On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey acted on the Decision of the Disciplinary Review Board for attorney discipline against Cherry Hill attorney Andrew R. Hurda. The ruling suspended Hurda from the practice of law for a period of four years.
The case, titled In the Matter of Andrew R. Hurda, was brought by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, DRB 21-178.
The charges cited Hurda’s violations of Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.
According to the filing:
“The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 21-178, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule1:20-13(c)(2), Andrew R. Hurda of Cherry Hill, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2006 and whose license to practice was administratively revoked pursuant to Rule 1:28-2(c) on August 24, 2015, should be disciplined based on respondent’s guilty plea and conviction in the Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, of one count of misdemeanor false swearing, contrary to 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4903 (a) (1), conduct that in New Jersey is in violation of RPC 8.4 (b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and RPC 8.4 (c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);”
The filing continues:
“And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that Andrew R. Hurda should be suspended from practice for a period of four years for his unethical conduct and that the suspension should be deferred until such time as respondent seeks readmission to practice in New Jersey, and having further determined that respondent’s readmission should be conditioned on proof of his continued sobriety and treatment for alcoholism as well as proof of fitness to practice law as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; recommended four years suspension for Hurda’s unethical conduct and such suspension should be deferred until such time as respondent seeks readmission to practice in New Jersey. Respondent’s readmission to practice should be conditioned on proof of his continued sobriety ;
And good cause appearing;”
Accordingly, the Court agreed with the Board’s decision.
The Order reads:
“It is ORDERED that Andrew R. Hurda is hereby prohibited from applying for plenary, pro hac vice, or any other form of admission to practice in this State, for a period of four years, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that if Andrew R. Hurda seeks to be readmitted to the practice of New Jersey law, he shall provide proof of his continued sobriety and treatment for alcoholism and proof of his fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics;”
Respondent is also directed to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Mr. Andrew R. Hurda has practiced in Cherry Hill, New Jersey He had been licensed in New Jersey, license no. 046562006, as well as in Pennsylvania. His info can be found on Avvo.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
