On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending attorney Andrew Scott Hurwitz from practicing law in the state for six months. The decision stems from disciplinary actions taken against Hurwitz in Pennsylvania for unauthorized practice of law while under administrative suspension.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Andrew Scott Hurwitz,” with case number 2024-03508.
Hurwitz, admitted to the New York Bar on May 12, 1998, by the Third Judicial Department, was previously suspended in New York on February 5, 2008, for failing to file attorney registration statements and pay biennial registration fees, as required by Judiciary Law § 468-a. He has remained suspended in New York since that time. Additionally, Hurwitz, who was also admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, faced an administrative suspension by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in October 2014.
In March 2021, Hurwitz sought reinstatement in Pennsylvania, acknowledging in an affidavit that, while suspended, he had drafted contracts and presented himself as in-house counsel on LinkedIn and as an attorney and general counsel for a company he founded.
In December 2021, Hurwitz and the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a joint petition admitting that his actions violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules against unauthorized practice of law and holding himself out as a licensed attorney while under administrative suspension. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on February 25, 2022, imposed a six-month suspension on consent for these violations. On March 13, 2023, Pennsylvania authorities confirmed Hurwitz had complied with the terms of his suspension, returning him to administrative suspension status.
The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, in a motion dated February 5, 2025, requested reciprocal discipline in New York under Judiciary Law § 90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters. The motion asked the court to recognize the Pennsylvania discipline and suspend Hurwitz for six months or impose an appropriate sanction. Hurwitz did not respond to the proceeding.
The court found no basis to deny reciprocal discipline, noting that Hurwitz received notice of the allegations, voluntarily admitted his misconduct, and consented to the Pennsylvania discipline. The misconduct, which included practicing law while suspended and misrepresenting his status, also violates New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The court determined that a six-month suspension aligns with Pennsylvania’s sanction and is consistent with New York precedents, which have imposed suspensions ranging from three months to one year for similar misconduct.
The court’s order prohibits Hurwitz from practicing law in any capacity, appearing before courts or public authorities, providing legal opinions, or holding himself out as an attorney. He must comply with rules governing suspended attorneys and return any secure pass issued by the Office of Court Administration. The suspension will remain in effect until further court order, alongside his existing suspension for registration violations.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
