Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky

Plain English (For Everyone)

A Wisconsin lawyer, Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, will have his license suspended for 60 days because he failed to diligently represent a client in a property dispute and lied to the disciplinary board investigating his actions. This means he cannot practice law for two months. The court found his conduct violated rules about promptness and honesty.

For Legal Practitioners

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed a 60-day license suspension for attorney Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, finding violations of SCR 20:1.3 (diligence) and SCR 20:8.4(a) (misrepresentation). The misconduct involved neglecting a client's post-divorce property matter and providing false information to the OLR during its investigation. The court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and deferred to the referee's factual findings.

For Law Students

This case, Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gorokhovsky, illustrates the Wisconsin Supreme Court's de novo review of attorney disciplinary matters. The court upheld findings that attorney Gorokhovsky violated rules of diligence (SCR 20:1.3) and honesty (SCR 20:8.4(a)) by neglecting a client's case and misrepresenting facts to the OLR, resulting in a 60-day license suspension.

Newsroom Summary

A Wisconsin attorney, Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, has had his law license suspended for 60 days by the state Supreme Court. The court found he failed to properly handle a client's case and misled investigators. The ruling emphasizes the importance of diligence and truthfulness in legal practice.

Standard of Review

De novo review for legal conclusions and application of rules, and deference to factual findings unless clearly erroneous. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviews the findings of fact made by the referee for clear error and reviews the conclusions of law and the referee's recommendation de novo.

Procedural Posture

The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court on appeal from the findings and recommendations of a referee in attorney disciplinary proceedings. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against attorney Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, alleging professional misconduct. The referee found that Gorokhovsky engaged in misconduct and recommended a license suspension. Gorokhovsky appealed this decision.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is on the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to prove professional misconduct by clear and satisfactory evidence. The standard is whether the OLR has met this burden.

Legal Tests Applied

Statutory References

Key Legal Definitions

Rule Statements

"We affirm the referee's findings of misconduct and the recommended license suspension."

"Attorney Gorokhovsky's conduct violated SCR 20:1.3 (diligence) and SCR 20:8.4(a) (misrepresentation)."

"The referee's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and the conclusions of law are correct."

Remedies

Suspension of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky's license to practice law for a period of 60 days.

Scenario: You hired a lawyer for a complex post-divorce property division case, but they have missed deadlines, ignored your calls, and failed to file crucial documents for months.

Your Rights: You have the right to competent and diligent representation. You also have the right to expect your lawyer to be truthful with you and with the Office of Lawyer Regulation if they are investigated.

What To Do: Document all communication attempts and missed deadlines. Consider filing a grievance with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in Wisconsin. If the misconduct is severe, the OLR may pursue disciplinary action, potentially leading to sanctions against the attorney.

Scenario: You are involved in a legal dispute, and your lawyer seems to be making excuses and providing vague answers when you ask for updates, making you suspect they are not being entirely honest about the case's progress.

Your Rights: You have the right to be informed about the status of your case and to expect honesty from your legal counsel. Lawyers have a duty not to mislead clients or regulatory bodies.

What To Do: Request a detailed written update from your lawyer. If you remain unsatisfied or suspect dishonesty, consult with another attorney or consider filing a complaint with the state's attorney disciplinary agency.

Is it legal for a lawyer to ignore my calls and miss deadlines?

No, it is generally not legal or ethical. Lawyers have a duty of diligence (SCR 20:1.3 in Wisconsin) requiring them to act with reasonable promptness and thoroughness. Failing to communicate or meet deadlines can constitute professional misconduct.

This applies to attorneys licensed in Wisconsin, governed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules (SCR).

Can a lawyer lie to the Office of Lawyer Regulation?

No, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to knowingly make false statements to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) or any other investigatory body (SCR 20:8.4(a) in Wisconsin). Honesty during investigations is mandatory.

This applies to attorneys licensed in Wisconsin.

For Clients of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky

Clients who have experienced delays or lack of communication from Gorokhovsky may feel validated by the court's decision. They may also be concerned about the status of their cases during his suspension and should seek alternative counsel if necessary.

For Attorneys in Wisconsin

This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict standards of diligence and honesty required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Attorneys must be mindful of their obligations to clients and regulatory bodies, as violations can lead to significant disciplinary sanctions, including license suspension.

For The Public

The decision reinforces public trust in the legal profession by demonstrating that the Wisconsin Supreme Court takes attorney misconduct seriously and imposes consequences, ensuring a higher standard of legal service.

Q: What is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky about?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky is a case decided by Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 5, 2025.

Q: What court decided Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky was decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is part of the WI state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky decided?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky was decided on March 5, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky?

The citation for Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky is 2025 WI 7. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What was the main reason for Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky's license suspension?

Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky's license was suspended for 60 days because he failed to diligently represent his client in a post-divorce property matter and made misrepresentations to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) during its investigation.

Q: How long is Gorokhovsky's law license suspended?

His license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days.

Q: What is the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)?

The OLR is the agency responsible for investigating complaints of attorney misconduct in Wisconsin and prosecuting disciplinary cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Q: What was the specific client matter Gorokhovsky was handling?

Gorokhovsky was handling a post-divorce property division matter for his client.

