Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Boris Ouchakof

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 48 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2002AP875-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Boris Ouchakof, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Boris Ouchakof, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR OUCHAKOF 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 29, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 48
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2002AP875-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Boris Ouchakof, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Boris Ouchakof, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 29, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Attorney Lisa C. Goldman, that the license of 
Attorney Boris Ouchakof to practice law in Wisconsin should be 
reinstated with certain specified conditions.1  After fully 
                                                 
1 Because neither party appealed from the referee's report 
and recommendation, our review proceeds under SCR 22.33(3), 
which provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely filed, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report, order reinstatement, 
with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, or order the 
parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
2 
 
reviewing this matter, we agree with the referee that Attorney 
Ouchakof's license should be reinstated and that a condition 
should be placed upon his practice of law in this state.  We 
modify the referee's recommended condition slightly in order to 
provide clarification of the scope of the required monitoring.  
We also determine that Attorney Ouchakof should be required to 
pay the costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which were 
$1,483.43 as of December 13, 2012. 
¶2 
The standards that apply to all petitions seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in SCR 22.31(1).2  In particular, the petitioning 
attorney must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he or she has the moral character necessary to 
practice law in this state, that his or her resumption of the 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That 
his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
3 
 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest, and that the 
attorney has complied fully with the terms of the suspension or 
revocation order and the requirements of SCR 22.26.  In 
addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a 
petition 
for 
reinstatement 
must 
contain 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-[(4m)].3  Thus, the petitioning attorney must 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
4 
 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations 
in 
the 
reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶3 
As set forth in our prior disciplinary decision, In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ouchakof, 2002 WI 122, 257 
Wis. 2d 1, 653 N.W.2d 108 (Ouchakof I), Attorney Ouchakof was 
admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in September 1989.  
He thereafter practiced in Madison.  From 1992 to 1998 he was 
employed as an associate attorney with a Madison law firm.  He 
then opened his own law office. 
¶4 
In 
June 
2000 
Attorney 
Ouchakof's 
license 
was 
administratively suspended due to his failure to comply with the 
mandatory reporting requirements for continuing legal education 
(CLE).  His license has not returned to active status since that 
time. 
¶5 
Attorney 
Ouchakof 
was 
not 
the 
subject 
of 
any 
disciplinary proceeding until March 2002, when the Office of 
                                                                                                                                                             
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
5 
 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint that 
charged Attorney Ouchakof with 41 counts of professional 
misconduct arising out of 14 separate client matters and his 
practice of law during an administrative suspension.  In 
addition to the counts charged in the complaint, the OLR was 
also 
investigating 
an 
additional 
12 
counts 
of 
potential 
misconduct arising out of another four client grievances.  
¶6 
The misconduct described in the complaint included 
allegations that while employed by the law firm, Attorney 
Ouchakof secretly charged and personally accepted fees that he 
did not remit or even disclose to his employer, contrary to his 
employment contract.  He was also alleged, inter alia, to have 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, to have 
failed to comply promptly with clients' reasonable requests for 
information, to have failed to communicate the basis or rate of 
his fee, to have failed to hold in trust property in which 
another person had an interest, to have failed to protect his 
clients' interests upon the termination of his representation, 
and to have failed to cooperate with and provide relevant 
information to the OLR. 
¶7 
After the filing of the OLR's complaint, Attorney 
Ouchakof filed a petition for the voluntary revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  His petition stated that 
he 
could 
not 
successfully 
defend 
against 
the 
misconduct 
allegations set forth in the complaint or the misconduct 
allegations which the OLR was still investigating.  This court 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
6 
 
granted the petition and revoked his license in November 2002.  
Ouchakof I, 257 Wis. 2d 1, ¶10.4 
¶8 
In December 2011 Attorney Ouchakof filed a petition 
for reinstatement.  The OLR's response to the petition stated 
that it did not oppose his reinstatement.  The referee then held 
a public hearing on the reinstatement petition and filed a 
report and recommendation with this court. 
¶9 
The referee found that following the revocation of his 
license, 
Attorney 
Ouchakof 
maintained 
steady 
employment 
summarizing medical records for Becker Law Offices.  The referee 
further found that Attorney Ouchakof's work for Becker Law 
Offices did not constitute the practice of law or work that is 
otherwise prohibited by SCR 22.26(2).  Attorney Ouchakof's 
employment with Becker Law Offices terminated in November 2011 
for reasons unrelated to his job performance.  He has since been 
seeking other employment.  In addition to his employment at the 
law firm, Attorney Ouchakof has also for many years been 
involved with coaching a club soccer team in Madison and has 
extensively volunteered his time at his church, both of which 
indicate a genuine desire to contribute to the community and to 
live a life characterized by positive conduct.  The referee 
noted that the record contained a number of letters from members 
of the legal community, including individuals associated with 
                                                 
4 We also ordered Attorney Ouchakof to pay the costs of that 
disciplinary proceeding.  The OLR's response to Attorney 
Ouchakof's petition for reinstatement advises that he satisfied 
the cost judgment in November 2003. 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
7 
 
