IN RE: JIE LUO (2026)

Motion No.2026–03302

In the Matter of

Jie Luo,

an attorney and counselor-at-law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the

First Judicial Department,

Petitioner,

Jie Luo

(OCA Atty. Reg. No. 5139019),

Respondent.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department.  Respondent, Jie Luo, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on June 12, 2013.

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney,

Attorney Grievance Committee, New York

(Louis J. Bara, of counsel), for petitioner.

Barry Kamins, Esq., for respondent.

Motion No.2026–03302

In the Matter of Jie Luo, an attorney

Present – Hon.

Peter H. Moulton,

Justice Presiding,

Ellen Gesmer

Lizbeth González

Bahaati E. Pitt–Burke

Kelly O'Neill Levy,

Justices.

Per Curiam

Respondent Jie Luo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 12, 2013.  At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Judicial Department (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7[a][2] ).

On March 15, 2026, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) filed a notice of petition and petition of charges alleging that respondent was guilty of professional misconduct, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.00) rules 1.3(a), 1.4(a)(2), and 5.5(b).  Specifically, it is alleged that respondent, while representing clients in matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), “took no reasonable steps to ensure that his client actually signed applications that respondent submitted to the USPTO by having no client contact, but rather receiving the applications purportedly signed by his clients from a third-party business that forwarded same to him, and ․ failed to adequately monitor his business email which failure allowed a foreign company to use his signature and email address to file responses to USPTO actions.”

The parties now jointly move under 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(5) for an order imposing discipline by consent and request that respondent be publicly censured.  In support of the motion, the parties have submitted a joint affirmation containing a stipulation of facts and an affidavit from respondent in which he conditionally admits that he violated the above-mentioned Rules of Professional Conduct, and consents freely and voluntarily to the agreed-upon discipline, without coercion or duress and with his full awareness of the consequences of consenting to such discipline.

The parties have stipulated to the following facts:  “[b]etween April 2020 and March 2023, respondent was the attorney of record on over 10,000 trademark applications with the ․ (USPTO)”;  “[b]etween April 2020 and December 2021, respondent filed at least 18 trademark applications that contained client signatures without first taking adequate steps to ensure that the client had in fact signed the documents”;  and “[b]etween April 2020 and December 2021, respondent failed to communicate directly with his clients and instead relied on third parties to convey information to and from the client and in certain instances allowed third parties not authorized to practice law before the USPTO to file documents with the USPTO using respondent's email address.”

With respect to factors in aggravation, the parties agree that respondent failed to notify the AGC about his USPTO discipline within 30 days thereof, as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.12(a) and Judiciary Law 90(4)(c).

With respect to factors in mitigation, the parties agree that respondent has no disciplinary history, fully cooperated with the AGC's investigation, and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate.

As to the appropriate sanction, the parties request that respondent be subject to a public censure.  While this Court recently imposed a more severe disciplinary sanction in a case involving the violation of USPTO trademark rules (see Matter of Zhong,

— AD3d —, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00447 [1st Dept 2026] ), the extent of respondent's conduct here was less egregious when compared to the repeated misconduct in Zhong.  The proposed sanction is also consistent with that imposed by this Court in a matter involving an attorney aiding the unauthorized practice of law (see Matter of Davis, 123 AD3d 155 [1st Dept 2014] ).

Although respondent failed to timely report his discipline to the AGC, such failure was a result of his mistaken belief that his voluntary resignation did not constitute discipline.  Therefore, considering all facts and circumstances in aggravation and mitigation, public censure is the appropriate sanction.

Accordingly, the parties' joint motion for discipline by consent should be granted and respondent publicly censured.  The AGC's petition of charges should be denied as moot.

All concur.

Wherefore, it is Ordered that the parties' joint motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR

1240.8(a)(5) for discipline by consent is granted, and

It is further Ordered that respondent, Jie Luo, is hereby publicly censured for his misconduct, and

It is further Ordered that the separately filed petition of charges by the AGC is denied as moot.

Entered:  August 13, 2026