Q: Is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky published?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky cover?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky covers the following legal topics: Attorney discipline, Competent representation, Diligence and communication, Misrepresentation to disciplinary authority, Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: What was the ruling in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky. Key holdings: The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1 (competence) by failing to take necessary steps to protect a client's interests after withdrawing from representation, including failing to inform the client of the status of their case and failing to return the client's file.; The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by making false statements to the OLR during its investigation into his conduct.; The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation) by failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation.; The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a) (communication) by failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly complying with reasonable requests for information.; The court determined that the recommended license suspension of 60 days was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, which included both client neglect and dishonesty towards the disciplinary authority..

Q: Why is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky important?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the Wisconsin Supreme Court's commitment to upholding professional standards for attorneys. It highlights that both client neglect and dishonesty towards disciplinary bodies are serious offenses warranting significant sanctions, including license suspension, and underscores the importance of truthful cooperation with investigations.

Q: What precedent does Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky set?

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky established the following key holdings: (1) The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1 (competence) by failing to take necessary steps to protect a client's interests after withdrawing from representation, including failing to inform the client of the status of their case and failing to return the client's file. (2) The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by making false statements to the OLR during its investigation into his conduct. (3) The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation) by failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation. (4) The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a) (communication) by failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly complying with reasonable requests for information. (5) The court determined that the recommended license suspension of 60 days was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, which included both client neglect and dishonesty towards the disciplinary authority.

Q: What are the key holdings in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky?

1. The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1 (competence) by failing to take necessary steps to protect a client's interests after withdrawing from representation, including failing to inform the client of the status of their case and failing to return the client's file. 2. The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by making false statements to the OLR during its investigation into his conduct. 3. The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation) by failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation. 4. The court affirmed the finding that the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a) (communication) by failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly complying with reasonable requests for information. 5. The court determined that the recommended license suspension of 60 days was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, which included both client neglect and dishonesty towards the disciplinary authority.

Q: What cases are related to Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky?

Precedent cases cited or related to Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Cary, 2018 WI 40, 381 Wis. 2d 45, 910 N.W.2d 174; Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sullivan, 2005 WI 89, 282 Wis. 2d 1, 698 N.W.2d 630; State v. Washington, 135 Wis. 2d 576, 400 N.W.2d 511 (Ct. App. 1986).

Q: What specific rules did attorney Gorokhovsky violate?

He violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and SCR 20:8.4(a), which prohibits knowingly making false statements of material fact or law.

Q: What does 'diligence' mean for a lawyer?

Diligence means a lawyer must act with reasonable promptness and thoroughness in representing a client, including meeting deadlines and communicating effectively.

Q: What constitutes 'misrepresentation' by a lawyer in this context?

Misrepresentation involves knowingly making false statements to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) or other investigatory bodies, hindering their ability to perform their duties.

Q: What happens if a lawyer is found to have committed misconduct?

If found guilty of misconduct, a lawyer can face various sanctions, including reprimands, fines, suspension of their license to practice law, or even disbarment, depending on the severity of the offense.

Q: Where can I find the rules of professional conduct for lawyers in Wisconsin?

The rules are found in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules (SCR), specifically Chapter 20, which outlines the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.

Q: Does this ruling affect lawyers in other states?

This specific ruling applies to attorneys licensed in Wisconsin. However, the ethical principles of diligence and honesty are generally recognized across most jurisdictions.

Q: What is the burden of proof in attorney discipline cases?

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) must prove attorney misconduct by clear and satisfactory evidence.

Q: How does Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky affect me?

This case reinforces the Wisconsin Supreme Court's commitment to upholding professional standards for attorneys. It highlights that both client neglect and dishonesty towards disciplinary bodies are serious offenses warranting significant sanctions, including license suspension, and underscores the importance of truthful cooperation with investigations. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: Can I still sue my lawyer for damages even if they are disciplined?

Yes, disciplinary proceedings are separate from civil lawsuits. Even if a lawyer is disciplined, you may still be able to sue them for malpractice if their misconduct caused you financial harm.

Q: What should I do if I think my lawyer is not doing a good job?

First, try to communicate your concerns directly with your lawyer. If the issues persist, document everything and consider filing a grievance with the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).

Q: How long does an attorney disciplinary investigation typically take?

The duration varies greatly depending on the complexity of the case, the cooperation of the parties, and the caseload of the OLR. Some investigations can take months or even longer.

Q: What if my lawyer is suspended? What happens to my case?

If your lawyer is suspended, you will need to find new legal counsel to take over your case. You may need to seek an extension for any deadlines if your new lawyer needs time to get up to speed.

Q: Are there historical examples of lawyers being disciplined for similar conduct?

Yes, disciplinary actions for lack of diligence and misrepresentation are common throughout legal history. Courts and bar associations consistently uphold rules requiring competence and honesty from attorneys.

Q: Can a lawyer be disciplined for actions taken before the current rules were in place?

Generally, lawyers are disciplined under the rules that were in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct. However, the principles of ethical conduct have remained relatively consistent.

Q: What was the docket number in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky?

The docket number for Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky is 2022AP000183-D. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: What is the standard of review the Wisconsin Supreme Court used?

The court reviewed the referee's findings of fact for clear error and reviewed the conclusions of law and the recommended discipline de novo.

Q: Who decides if a lawyer has committed misconduct?

In Wisconsin, a referee typically hears the evidence in disciplinary cases, makes findings of fact, and recommends conclusions of law and discipline to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which makes the final decision.

Q: What is the role of the referee in this process?

The referee acts like a judge in the initial disciplinary hearing, taking testimony, reviewing evidence, making factual findings, and recommending a decision and penalty to the Supreme Court.