Becker 
Law 
Offices, 
who 
attested 
to 
Attorney 
Ouchakof's 
character 
and 
trustworthiness, 
viewed 
favorably 
Attorney 
Ouchakof's work, and supported his reinstatement to the practice 
of law.  No testimony or letters in opposition to his 
reinstatement were received.   
¶10 The referee commented at some length on the fact that 
Attorney 
Ouchakof 
had 
testified 
that 
during 
the 
events 
underlying the revocation of his license he had been suffering 
from a major depression and that he has continued to be treated 
for depression.  The referee noted that the 2002 disciplinary 
proceeding did not involve a determination of any medical 
incapacity.  Nonetheless, she indicated that, given Attorney 
Ouchakof's history of depression, he needed to show that he is 
treating 
his 
depression such that he will be able, if 
reinstated, to meet the obligations of practicing law in accord 
with the ethical standards adopted by this court.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Ouchakof had made such a showing.  She 
accepted Attorney Ouchakof's testimony that he has continued to 
take the medication prescribed by his treatment provider to keep 
his depression under control.   
¶11 Accordingly, the referee determined that through his 
written submissions and during the public hearing, Attorney 
Ouchakof had satisfied all of the requirements for reinstatement 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Ouchakof may now safely be recommended 
to return to the practice of law in this state. 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
8 
 
¶12 The referee, however, expressed concern that Attorney 
Ouchakof may require some assistance to ensure that his 
depression does not derail his reintegration into the practice 
of law.  In particular, the referee was concerned by the fact 
that Attorney Ouchakof had ceased counseling several years ago 
when his counselor had moved away from the area because the 
counselor had not discharged him at that time from the need for 
any further counseling.  The referee therefore recommended as a 
condition of reinstatement that the court require Attorney 
Ouchakof to enter into a monitoring contract with the Wisconsin 
Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) to monitor his treatment for 
depression.  The referee indicated that such monitoring would be 
important 
during 
the 
time 
following 
Attorney 
Ouchakof's 
reinstatement, but did not indicate how long she thought such 
monitoring should continue. 
¶13 We review referee reports in reinstatement proceedings 
under standards of review similar to those we use for reviewing 
referee reports in disciplinary proceedings.  We do not overturn 
a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  
On the other hand, we review a referee's legal conclusions, 
including whether the attorney has satisfied the criteria for 
reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 
801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 
2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168. 
¶14 Neither party has challenged any of the referee's 
findings of fact or legal conclusions about Attorney Ouchakof's 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
9 
 
compliance with the standards for reinstatement.  Our own review 
of the matter leads us to accept the referee's findings of fact.  
Those findings show that for nearly all of the period of 
revocation Attorney Ouchakof has maintained steady employment, 
has 
conducted 
himself 
in 
an 
exemplary 
manner, 
and 
has 
demonstrated the required competence and learning in the law.  
We therefore agree with the referee's legal conclusion that 
Attorney Ouchakof has satisfied the requirements for the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in this state by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. 
¶15 We further agree with the referee that in light of 
Attorney Ouchakof's history of depression, it is appropriate to 
impose a condition on his practice of law following his 
reinstatement.  We modify and clarify slightly the referee's 
recommendation in this regard.  We direct Attorney Ouchakof to 
enter into an agreement with WisLAP for the purpose of 
monitoring his compliance with the recommendations of his health 
care providers regarding his depression.  The duration of this 
condition and his monitoring agreement with WisLAP should be a 
period of one year from the date of his reinstatement.  We 
impose this condition not as a punishment or sanction on 
Attorney Ouchakof, but rather out of concern for ensuring his 
successful return to the practice of law, with all of its joys 
and stresses. 
¶16 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs.  This court's 
general policy in reinstatement proceedings, as in disciplinary 
proceedings, is to require the attorney who is the subject of 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
10 
 
those proceedings to pay the full costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding.  The OLR's statement of costs indicates that the 
costs of this proceeding, as of December 13, 2012, were 
$1,483.43, 
against 
which Attorney Ouchakof's initial $200 
deposit must be applied.  Attorney Ouchakof has not filed an 
objection to the OLR's statement of costs, and we perceive no 
basis to depart from our general policy in this matter.  
Accordingly, we will order Attorney Ouchakof to pay the full 
remaining costs of these proceedings. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Boris Ouchakof to practice law in Wisconsin is 
granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for a period of one year 
from the date of this reinstatement order, Boris Ouchakof's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin shall be subject to the 
following condition:  Boris Ouchakof shall enter into and comply 
with an agreement with the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program 
for 
the 
purpose 
of 
monitoring 
his 
compliance 
with 
the 
recommendations of his health care providers regarding his 
depression. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Boris Ouchakof shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation all outstanding costs of this proceeding. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remains a condition of Boris Ouchakof's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
No. 
2002AP875-D   
 
 
 
1