standing with the highest court of new york in the district of columbia i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications i know these things about mr chen because he has been serving as one of my clerks  he comes already with a lot of experience and i'm quite confident from he is going to be a great member of our reports bar so i urge that you grant my motion well thank you judge shane the kind it will take  surrendered his law license in north carolina after having been charged with not using attorney funds the way he was supposed to since mr  think the agency has missed the political believes that the investigatory file prepared by the north carolina bar was provided to the patent office is a part of the package that they transferred between for authorities before the patent office started to actually makes him innocent of his of what he confessed we do with it what is that it's an assignment your honor mr politike took sixteen thousand dollars on behalf of a client who had been in an automobile accident which suffered serious injuries and who don't began medical treatment to treat the medical condition as a result of the accident he took that money and he took his feet which it are which north carolina allows for and he gave the remainder of the balance of the money to the his client this is not an instance where mr politically was considered to have stolen client from that treatment which was my according to my understanding the state of north carolina he did not give the funds to the state of north carolina he gave the funds to his client and the state of north carolina took issue with that  so the client actually received the funds the state of north carolina said that funds should have gone to the state that would start with something maybe more fundamental why did mr pleadingly consent to what he consented to why order in particular a third party approached his parents and told him he would be in prison for twenty years if he did not sign the consent order when his parents told him this is the first time we're hearing this because i don't know if i saw that in any of the papers and it's not in the documents i'm just answering your question your honor is is there a reason why mr pleading hasn't gone back to the north carolina  undo the consent order in light of new material information it's my understanding he intends to and so as a preliminary step to that action he wants to get the investigative file from north carolina through the patent office officials a limited amount let me understand something so ok mr believe he is he told you that he was co most serious way he didn't tell me he was coerced he told me that somebody told his parents that he would be incarcerated for twenty years by north carolina thordis if he refused to surrender his lawyers anybody tel  how would that i guess is what i wonder well in reciprocal disciplinary proceedings the patent office doesn't give the disciplinary defendant much opportunity to really do anything unless the disciplinary defendant can show a denial of due process in the underlying state proceedings so i don't know that it ever got to the point where mystical that he was able to actually address that issue regulatory framework whenever these proceedings come about the attorneys at the u s p t o are obligated to disclose this information regardless of the nature of the proceedings whether the reciprocal discipline case there is there's two other overlapping areas of law that also dictate that the patent office is supposed to disclose exculpatory evidence for example thirty seven c a four eleven point eight zero one says  practitioner in connection with a disciplinary matter shall not fail to this close a fact necessary to correct the misapprehension owned by the person to have arisen in the matter if mr if the patent office was under the m quite right for any number of reasons or routine you know there's a case up in new york the central park jogger case which held the headlines for years because seven young men pleaded guilty to raping a young woman in central park i'm saying it's analogous because in this circumstance in these particular facts and in view of north carolina supreme court case law in which a significant dissenting if you're seeking to open now federal law differs from north carolina law in a number of significant respects your honor the freedom of information act the privacy act which are both federal laws demand sense that before taking the grievous action against an individual's right to pursue his chosen profession which we know from supreme court case was a liberty interest the patent office would deal with some preliminary investigation with being raised below was a great argument that's that's the i mean you're referring to some unnamed north carolina state supreme court opinion and more i hear you talk it might that right here right now by you right here right now your honor ok and again it's in response to your question i was not going to know you a lot of the brought it up i didn't ask if there was in north carolina state supreme court opinion that is relevant to th handling disciplinary investigations know their ethical obligations and knowing their ethical obligations they would is or is related on one per rule of professional conduct that applies to the director of the office of enrollment discipline has repeatedly stated in writing in the official does that notifying the public that an attorney employed by the united states gotten a trademark office  practitioner that is responsible for compliance with these rules and therefore the attorneys many of whom are here today are responsible for determining whether a file contains information when a disciplinary matter is pending before them and for disclosing that to the defendant and did the judge of us have an opportunity to redress this argument that you're raising now on appeal your honor he did not but i would note that if this court confines its analysis to the brady view maryland case it would lose the opportunity to do justice and evaluate other