IN RE: Zhuojingwen TIAN (2026)

Respondent Zhoujingwen Tian was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 25, 2019.  The First Judicial Department retains jurisdiction over respondent as the admitting Department, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.7(a)(2).

On November 22, 2024, Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed a complaint against respondent in which OED alleged that “respondent had filed declarations that did not support factual representations made therein, improperly signed and allowed others to sign her name on USPTO forms, failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry regarding trademark applications presented to the USPTO, and failed to cooperate with the USPTO's investigation.”  Respondent filed her answer improperly and was informed that her answer was not accepted for filing.

On March 17, 2025, an Order to Show Cause (OSC) was issued as to “why respondent failed to properly file an answer, and why an adverse order should not be entered against her.”  After being served with the OSC, respondent initially stated that she had not figured out “how the system work [sic],” but that she would “do so within next week.”  Respondent did not file an answer to the OSC. After respondent failed to submit an answer to the OSC, the OED filed a motion for default judgment.  Respondent did not respond.  The court found that respondent failed to properly file an answer to the OED complaint, failed to respond to the OSC, and failed to answer the default judgment motion.  As a result, respondent was found to be in default and the facts contained in the OED complaint were deemed admitted.

The facts alleged concern respondent's representation of foreign-domiciled trademark applicants before the USPTO through her affiliation with foreign-based companies located in China.  Specifically, respondent submitted over 40 responses to USPTO office actions, which are queries from the USPTO about a trademark or the trademark application, that were executed prior to the trademark application being filed.  The complaint alleged that the declarations contained in the responses could not support the factual representations made in the declarations.

In addition, despite being made aware of the USPTO rule that only a trademark applicant can sign a change of representation form, respondent improperly filed at least 29 change of representation forms where she signed as the applicant's attorney when there was, or previously had been, an attorney of record.  Ten of the change of representation forms submitted by respondent contained false statements.  Respondent also permitted others to digitally sign her name as evidenced by USPTO records which reflect that her digital signature was entered on the same day on computers 500 miles apart within a one-hour time period.  Respondent also admitted to OED during its investigation that on two occasions she submitted trademark applications without conducting an adequate review.  However, the USPTO records suggest that she failed to conduct adequate reviews on 27 filings.  The USPTO court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that respondent violated the rules 11.201, 11.103, 11.303(a)(1), (a)(3), 11.801(b), 11.804(c), and 11.804(d) of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, which are substantially similar to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0).  By final order dated September 29, 2026, USPTO suspended respondent for 12 months, with 2 years of probation upon reinstatement.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now seeks an order, pursuant to the doctrine of reciprocal discipline as set forth 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) and Judiciary Law § 90(2), and based on the September 29, 2026 USPTO order imposing discipline, finding that respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, directing her to demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed in New York for the misconduct underlying her discipline in the USPTO, and imposing a twelve-month suspension, or issuing such discipline as the Court deems just and proper.

In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, respondent may raise the following defenses:  (1) lack of notice or opportunity to be heard in the foreign jurisdiction constituting a deprivation of due process;  (2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct;  or (3) that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in this state (see Matter of Milara, 194 A.D.3d 108, 110, 143 N.Y.S.3d 358 [1st Dept 2021] ).  However, none of the defenses available under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) are available to respondent because she was on notice of the misconduct allegations at issue and, as a result of her default, was found to have violated rules 11.201, 11.103, 11.303(a)(1), (a)(3), 11.801(b), 11.804(c), and 11.804(d) of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.  Furthermore, respondent's misconduct also violated rules 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which are substantially similar to the USPTO rules.

As a general rule this Court defers to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction in which the charges were originally brought because the foreign jurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions for 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, 96 N.Y.S.3d 581 [1st Dept 2019];  Matter of Blumenthal, 165 A.D.3d 85, 81 N.Y.S.3d 898 [1st Dept 2018] ).  Only rarely does this Court depart from this general rule (see Matter of Karambelas, 203 A.D.3d 75, 80–81, 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] ).  Therefore, a 12 month suspension, as requested by the AGC, is the appropriate reciprocal discipline in this matter as it is commensurate with the suspension imposed by the USPTO and in accord with this Court's precedent involving comparable conduct (see Matter of Zhong, ––– A.D.3d ––––, 248 N.Y.S.3d 543 [1st Dept 2026] ).

Accordingly, the AGC's motion should be granted, and respondent suspended from the practice of law for 12 months, effective immediately.

Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department for Reciprocal Discipline, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 and Judiciary Law § 90(2), is granted, and respondent, Zhuojingwen Tian, is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of 12 months, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court;  and

It is further Ordered that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension, respondent, Zhuojingwen Tian, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law;  and

It is further Ordered that, during the period of suspension, respondent, Zhuojingwen Tian, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15), which are made part hereof;  and

It is further Ordered that if respondent, Zhuojingwen Tian, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith.

Per Curiam

All concur.