What did the court decide?

The court granted Wengang He's motion and reinstated them to the practice of law effective immediately.

Why was He originally suspended?

The opinion references a May 2019 suspension by this Court in Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, but this reinstatement order does not restate the underlying misconduct details.

What showed the court that reinstatement was appropriate?

The court found clear and convincing evidence that He satisfied the reinstatement rule requirements, complied with the suspension and court rules, demonstrated current character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest.

Can this decision be challenged?

Appellate Division reinstatement orders are final actions of that court; further review would depend on available appellate procedures and grounds, so a party should consult counsel about any possible appeal.

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Wengang He)

Docket PM-72-26

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherGranted

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Granted
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02323
Docket: PM-72-26

Motion for reinstatement to the practice of law following a suspension by this Court in May 2019.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Wengang He's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in May 2019. Reviewing filings and correspondence, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that He satisfied the reinstatement requirements in the court rules, complied with the suspension order, demonstrated the character and fitness needed to practice, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered that He be reinstated effective immediately.

Issues Decided

Whether the suspended attorney satisfied the Appellate Division's reinstatement requirements under its rules.
Whether the attorney complied with the terms of the suspension and demonstrated requisite character and fitness for readmission.
Whether reinstatement would be in the public interest.

Court's Reasoning

The court reviewed the attorney's motion, affidavit, exhibits, and the grievance committee's response and found by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney met the specific regulatory criteria for reinstatement. The court determined the respondent complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated current character and fitness to practice, and that reinstatement served the public interest. Those findings satisfied Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters governing reinstatement.

Authorities Cited

Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department22 NYCRR § 806.16
Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters22 NYCRR § 1240.16
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (prior suspension order)172 AD3d 1706 (3d Dept 2019)

Parties

Petitioner: Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department
Respondent: Wengang He
Judge: Clark, J.P.
Judge: Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.
Judge: Fisher, J.
Judge: Powers, J.
Judge: Corcoran, J.
Attorney: Monica A. Duffy (for Attorney Grievance Committee)
Attorney: Alison M. Coan (of counsel)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-16
Calendar date: 2026-03-23
Motion affidavit sworn: 2026-02-10
Grievance committee response: 2026-03-16
Respondent supplemental correspondence: 2026-03-17
Prior suspension decision: 2019-05-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Notify relevant courts and clients
Confirm that court records, client files, and any former employers or bar counsel are notified of the reinstatement and update registration where required.
2
Comply with continuing obligations
Ensure compliance with any conditions of reinstatement, continuing legal education, fee escrow rules, and updated registration with the clerk or bar authorities.
3
Consult counsel if opposed
If a party wishes to challenge the reinstatement, consult appellate counsel promptly about possible grounds and procedural deadlines for review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court granted Wengang He's motion and reinstated them to the practice of law effective immediately.
Why was He originally suspended?: The opinion references a May 2019 suspension by this Court in Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, but this reinstatement order does not restate the underlying misconduct details.
What showed the court that reinstatement was appropriate?: The court found clear and convincing evidence that He satisfied the reinstatement rule requirements, complied with the suspension and court rules, demonstrated current character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest.
Can this decision be challenged?: Appellate Division reinstatement orders are final actions of that court; further review would depend on available appellate procedures and grounds, so a party should consult counsel about any possible appeal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Wengang He) - 2026 NY Slip Op 02323

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Wengang He)

2026 NY Slip Op 02323

April 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Third Department

In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Wengang He, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4289302.)

Decided and Entered:April 16, 2026

PM-72-26

Calendar Date: March 23, 2026

Before: Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, 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.

Wengang He, San Diego, California, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating them to the practice of law following their suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a
, 172 AD3d 1706, 1727 [3d Dept 2019];
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 exhibits sworn to February 10, 2026, the March 16, 2026 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department and respondent's supplemental correspondence of March 17, 2026, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5), (2) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (3) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (4) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (
see
Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.