Per Curiam.
OPINION & ORDER By order of the Supreme Court of Illinois dated September 20, 2024, the respondent was censured, on consent, in connection with two counts of misconduct as charged in an amended complaint filed on May 20, 2024. The Illinois Disciplinary Proceeding
By amended complaint filed on May 20, 2024, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission asserted two counts of misconduct against the respondent.
Count I - Arrest and Plea of Nolo Contendere for Animal Cruelty
On February 10, 2021, the respondent took his two dogs for a walk near his Irving, Texas townhouse. During the walk, the respondent lifted one dog named Luna, a Rottweiler mix, off the ground and hit her several times in the head. Several witnesses recorded the incident and reported it to the Irving Police Department. On February 11, 2021, the authorities executed a seizure warrant and removed the respondent's two dogs from his home. In March 2021, the respondent was arrested for violating the cruelty to non-livestock animals statute, section 42.092 of the Texas Penal Code Annotated. On August 30, 2021, a grand jury of Dallas County filed an indictment against the respondent alleging that he violated the criminal statute by hitting his dog in the face with his hand. On November 29, 2022, the respondent signed a judicial confession admitting that he "intentionally and knowingly and recklessly injur[ed] an animal, to wit: a Female Rottweiler mix named Luna, by hitting said dog in the face with his hand." The respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a lesser offense of cruelty to non-livestock animals, a misdemeanor. The court withheld an adjudication of guilt subject to the respondent completing community supervision for two years, as well as standard plea conditions, completion of a responsible pet owner class, and barred him from owning pets.
[*2]Count II - Failure to Supplement Bar Application with Arrest
1
On January 14, 2020, the respondent submitted an application for admission to the Bar of Illinois (hereinafter the application) to the Board of Bar Admissions (hereinafter IBAB) of the Supreme Court of Illinois pursuant to Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Supreme Court Rule 704(a). As of that date, and at all times thereafter, Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Supreme Court Rule 708(e) provided:
"At all times prior to his or her admission to the bar of this state, each applicant is under a continuing duty to supplement and continue to report fully and completely to the Board of Admissions to the Bar and the Committee on Character and Fitness all information required to be disclosed pursuant to any and all application documents and such further inquiries prescribed by the Board and the Committee."
At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois Bar on June 15, 2021, did the respondent supplement his response to a character and fitness questionnaire or otherwise report his March 2021 arrest to IBAB. As of August 30, 2021, after his admission in Illinois, the Texas criminal charges were pending. The respondent disclosed the March 2021 arrest to the Florida Board of Law Examiners in connection with a then-pending application for admission before that agency. Thereafter, the Florida Board of Law Examiners informed the respondent of his failure to amend his Illinois character and fitness questionnaire. The respondent then reported the failure to disclose to IBAB staff. By reason of the conduct described above, the respondent was found to have engaged in the following misconduct: (1) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, by violating Texas Penal Code Annotated section 42.092 by intentionally and knowingly and recklessly injuring a female Rottweiler mix by hitting her in the face with his hand, in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and (2) failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter by failing to supplement his response as an applicant for admission to the Illinois Bar to the character and fitness questionnaire with information relating to his arrest for felony cruelty to animals in Dallas County, Texas, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Supreme Court Rule 708(e) and Rule 8.1(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
By petition to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Supreme Court Rule 762(b) filed on July 17, 2024 (hereinafter the petition), the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the respondent consented to the imposition of a censure based upon the allegations in the amended complaint. By affidavit dated July 2, 2024, the respondent averred that the assertions in the petition were true and complete, that he freely and voluntarily joined the petition, and that he understood the nature and consequences of the petition. The petition provided, in mitigation, that the respondent had no prior discipline, engaged in pro bono work, expressed remorse for his misconduct, cooperated during the investigation, and had this matter proceeded to a hearing, he would have offered positive character testimony.
By order of the Supreme Court of Illinois dated September 20, 2024, the respondent was censured, on consent. The New York Proceeding
By letter dated June 11, 2025, with annexed exhibits, the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts notified this Court that the respondent was censured by order of the Supreme Court of Illinois dated September 20, 2024.
By order to show cause dated July 24, 2025, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made and entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 imposing discipline upon him for the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by order of the Supreme Court of Illinois dated September 20, 2024. In response, the respondent states that he did not abuse his dog and did not intentionally fail to disclose his criminal matter to the Illinois Bar. He also raises a defense, in effect, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b)(3), that the misconduct for which the respondent was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in New York, and requests the imposition of an admonition. The respondent asserts that while the discipline in Illinois was a public censure, Texas imposed a private reprimand in a reciprocal disciplinary matter based on the Illinois discipline. The respondent argues that this Court should follow Texas in imposing a private discipline. [*3] In reply, the Grievance Committee asserts that, as to the discipline imposed in Illinois, the respondent was represented by counsel, and consented to the imposition of a public censure based upon two violations of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The Grievance Committee provides that this reciprocal disciplinary proceeding is based on the order of the Supreme Court of Illinois and that the sanction of a public censure is consistent with similar misconduct in this jurisdiction. Findings and Conclusion
We find that the respondent's defense, in effect, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b)(3), is unpersuasive as the misconduct engaged in and admitted to by the respondent, and found by the Supreme Court of Illinois, is also misconduct in New York. Accordingly, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted based on the findings of the Supreme Court of Illinois and that the respondent should be publicly censured. LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, the respondent, Ilan Borochov, is publicly censured for his professional misconduct.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
2