Herman, Timothy J.

Andrew's practice is largely devoted to client matters regarding professional liability, concentrating on creditors' rights defense, defamation and privacy issues as well as business and commercial law matters.

In 1991 Andrew graduated from "the Great Books" program at St. John's College in Annapolis, Maryland, where he received his Bachelor of Arts Degree. Andrew attended Hofstra University School of Law in Hempstead, New York, and earned his Juris Doctorate in 1996.

While earning his Juris Doctorate, Andrew served as a summer law clerk for the Honorable Zelda Jonas of the New York Supreme Court, assisted in the creation of an award-winning homeless advocacy group, represented indigent clients through the homeless advocacy group, and represented criminal defendants through the Hofstra Criminal Justice Clinic. Andrew received the Former District Attorneys of New York Criminal Justice Award in 1996. Additionally, Andrew was a two-time recipient, 1994 and 1995, of the Hofstra Pro Bono award for service to the community.

Andrew began his legal career with Prudential Securities and later was employed as a litigation associate with the law firm of Garrigle, Palm and Thomasson in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

Significant Representative Matters

     Klingensmith v. Max & Erma's Rests., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81029 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2007). FACTA Class Action Settlement Coupon Settlement.

     Womack v. Nat'l Action Fin. Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54206 (E.D. Pa. July 25, 2007). Non-attorney signatory on a collection letter need not be meaningfully involved in the drafting and issuance of the letter.

     Kondratick v. Benefit Consumer Disc. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4754 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2006). Denial of class certification against mortgage lender and debt collector.

     Kondratick v. Ben. Consumer Discount Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20915 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2005). Dismissal of FDCPA and consumer fraud claims against debt collector for not removing final judgment on mortgage debt.

     Prince v. NCO Fin. Servs., 346 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Pa. 2004). Defendant was determined not to be a "debt collector" because the consumer's account was not in default when obtained by defendant, even though communications sent by defendant stated defendant was a "debt collector."

     MRC v. Hoffman v. MRC, UNN-L-1798-07 (NJ Super. Court 2008). Dismissal of counterclaim as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to debt collectors collecting on third party debts.