×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.Member
Andrew H Sherman

Andrew H Sherman

Not yet reviewed

One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102

Bankruptcy, Financial Reorganization and Creditors' Rights

About Andrew H Sherman

Andrew H Sherman is a lawyer practicing bankruptcy, financial reorganization and creditors' rights. Andrew received a A.B. degree from Cornell University in 1988, and has been licensed for 35 years. Andrew practices at Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. in Newark, NJ.

Andrew H Sherman (Newark, New Jersey)

Awards

AV Preeminent Peer Rated
This elite award is granted to attorneys who have been recognized by their peers for their very high ethical standards, with an average peer review score of 4.5 or higher.
Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV

Client Champion Awards

Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service. Award recipients stand out from their peers with a platinum, gold or silver icon.

Champion Badge Silver

At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.

Champion Badge Gold

At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.

Champion Badge Platinum

At least ten reviews and a score of 4.5 or higher.

Martindale Peer Awards

A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:

Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV Preeminent Rating

AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

Andrew H Sherman got this award in 2021

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Distinguished Rating

Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Notable Rating

Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Avvo Awards

Avvo Top Contributor

Avvo Top Contributor: The Avvo Top Contributor Award is granted to attorneys who have earned significant contribution points in a given year on our sister site, Avvo.com. Contribution points are earned by answering questions in Q&A, publishing Legal Guides, and other useful contributions to the Avvo community.

Avvo Client Choice

Avvo Client’s Choice: The Avvo Client's Choice Award Badge is granted to attorneys with a significant number of 4+ star reviews in a given year.

Reviews for Andrew

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Other 1
    • Bankruptcy, Financial Reorganization and Creditors' Rights

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Member
    Firm Name
    Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Decisions: Gardens Reg'l Hosp. & Med. Ctr. Liquidating Trust v. California (In re Gardens Reg'l Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc.), 975 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2020): 9/16/2020
    CH Liquidation Ass'n Liquidation Tr. v. Genesis Healthcare Sys., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42148 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2019): 3/1/2019
    CH Liquidation Ass'n Liquidation Tr. v. Genesis Healthcare Sys., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42150 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2019): 2/12/2019
    CH Liquidation Ass'n v. Genesis Healthcare Sys., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41224 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2019): 1/11/2019
    In re Hudson Healthcare, Inc., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 4154 (Bankr. D.N.J. Sept. 13, 2018): 9/13/2018
    In re Fairmont Gen. Hosp., Inc., 569 B.R. 421 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2017): 3/24/2017
    In re Gardens Reg'l Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc., 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 4714 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 6, 2016): 7/6/2016
    Zucker v. WesBanco Bank, Inc. (In re Fairmont Gen. Hosp., Inc.), 546 B.R. 659 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2016): 2/25/2016
    40 CPS Assocs., LLC v. Villano Family Ltd. P'ship, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158033 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2015): 11/23/2015
    In re Fairmont Gen. Hosp., Inc., 510 B.R. 783 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2014): 5/19/2014
    Katz v. Holzberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162095 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2013): 11/14/2013
    Katz v. Holzberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158012 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2013): 11/4/2013
    Katz v. Holzberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142989 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2013): 10/2/2013
    TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., 661 F.3d 495 (10th Cir. 2011): 11/15/2011
    In re Marcal Paper Mills, Inc., 650 F.3d 311 (3d Cir. 2011): 6/16/2011
    Picard v. Estate of Chais (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 445 B.R. 206 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011): 2/24/2011
    Picard v. Chais (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 440 B.R. 274 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010): 11/30/2010
    Wilen v. Fortis Property Group (In re Bayonne Med. Ctr.), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77435 (D.N.J. July 30, 2010): 7/30/2010
    Wilen v. Pamparo Say. Bank, S.L.A. (In re Bayonne Med. Ctr.), 429 B.R. 152 (D.N.J. 2010): 5/26/2010
    Trucking Emples. of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Marcal Paper Mills, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 101695 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2009): 11/2/2009
    Thomason Auto Group, LLC v. China Am. Coop. Auto., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22669 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2009): 2/27/2009
    In re Summit Global Logistics, Inc., 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 896 (Bankr. D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2008): 3/26/2008
    Orius Corp. v. Qwest Corp., 373 B.R. 555 (N.D. Ill. 2007): 8/9/2007
    JS Mktg. & Communs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp. (In re JS Mktg. & Communs., Inc.), 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 1025 (Bankr. D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2007): 3/26/2007
    In re DiLoreto, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74927 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2006): 10/13/2006
    Levin v. DiLoreto (In re DiLoreto), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 2049 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. May 3, 2002): 5/3/2002
    In re American Family Enters., 256 B.R. 377 (D.N.J. 2000): 9/7/2000
    Levin v. DiLoreto (In re DiLoreto), 277 B.R. 607 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000): 8/1/2000
    In re First Interregional Equity Corporation, 218 B.R. 731 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1997): 11/10/1997
    In re United Healthcare Sys., Inc., 1997 WL 176574 (D.N.J. 1997): 3/26/1997
    Lazarus Burman Assocs. v. Nat'l Westminster Bank (In re Lazarus Burman Assocs.), 161 B.R. 891 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1994): 12/20/1993
    In re Arts des Provinces de France, Inc., 153 B.R. 144 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993): 4/6/1993
    In re Masters, Inc., 149 B.R. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1992): 12/18/1992
    In re Masters, Inc., 141 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1992): 6/8/1992
    In re Kenston Mgmt., Co., 137 B.R. 100 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1992): 3/4/1992

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1991, New Jersey
    1991, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
    1992, New York
    1992, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
    1992, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
    1996, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
    2004, U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
    2011, U.S. Supreme Court
    2018, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    Memberships

    Affiliations

    Member, American Bar Association
    Member, New York State Bar Association
    Member, Essex County Bar Association
    Member, Turnaround Management Association
    Member, American Bankruptcy Institute
    - Co-Chair, Commercial and Regulatory Law Committee
    - Former Education Director, Commercial and Regulatory Law Committee
    - Former Co-Chair, Health Care Committee
    - Former Education Director, Health Care Committee
    Former Master, Bankruptcy Inns of Court

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University
    Class of 1991
    J.D.
    Other Education
    Cornell University
    Class of 1988
    A.B.
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1966
    Brooklyn, New York, September 3, 1966

Email Andrew H Sherman

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions