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-today 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