Attorney Xiaofang Zhong Receives Six-Month Suspension from Practicing Law in New York Following USPTO Violations

On Thursday, January 22, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline against attorney Xiaofang Zhong, resulting in a six-month suspension from practicing law. The suspension, effective 30 days from the court’s order, stems from Zhong’s prior disciplinary action by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Xiaofang Zhong,” with case number 2025-06580.

The case involves disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Zhong was admitted to the New York bar on June 19, 2012, by the Third Judicial Department.

The USPTO had previously suspended Zhong for six months, with Zhong’s consent, due to multiple violations of USPTO trademark signature rules. According to the USPTO, Zhong, whose practice focused on patent, trademark, and copyright law, received a high volume of clients from Chinese entities. Despite clear directives prohibiting anyone other than the named signatory from signing electronic trademark documents, Zhong signed hundreds of trademark and registration documents on behalf of clients. USPTO records indicated that over 2,025 trademark applications incorrectly identified Zhong as the signatory.

Zhong acknowledged that the violations indicated a “lack of competence” or “lack of care” in handling trademark matters and caused “actual or potential harm” to the intellectual property rights of trademark clients, adversely affecting the integrity of the USPTO trademark registration and maintenance process. Zhong entered into a settlement agreement admitting to violating the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, which are similar to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Attorney Grievance Committee sought the reciprocal discipline order, citing 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) and Judiciary Law § 90(2), arguing that Zhong’s discipline in a foreign jurisdiction warranted similar action in New York. Zhong, appearing pro se, did not object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

The court found that a six-month suspension was appropriate, aligning with the USPTO’s suspension and court precedent involving similar conduct. The court also noted that Zhong could not avail himself of defenses under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) because he was aware of the misconduct allegations and entered into a settlement agreement with the USPTO.

The court ordered that Zhong must cease practicing law in any form, refrain from appearing as an attorney before any court or public authority, and abstain from providing legal opinions or advice. Zhong must also comply with rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 1240.15.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.