On Friday, September 6, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an order temporarily staying all proceedings related to the formal complaint against Judge Douglas H. Hurd. This decision comes after the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) filed a complaint against Judge Hurd on January 30, 2024, alleging violations of judicial conduct.
The case is entitled “In the matter of Judge Douglas H. Hurd,” with case number ACJC 2023-140.
The Supreme Court has plenary jurisdiction over disciplinary matters as outlined in Article VI, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution. In the order, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner noted that the hearing scheduled for December 18, 2024, has been postponed as part of the stay.
In this order, the court directed the ACJC to provide the Supreme Court with the existing record of the case that has already been shared with Judge Hurd. This record is due by September 9, 2024. The Supreme Court also allowed both Judge Hurd and the ACJC the opportunity to submit written statements of up to ten double-spaced pages. These submissions must adhere to the court’s standard formatting rules and are due by the close of business on September 13, 2024.
Furthermore, the order specifies that no additional submissions will be accepted without prior permission from the court. This procedural step indicates the court’s intent to manage the flow of information and ensure that both parties have ample opportunity to present their positions before any further proceedings take place.
Judge Hurd has been a judge on the Superior Court since 2009, having been appointed by former Governor Jon Corzine. He currently presides over civil cases in Mercer County and is eligible to remain in his position until mandatory retirement in 2039.
The allegations against Judge Hurd involve claims that he violated judicial ethics by allowing his secretary to work remotely for an extended period in 2022, despite existing policies that required in-person attendance for the role. Judge Hurd has denied these allegations, asserting that he believed he had the discretion to permit occasional remote work due to his secretary’s strong performance.
As the case unfolds, both sides will have the chance to clarify their positions, and the Supreme Court will review the submissions before determining the next steps in the proceedings. The stay of proceedings indicates that the court is taking a careful approach to the matter, ensuring that all necessary information is considered before any hearings are held.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
