Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Boris Ouchakof
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2013 WI 48 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2002AP875-D 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: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: May 29, 2013 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: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, MAY 29, 2013 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Boris Ouchakof, Respondent. 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 1 with certain specified conditions.1 After fully 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 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. 2 No. 2002AP875-D 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 addition, petition order SCR for and the 22.31(1)(c) requirements incorporates reinstatement SCR 22.29(4)(a)-[(4m)].3 must Thus, the of the SCR 22.26. statements contain petitioning In that a pursuant to 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 petitioner's license reinstated. to have the (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. 3 No. demonstrate that the required representations 2002AP875-D 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 requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. with the (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. 4 No. Lawyer Regulation charged (OLR) Attorney filed Ouchakof a disciplinary with 41 counts 2002AP875-D complaint of that 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 allegations misconduct that while described employed in by the the complaint law firm, included 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 complaint, Attorney information to the OLR. ¶7 After the filing of the OLR's Ouchakof filed a petition for the voluntary revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. His petition stated that he against could allegations not set successfully forth in defend the complaint or the misconduct the misconduct allegations which the OLR was still investigating. 5 This court No. 2002AP875-D 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. a public hearing on the The referee then held reinstatement petition and filed a report and recommendation with this court. ¶9 The referee found that following the revocation of his license, Attorney steady employment summarizing medical records for Becker Law Offices. The referee further Becker found that Ouchakof Attorney maintained Ouchakof's work for 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. seeking other employment. law firm, Attorney He has since been In addition to his employment at the 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. 6 No. Becker Law character Offices, and who attested trustworthiness, to viewed 2002AP875-D Attorney Ouchakof's 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. proceeding did incapacity. The referee noted that the 2002 disciplinary not involve Nonetheless, a determination she indicated of that, any given medical 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 written Accordingly, the referee determined that through his 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. 7 No. ¶12 2002AP875-D 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. condition of The referee therefore recommended as a 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. important The referee indicated that such monitoring would be 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 8 No. compliance with the standards for reinstatement. 2002AP875-D 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 Attorney agree Ouchakof with has the referee's satisfied the legal conclusion requirements for that 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 reinstatement. on his practice into an law following his We modify and clarify slightly the referee's recommendation in this regard. enter of agreement We direct Attorney Ouchakof to 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 on this condition not as a punishment or sanction 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 9 No. 2002AP875-D those proceedings to pay the full costs of the reinstatement proceeding. costs of The OLR's statement of costs indicates that the this $1,483.43, proceeding, against which deposit must be applied. as of December Attorney 13, Ouchakof's 2012, were initial $200 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 from the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for a period of one year 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 recommendations of of monitoring his health his care compliance providers with the 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 terms of IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the this order remains a condition license to practice law in Wisconsin. 10 of Boris Ouchakof's No. 1 2002AP875-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
