Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Boris Ouchakof
Citation: 2002 WI 122
Docket Number: 2002AP000875-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2002

2002 WI 122 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0875-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Boris Ouchakof, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Boris Ouchakof,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OUCHAKOF 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 15, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 122 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0875-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 
 
NOV 15, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the petition filed by Attorney 
Boris Ouchakof pursuant to current SCR 22.19 for a consensual 
revocation of his license to practice law in this state.  In 
that petition Ouchakof asserts that he cannot successfully 
defend against any of the allegations of misconduct set forth in 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) complaint filed against 
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
2 
 
him on March 28, 2002.1  Given the severity of the 41 counts of 
misconduct alleged against Ouchakof in the OLR complaint, plus 
the 
additional 
12 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
currently 
being 
investigated by the OLR based on 4 separate clients' grievances 
filed against Ouchakof, which Ouchakof also acknowledges he 
cannot successfully defend against, we conclude revocation of 
Ouchakof's license to practice law in this state is fully 
warranted and we so order.  We further order that Ouchakof pay 
the costs incurred in this disciplinary proceeding totaling 
$3246.72.  We accept the OLR report and the referee's report 
supporting Ouchakof's petition for consensual revocation of his 
license to practice law in this state.  
¶2 
Boris Ouchakof was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin on September 8, 1989, and has practiced since then in 
Madison.  His license is currently suspended and has been 
suspended since June 5, 2000, due to his noncompliance with 
continuing legal education requirements.   
¶3 
On March 28, 2002, the OLR filed a complaint in this 
court 
charging 
Ouchakof 
with 
41 
counts 
of 
professional 
                                                 
1 Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process was substantially restructured.  The name 
of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases 
involving attorney misconduct was changed from the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation and the supreme court rules applicable to the lawyer 
regulation system were also revised in part.  Most of the 
conduct underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000.  
However, the complainant in this case will be referred to as the 
OLR.  All references to supreme court rules will be to those in 
effect prior to October 1, 2000, unless otherwise noted. 
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
3 
 
misconduct relating to 14 separate client matters.  Several of 
those counts arose after Ouchakof was hired as an associate in a 
Madison law firm in 1992.  He remained with that firm until 
September 30, 1998.  The OLR complaint detailing Ouchakof's 
conduct while an associate in the firm alleged that he had 
secretly charged and accepted fees without disclosing or 
remitting those fees to the firm as his employment contract 
required; that he failed to open firm files for various clients 
despite using the firm's resources and staff for those clients; 
that he billed various clients of the firm using his own 
letterhead, not the firm's, and then failed to remit the fees he 
received to the firm.   
¶4 
In addition, the OLR complaint alleged numerous acts 
of misconduct by Ouchakof in representing clients, several of 
whom had retained him to assist them in immigration, asylum, 
visa 
or 
work 
permit 
issues 
with 
the 
Immigration 
and 
Naturalization Service (INS).   
¶5 
More specifically, the 41 misconduct counts alleged 
against Ouchakof by the OLR in its complaint include: 
• Six 
counts 
of 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c). 
• Six counts of failing to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.3. 
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
4 
 
• Eight counts of failing to promptly comply with a 
client’s reasonable request for information contrary 
to SCR 20:1.4(a).   
• One count of failing to explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding representation contrary 
to SCR 20:1.4(b). 
• One count of failing to communicate the basis or rate 
of his fee to a client within a reasonable time after 
commencing representation contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b). 
• One count of violating SCR 20:1.15(d) which provides 
that when a lawyer is in possession of property in 
which both the lawyer and another person claim 
interest, the property shall be treated by the lawyer 
as trust property until there has been an accounting 
and severance of their interest. 
• Four counts of violating SCR 20:1.16(d) which requires 
a lawyer, upon termination of representation, to take 
steps to protect a client’s interest. 
• One count of practicing law during the time when his 
law 
license was 
suspended 
thereby 
violating SCR 
31.10(1) which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in the 
practice of law in Wisconsin while his bar membership 
is suspended and therefore violating SCR 20:8.4(f) 
which states that it is professional misconduct for an 
attorney to violate a supreme court rule regulating 
the conduct of lawyers. 
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
5 
 
• Three counts of violating current SCR 21.15(4) which 
provides 
that 
an 
attorney’s 
willful 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
constitutes a violation of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct. 
• Three counts of violating current SCR 22.03(2) which 
requires a respondent to fully and fairly disclose all 
facts 
and 
circumstances 
pertaining 
to 
alleged 
misconduct within 20 days after being served with a 
request for a written response. 
• Three counts of violating current SCR 22.03(6) which 
provides 
that a 
respondent’s willful 
failure to 
provide 
relevant 
information 
to 
answer 
questions 
fully, 
or 
to 
furnish 
documents 
is 
misconduct, 
regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in 
the grievance. 
• One count of violating SCR 22.26(1)(b) which required 
a suspended attorney to promptly notify a court or 
administrative agency 
and 
the attorney 
for 
each 
opposing party of the suspension and the suspended 
attorneys consequent inability to act as an attorney. 
• Three counts of violating SCR 22.26(1)(a)1. which 
required a suspended attorney to notify by certified 
mail all clients being represented in pending matters 
of suspension and the consequent inability to act as 
an attorney and to advise the clients to seek legal 
advice elsewhere. 
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
6 
 
¶6 
In addition to these 41 counts of misconduct, the OLR 
is currently investigating grievances filed by 4 clients against 
Ouchakof; all of those grievances under investigation were filed 
by clients who had retained Ouchakof for assistance in dealing 
with the INS.  Those 4 pending investigations involve 12 
additional counts of misconduct including 2 counts of violating 
SCR 20:1.3; 1 count of violating SCR 20:1.4(a); 1 count of 
violating SCR 20:1.16(d); 2 counts of violating SCR 20:8.4(c); 2 
counts of violating SCR 22.03(2); 1 count of violating SCR 
22.26(1)(a)1.; and 3 counts of violating SCR 31.10(1).   
¶7 
After Ouchakof filed his answer to the OLR complaint, 
Attorney Steven J. Caulum was appointed as a referee to hear the 
misconduct case.  Also, after Ouchakof's answer was filed, the 
OLR began its investigation into the 4  additional grievances by 
Ouchakof's 
clients 
alleging 
the 
12 
additional 
acts 
of 
misconduct. 
¶8 
Prior to any hearing before the referee Ouchakof filed 
his petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to 
current SCR 22.19 acknowledging that he cannot successfully 
defend against the allegations of misconduct set forth in the 
OLR's complaint or against the allegations of misconduct 
identified in the pending grievance investigations.  He also 
asserts that he does not want to go through the process of a 
hearing before the referee; therefore, he petitions this court 
for consensual revocation of his license to practice law.   
¶9 
These are serious and wide-ranging allegations of 
professional misconduct that Ouchakof now acknowledges he cannot 
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
7 
 
successfully defend against.  The OLR has filed a statement in 
support of this petition and the referee has recommended that 
this court impose the maximum discipline available.  We agree 
and conclude that Ouchakof's egregious behavior warrants the 
revocation of his license to practice law in this state.  
Accordingly, 
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that Boris Ouchakof's license to 
practice law in this state is revoked effective the date of this 
order. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Boris Ouchakof pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding totaling $3246.72.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Boris Ouchakof comply with 
the provisions of current SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.  
No. 
02-0875-D   
 
 
 
1