Revocation Imposed

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has revoked an attorney’s license, in significant part for activities in representing himself

The first seven counts of misconduct alleged in the amended complaint arose out of lawsuits in which Attorney Gorokhovsky participated either as a pro se plaintiff or defendant.

Client-related allegations

The next eight counts of misconduct alleged in the amended complaint arose out of Attorney Gorokhovsky’s representation of Inna K. Inna K. was separated from her husband B.K. and lived in Illinois. B.K. was then living with another romantic partner. The Ks were attempting to mediate their divorce.

After retention

After this meeting, Attorney Gorokhovsky pursued a romantic relationship with Inna K. He told her that their mutual friend described him as “very sexy,” discussed that because his Zodiac sign was “Leo,” the same as Inna K.’s, he understood “why it was so easy with you,” and he boasted that he goes for runs in Mequon and swims in Lake Michigan in the winter. On April 12, 2020, Attorney Gorokhovsky asked Inna K. several times to come over for dinner. On April 14, 2020, he wrote in a message to Inna K. time stamped 1:56 A.M., “I was not comfortable from the fact that you decided that those 8 women last year were clients . . . so I look like an asshole. I take money for work plus take a client in bed . . . .” On April 17, 2020, after Inna K. declined to talk on the phone because she had “a really bad headache,” Attorney Gorokhovsky responded, “I can cure you . . . if you want. Here is a prescription: love, care, buns, pampering, bed rest . . . meat and lots of laugher . . . . do you want me to treat you . . . . I am a doctor . . . !!!” Attorney Gorokhovsky also called Inna K. several times inquiring about her dating life and suggesting that they should date.

Among the findings

With respect to the counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney Gorokhovsky’s representation of Inna K. and Inna K.’s claims that Attorney Gorokhovsky tried to pursue a personal, romantic relationship with her and made inappropriate physical contact with her, the referee noted that Attorney Gorokhovsky testified that during a video call on the day he had dinner at Inna K.’s home, she was dressed in a provocative manner, leading him to believe that she was pursuing him. He claimed that he told Inna K. at that point that he wanted to withdraw from the representation. However, Attorney Gorokhovsky further testified that he went to Inna K.’s home and while he was there, she was sitting suggestively and after dinner she asked him to “get” her husband, which Attorney Gorokhovsky interpreted as a request to kill her husband. Attorney Gorokhovsky said this request caused him to abruptly leave Inna K.’s home. In spite of the fact that he had supposedly decided to stop the representation, Attorney Gorokhovsky continued with legal work for Inna K., including drafting documents. The referee also noted that Attorney Gorokhovsky admitted to calling Inna K. “something in Yiddish which means a pile of shit.

Sanction

Attorney Gorokhovsky’s misconduct was serious and pervasive. He provided sub-par legal representation to Inna K. and D.M. He repeatedly showed an inability to comply with court rules and on multiple occasions lied to courts, opposing counsel, and his clients. On one occasion the Seventh Circuit deemed him “marginally competent,” and on another occasion referred to his “dishonest and incompetent practice of law.” He repeatedly sought extensions of time and attempted to excuse his many legal mistakes by claiming a series of health problems, while at the same time he was taking on new clients and making court appearances in other matters.

The eighteen counts of misconduct at issue here include violations of numerous supreme court rules running the gamut from knowingly making false statements to a tribunal to engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation to failing to provide competent representation to a client to violating the attorney’s oath and failing to abstain from all offensive personality. Attorney Gorokhovsky’s conduct with respect to Inna K. was particularly reprehensible. In addition to providing Inna K. with incompetent legal representation, Attorney Gorokhovsky pressured Inna K. to engage in a sexual relationship with him while he was acting as her attorney—which constituted a conflict of interest—and, when she rejected his advances, he sent her nasty messages and claimed that in addition to the $3,000 she had already paid him, she owed many thousands of dollars more.

Due to the egregious nature of Attorney Gorokhovsky’s misconduct, we agree with the referee that revocation of his license to practice law is the appropriate sanction. Attorney Gorokhovsky engaged in a clear pattern of misconduct and evinced a complete disregard of his obligations as an attorney.

While no two disciplinary matters are identical, our past precedent supports our decision to revoke Attorney Gorokhovsky’s license to practice law. For example, in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sweeney, 2019 WI 13, 385 Wis. 2d 407, 922 N.W.2d 850, we revoked the license of an attorney for misconduct that included multiple violations of  SCR 20:8.4(c).  The attorney had no prior disciplinary history. In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2010 WI 11, 322 Wis. 2d 518, 778 N.W.2d 645, we revoked the license of an attorney with a long disciplinary history for multiple counts of misconduct that included pursuing a frivolous action merely to harass or maliciously injure the opposing party; engaging in a pattern of delays and requests for adjournment; and showing little or no remorse for his misconduct. Any sanction short of revocation would unduly depreciate the seriousness of Attorney Gorokhovsky’s misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)