Matter of Matos
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department · N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't · New York bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Matter of Matos, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06257, 2025 WL 3165327 (1st Dep't Nov. 13, 2025) (Motion No. 2025-04303; Case No. 2025-02985)
- Decided
- November 13, 2025
Summary
Attorney Anthony Matos was publicly censured by the First Department on reciprocal discipline grounds after the USPTO publicly reprimanded him on March 6, 2025. In a TTAB cancellation proceeding, Matos filed a September 17, 2023 trial brief citing and purporting to quote three TTAB decisions (Starbucks U.S. Brands v. Ruben, E.J. Brach Corp. v. Gilbert/Robinson, and Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp.) that the TTAB later found were either nonexistent, misquoted, or did not support his arguments. Matos admitted he located the cases through internet searches and blog posts without reading them, and acknowledged using AI to learn TTAB mechanics while denying he used it for legal research. The per curiam panel (Renwick, P.J., Kennedy, González, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.) found the conduct violated New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Public censure imposed by the First Department as reciprocal discipline. The underlying USPTO settlement required a public reprimand and two hours of continuing legal education on generative AI in legal practice; no monetary sanction was imposed.
Why does Matter of Matos matter for law firms using AI?
Matos is notable because the discipline is reciprocal: a USPTO public reprimand for fabricated TTAB citations triggered a separate public censure from a New York appellate court more than eighteen months later. For managing partners, the case illustrates that a single AI-adjacent research failure in a specialized federal forum can cascade into state bar discipline, and that a respondent’s claim of having used AI only for “mechanics” rather than legal research did not insulate him once the cited authorities turned out to be nonexistent or misquoted.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.