Matter of Matos, No. 2025-02985 (Nov. 13, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
Nov. 13, 2025
Disposition
Publicly Censured
Matter of Matos, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2025)2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06257 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3165327Supreme Court, Appellate Division,First Department, New York.In the MATTER OF Anthony MATOSan attorney and counselor-at-law:Attorney Grievance Committee for theFirst Judicial Department, Petitioner,v.Anthony Matos (OCA Atty Reg. 5470307), Respondent.Motion No. 2025-04303|Case No. 2025-02985|Entered: November 13, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsDisciplinary proceedings instituted by the AttorneyGrievance Committee for the First Judicial Department.Respondent, Anthony Matos, was admitted to the Bar of theState of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court for the First Judicial Department on October24, 2016.Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney GrievanceCommittee, New York (Louis J. Bara, of counsel), forpetitionerRespondent, pro se.Present – Hon. Dianne T. Renwick, Presiding Justice, TanyaR. Kennedy, Lizbeth González, Kelly O'Neill Levy, MarshaD. Michael, Justices.OpinionPer Curiam*1 Respondent Anthony Matos was admitted to the practiceof law in the State of New York by the First JudicialDepartment on October 24, 2016.At all times relevant to thisproceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practiceof law in the First Judicial Department.By order dated March 6, 2025, the United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO) issued a public reprimand againstrespondent. Respondent did not report his public reprimandas required by the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters(N.Y.CRR) § 1240.13(d).Respondent's public reprimand stemmed from the followingundisputed facts. Respondent represented the owner of aregistered trademark before the USPTO's Trademark Trialand Appeal Board (TTAB) in a Cancellation Proceeding.On September 17, 2023, respondent filed a trial brief in theproceeding and in support of the brief, cited and purportedto quote from three matters: Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v.Ruben, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1741 (TTAB 2006); E.J. Brach Corp.v. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc., 185 USPQ 597 (TTAB 1975); andCunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 55 USPQ 1842 (TTAB2000). The opposing party filed a rebuttal brief alleging thatrespondent's brief quoted from cases that do not contain thepurported quotes and cited cases for propositions that they donot hold. On December 13, 2023, the TTAB held a hearingon the matter. At the hearing, respondent admitted that hefound the cases by searching the internet and reading blogposts and articles, but he did not read the cases before relyingon them in his brief. Respondent also admitted that he usedartificial intelligence (AI) to learn about the mechanics ofTTAB proceedings but denied using it for legal research.On February 7, 2024, the TTAB issued a “non-precedentialOpinion in the Cancellation Proceeding” in which it foundthat the case law cited by respondent was either nonexistent,misquoted, or did not support respondent's arguments.As a result of the TTAB's findings, respondent and theUSPTO Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline(OED Director) entered into a Settlement Agreement in whichrespondent admitted that his actions violated 37 CFR 11.101,11.103, 11.301, 11.804(c), and 11.804(d), of the USPTORules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was issued apublic reprimand and was required to attend two hours ofContinuing Legal Education on the topic of generative AI inlegal practice.The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now moves foran order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) and JudiciaryLaw § 90(2), finding that respondent has been disciplinedby a foreign jurisdiction, directing him to demonstrate whydiscipline should not be imposed in New York for themisconduct underlying his discipline in the USPTO, andimposing a public censure, or issuing such discipline as theCourt deems just and proper.
Matter of Matos, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2025)2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06257 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 Respondent opposes and asks this Court not to imposediscipline, or in the alternative, to impose a public censure.He admits that he “was afforded due process in theUSPTO proceeding” and “does not raise an infirmity-of-proofdefense.” However, respondent argues that the misconductat issue “arose from [his] inexperience ... reliance onsecondary sources,” and “failure to independently verifycertain citations.” He argues that his misconduct did notinvolve “intentional deceit or knowing misrepresentation,”and as such, “the conduct does not rise to the same level ofprofessional misconduct in New York.” Respondent furthernotes that he has no prior disciplinary record and “[o]utof necessity, I accepted the proposed settlement quickly toavoid protracted proceedings while managing my familymember's care.” Respondent also notes that the TTAB deniedthe cancellation petition, that no clients suffered harm orprejudice as a result of his misconduct, he cooperated withthe OED and completed the CLE on generative AI in legalpractice, and “adopted stricter research protocols.”As an initial matter, we find that the USPTO meets thedefinition of a foreign jurisdiction for purposes of imposingreciprocal discipline under 22 NYCRR § 1240.2(h) (seeMatter of Swayze, 230 A.D.3d 906, 216 N.Y.S.3d 321 [3dDept. 2024]; Matter of Yiheng Lou, 206 A.D.3d 1221, 168N.Y.S.3d 760 [3d Dept. 2022]; Matter of Whitney, 202 A.D.3d99, 155 N.Y.S.3d 920 [4th Dept. 2021]; Matter of Caraco, 197A.D.3d 1391, 153 N.Y.S.3d 231 [3d Dept. 2021]).In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to22 NYCRR 1240.13, respondent may raise the followingdefenses: (1) lack of notice or opportunity to be heard in theforeign jurisdiction constituting a depravation of due process;(2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; or (3)that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplinedin the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct inthis state (see Matter of Milara, 194 A.D.3d 108, 110, 143N.Y.S.3d 358 [1st Dept. 2021]).None of the enumerated defenses are available here.Respondent was on notice of the misconduct allegations atissue and entered into a Settlement Agreement in which headmitted engaging in misconduct in violation of 37 CFR11.101, 11.103, 11.301, 11.804(c), and 11.804(d) of theUSPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, respondent'smisconduct violated rules 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) ofthe New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR1200.0), which are substantially similar to the USPTO rules.With respect to the sanction, as a general rule this Courtdefers to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction in whichthe charges were originally brought because the foreignjurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctionsfor misconduct (see Matter of Milara, 194 A.D.3d at 111,143 N.Y.S.3d 358; Matter of Tabacco, 171 A.D.3d 163, 96N.Y.S.3d 581 [1st Dept. 2019]; Matter of Blumenthal, 165A.D.3d 85, 81 N.Y.S.3d 898 [1st Dept. 2018]). Only rarelydoes this Court depart from the general rule (see Matter ofKarambelas, 203 A.D.3d 75, 159 N.Y.S.3d 434 [1st Dept.2022]; Matter of McHallam, 160 A.D.3d 89, 72 N.Y.S.3d 90[1st Dept. 2018]).We find that public censure, as requested by the AGC,is the appropriate reciprocal discipline in this matter as itis commensurate with the public reprimand issued by theUSPTO and in accord with this Court's precedent involvingcomparable conduct (Matter of Hsu, 104 A.D.3d 138, 958N.Y.S.2d 900 [1st Dept. 2013]).Accordingly, the AGC's motion should be granted, and apublic censure imposed. All concur.Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the AttorneyGrievance Committee for the First Judicial Department forreciprocal discipline, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and22 NYCRR 1240.13(d), predicated upon similar disciplineimposed by the USPTO, is granted, and respondent, AnthonyMatos, is publicly censured.All Citations--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2025 WL 3165327, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op.06257End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access