NY Attorney Anthony Matos Publicly Censured for Misconduct

On Thursday, November 13, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department publicly censured attorney Anthony Matos following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. The censure stems from a reciprocal discipline action related to a public reprimand issued against Matos by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on March 6, 2025.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Anthony Matos,” with case number 2025-02985.

Matos, admitted to the New York State Bar on October 24, 2016, faced scrutiny for failing to report the USPTO’s reprimand, a violation of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (NYCRR) § 1240.13(d). The USPTO’s action arose from Matos’s representation of a trademark owner before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in a Cancellation Proceeding.

The core of the issue lies in a trial brief Matos filed on September 17, 2023. In this brief, he cited and purported to quote from several cases, including Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v Ruben, E.J. Brach Corp. v Gilbert/Robinson, Inc., and Cunningham v Laser Golf Corp.. However, the opposing party challenged the accuracy of these citations, alleging that the brief contained quotes not found in the cited cases and presented legal propositions that the cases did not support.

During a hearing before the TTAB on December 13, 2023, Matos admitted that he had not personally read the cited cases. Instead, he relied on internet searches, blog posts, and articles for his information. He also acknowledged using artificial intelligence (AI) to understand TTAB proceedings, but denied using it for legal research related to the case citations.

The TTAB subsequently issued a non-precedential opinion on February 7, 2024, concluding that the case law cited by Matos was either nonexistent, misquoted, or did not support his arguments. This led to a Settlement Agreement between Matos and the USPTO Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED Director). In this agreement, Matos admitted to violating several USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically 37 CFR 11.101, 11.103, 11.301, 11.804(c), and 11.804(d). The resulting public reprimand also required Matos to complete two hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) on the topic of generative AI in legal practice.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) then initiated proceedings in New York, seeking reciprocal discipline under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) and Judiciary Law § 90(2). They requested the court to direct Matos to explain why discipline should not be imposed in New York, given his misconduct in the USPTO case, and to ultimately impose a public censure or other appropriate discipline.

Matos opposed the motion, requesting the court to either refrain from imposing discipline or, alternatively, to issue a public censure. While admitting he received due process in the USPTO proceeding and not contesting the proof of misconduct, he attributed his actions to inexperience, reliance on secondary sources, and a failure to independently verify citations. He argued that his misconduct lacked intentional deceit or knowing misrepresentation and, therefore, did not warrant the same level of professional misconduct sanction in New York.

He also emphasized his lack of a prior disciplinary record, the TTAB’s denial of the cancellation petition, the absence of harm or prejudice to clients, his cooperation with the OED, completion of the AI-related CLE, and the implementation of stricter research protocols. He further stated that he accepted the proposed settlement quickly to avoid protracted proceedings while managing his family member’s care.

The Appellate Division, in its decision, affirmed that the USPTO qualifies as a foreign jurisdiction for reciprocal discipline purposes, citing precedent in Matter of Swayze, Matter of Yiheng Lou, Matter of Whitney, and Matter of Caraco. The court outlined the defenses available to a respondent in a reciprocal discipline case under 22 NYCRR 1240.13, which include: lack of due process, infirmity of proof, and the argument that the misconduct in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in New York.

The court found that none of these defenses applied in Matos’s case. He had notice of the allegations, entered into a Settlement Agreement admitting misconduct, and his actions violated USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct that are substantially similar to New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) (22 NYCRR 1200.0).

Regarding the sanction, the court emphasized its general deference to the sanction imposed by the original jurisdiction, citing Matter of Milara, Matter of Tabacco, and Matter of Blumenthal. While acknowledging rare exceptions, as seen in Matter of Karambelas and Matter of McHallam, the court determined that a public censure was the appropriate reciprocal discipline, aligning with the USPTO’s public reprimand and consistent with precedent in similar cases, such as Matter of Hsu.

The court granted the AGC’s motion and publicly censured Anthony Matos.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.