gorokhovsky made a misrepresentation to 
the Illinois court when he stated that he was incapacitated and 
would be taking a leave of absence from his law practice for 
medical reasons, when in fact he went on to make court 
appearances and perform legal work in numerous Wisconsin cases.  
The referee further found that Attorney Gorokhovsky failed to 
disclose to the Illinois court his criminal trial, convictions, 
and sentence as a reason for his request for a stay. 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
10 
 
¶22 The referee recommended that Attorney Gorokhovsky be 
publicly reprimanded, and that the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding be assessed against him.  In recommending a public 
reprimand, the referee noted the following mitigating factors:  
(1) 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's 
underlying 
convictions 
are 
misdemeanors; (2) Attorney Gorokhovsky served 60 days of 
incarceration for his misdemeanor convictions; (3) there is no 
evidence of prior criminal conduct on the part of Attorney 
Gorokhovsky; 
(4) 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky 
suffered 
a 
serious 
outbreak of his pre-existing psoriasis as a result of the stress 
of his divorce and criminal trial; and (5) Attorney Gorokhovsky 
works intensely and zealously as a lawyer for his clients.  The 
referee noted the following aggravating factors:  (1) domestic 
abuse convictions are serious and reflect negatively on Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's fitness as a lawyer; (2) Attorney Gorokhovsky 
deliberately hid his criminal convictions and jail sentence from 
the Illinois court in his efforts to secure a stay of an 
upcoming trial; (3) Attorney Gorokhovsky refuses to acknowledge 
the wrongful nature of his conduct in the Illinois court; and 
(4) this matter and Attorney Gorokhovsky's previous disciplinary 
matters reveal a pattern of disregard for his professional 
obligations as an attorney. 
¶23 After weighing these factors, the referee rejected the 
OLR's request for a 60-day suspension of Attorney Gorokhovsky's 
Wisconsin 
law 
license 
and 
instead 
recommended 
a 
public 
reprimand.  The referee concluded that a public reprimand "would 
provide the public with notice of [Attorney] Gorokhovsky's 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
11 
 
misconduct and members of the public would then be in a position 
to determine [Attorney] Gorokhovsky's fitness as a lawyer, given 
his domestic abuse convictions." 
¶24 The matter is now before this court to review the 
referee's report and recommendation.   We affirm the referee's 
findings of fact, and we agree with the referee that those 
factual findings demonstrate that Attorney Gorokhovsky committed 
the two counts of professional misconduct at issue. 
¶25 We 
further 
decide, 
contrary 
to 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, that a 60-day license suspension is appropriate.  
A 60-day suspension is required by the serious nature of the 
misconduct and Attorney Gorokhovsky's previous disciplinary 
history.  Attorney Gorokhovsky stands convicted of two counts of 
battery and one count of disorderly conduct, all as acts of 
domestic abuse.  Domestic violence is an undisputedly serious 
crime that reflects adversely on Attorney Gorokhovsky's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.  See 
SCR 20:8.4(b) cmt. [2].  In addition, Attorney Gorokhovsky made 
intentionally false, deceitful statements to the Illinois court.  
While it may have been true that Attorney Gorokhovsky was 
suffering from an outbreak of psoriasis during the relevant time 
period, this outbreak was not so debilitating as to require him 
to 
refrain 
from 
participating 
"in 
any 
litigation-related 
activities," 
as 
he 
told 
the 
Illinois 
court. 
 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky's litigation efforts in other cases, including his 
own, contradicted his representation to the Illinois court.    
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
12 
 
¶26 We generally impose progressive discipline, especially 
in cases involving a pattern of similar misconduct.  See, e.g., 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, 
¶27, 296 Wis. 2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501.  This is the third time 
that Attorney Gorokhovsky has been the subject of a disciplinary 
action.  Attorney Gorokhovsky engaged in the misconduct at issue 
here in 2010, after we privately reprimanded him in 2009.  In 
2012, we publicly reprimanded Attorney Gorokhovsky for eight 
counts of misconduct, including the same behavior——dishonest or 
fraudulent conduct——in play here.   See id. (noting that we have 
imposed progressive discipline when the conduct at issue in the 
current disciplinary proceeding occurred prior to the imposition 
of discipline in a prior proceeding).  In his 2012 public 
reprimand, we "remind[ed] Attorney Gorokhovsky that the court 
may impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney 
engages 
in 
a 
pattern 
of 
misconduct." 
 
Gorokhovsky, 
344 
Wis. 2d 553, ¶34.  Now that we already have privately and 
publicly reprimanded Attorney Gorokhovsky, imposing yet another 
reprimand would unduly depreciate the seriousness of his 
misconduct 
and 
the 
need 
to 
deter 
him 
from 
continued 
unprofessional 
behavior. 
 
Therefore, 
we 
impose 
a 
60-day 
suspension.  We also remind Attorney Gorokhovsky, once again, 
that this court may impose progressively severe sanctions when 
an attorney engages in a pattern of misconduct.   
¶27 Finally, 
we 
find 
it 
appropriate 
that 
Attorney 
Gorokhovsky pay the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$13,835.76.  Our general policy is to impose the costs of a 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
13 
 
disciplinary proceeding against the respondent attorney whose 
misconduct necessitated the proceeding.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  We 
see no reason to deviate from that policy in this case.  There 
is nothing on the face of the OLR's statement of costs that 
would suggest the requested costs are unreasonable.  Attorney 
Gorokhovsky has not objected to the imposition of the requested 
costs.  We therefore require Attorney Gorokhovsky to pay the 
full costs of this proceeding. 
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Vladimir M. 
Gorokhovsky to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of 60 days, effective January 21, 2014. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky 
shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
No. 
2012AP740-D   
 
 
 
1