Matter of Matos
SC New York · Nov 13, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- matter-of-matos-2025-11-13
- Observed outcome
- Respondent publicly censured.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, publicly censured attorney Anthony Matos for reciprocal discipline after he submitted a brief to the USPTO containing misrepresented and fabricated case law. Matos admitted to failing to verify citations sourced from secondary internet materials, violating professional conduct rules regarding competence and candor.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not support the asserted proposition (case law was misrepresented). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not contain the purported language or support the proposition (misquoted or nonexistent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB determined the citation/quote either did not exist in the case or did not support respondent's argument.
A public censure in a TTAB/attorney-discipline matter follows you through PACER searches — assume every AI misstep becomes permanent public record.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_authority
- Failure_to_verify_citations
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) and Judiciary Law § 90(2) following a USPTO public reprimand.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Respondent admitted using AI for procedural learning but denied using it for legal research.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Train lawyers and staff to identify and verify generated legal content.