entirely clear whether Mr. Chien is attempting to represent Mr. Li or whether he contends that Mr. Li has assigned his legal rights to Mr. Chien. However, assigning Mr. Li’s legal rights to USChina Channel LLC is not equivalent to assigning his legal rights to Mr. Chien himself. Mr. Chien is separate from any corporation he may own and as a pro se litigant, he may not represent USChina Channel LLC anymore than he can represent Mr. Li. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir.Conn.2007) (“[A] sole member limited liability company must be represented by counsel to appear in federal court.”). Moreover, he cannot circumvent this rule by having USChina Channel LLC assign its legal rights to Mr. Chien. See Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Mr. Chien’s breach of fiduciary duty
holding that a corporate entity must be represented by licensed counsel holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988 holding that corporation could not assign rights to pro se litigant to circumvent rule that corporation must be represented by licensed attorney holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance