Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law ? 468-a (Wang)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law ? 468-a (Wang)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 18, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 07073
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law ? 468-a (Wang)

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Wang) (2025 NY Slip Op 07073)
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Wang)
2025 NY Slip Op 07073
Decided on December 18, 2025
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered:December 18, 2025

PM-285-25

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Qingjie Wang, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3928942.)


Calendar Date:November 24, 2025
Before:Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Qingjie Wang, West Hartford, Connecticut, respondent pro se.



Motion by respondent for an order reinstating them to the practice of law following their suspension by October 2021 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 198 AD3d 1068, 1087 [3d Dept 2021]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibit sworn to October 10, 2025 and the November 20, 2025 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that respondent has not demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, their compliance with the rules of this Court (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [c] [5]), respondent's motion for reinstatement is denied.

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is denied.

Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.



Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.