law that clearly applies to this circumstance why evaluate just brady when in fact you can evaluate the other laws it's highly relevant to the issue at stake you said there is an official visit notice that says that supply it but i would point the court to the definitions contained in thirty seven c a four eleven point one which defines practitioner as any attorney who has business before the patent trademark  office if you look at those rules they obviously according to their clear and unambiguous language in compas attorneys were employed by the u s p t o and that being the case it's imperative for this court to analyze those regulations and not confine itself to the brady issue because the brady issue is is just one aspect of many overlapping areas of law it all every year i am i am with regard to reapply for admission he has your honor i think he has another two years before he's eligible to hear the message i'm not i'm not sure what the specifics of that north carolina or a law are your honor but i can say mr police told me he has another two years to go decline to impose for circle discipline but mr police presented none of those bases to the u s p t o none of these arguments were presented to the u s p t o he never asserted that the confessions doesn't have the information because someone else he's the one who has that information not the patent and trademark office that's why it's his obligation to come forward and set forth some basis on which that north carolina decision should not be imposed in the  rest of his arguments are based on his assumption about what he thinks may be there but there's there's no evidence that any of that is there he had it he had an attorney in the north carolina proceeding he had an attorney and he submitted an affidavit in which he testified to three thing he testified that he had notice that the north carolina state bar association intended to charge him with misuse of the tree of funds entrusted to him by a client he testified that the material facts underlying that allegation were true he would have to submit a response to the notice in which he explained how what how his allegations fit into one of the four criteria outlined by the supreme court and selling the radford how is the due process violation or how there was positive proof or something those lines but he would have to he would have to provide sufficient information that the p t o director could determine that perhaps there was a jew process violation and if he had presented that information then the u s p t o o after five years or he could potentially potentially seek to overturn his and his disbarment in the north carolina court but at this point there had he had control over all of that information and presented none of it to the u s p t o he never even suggested to the u s p t o that he thought that they had an assignment that would have that would have negated his allegations eleven twenty four requires the u s p t o to impose reciprocal discipline unless the petitioner establishes one of those one of those criteria the use p t o director had no authority to do anything other than impose reciprocal discipline matters while the reciprocal disciplinary proceeding is continuing so so they may have additional information that never made it into the reciprocal discipline proceeding because it's not pertinent to the receptacle discipline proceeding and and said and provided sufficient information and that response that the u s p t o and that u s p t o director determine that there was a genuine issue of material fact then it goes on to a full hearing it can go on to a full hearing when i you your honor just want to make a couple of extra points regarding judge chen's point if you look at the definitions for practitioner that term practitioner in the thirty seven c a four part of eleven it defines practitioner as any attorney with business before the patent and trademark office by the plain and unambiguous language of that regulation it covers us p t o employees assignments i think i don't think that that's a problem i don't think so i to me the language is very clear based on that and based on the application of these rules then in circumstances where a practitioner undergoing disciplinary matters has documents that the patent office has received from third parties and where discovery is not a matter of take the fifteen minutes that it takes to go through and see if there's something that's obviously evidence like an assignment that they that the patent office received from another more authority or evidence that  practitioner undergoing discipline is asking for because that evidence may inform the practitioner whether to fight those charges or not and in this case  in view of the very clear duty covered by any number of patent office rules by virginia rule of professional conduct three point b which applies to us p t o attorneys too and i would argue that the brady bill maryland case don't know what happened in that regard your honor i can't say with whether mr politico has requested those documents or not from the north carolina war but i can say that when he is undergoing active disciplinary proceedings at the patent office and these patent office regulations create an obligation for the u s p t o attorneys to disclose exculpatory information it be those attorneys charged with this important governmental function should search the file and come up with any evidence that's been requested i would go with wesley note that if you look at any of the case law discussing the balancing tests that the supreme court says must be done to determine what process is due in disciplinary proceedings  to government taking they always say what is the government interest in in the action in this case what is the government's interest in withholding exculpatory information when they have an obligation to disclose why shouldn't the government have to come forward meet their obligations under the regulations and give the exculpatory evidence that's being requested by a practitioner undergoing these proceedings