Austin W. B. Hilton is an Associate in the Litigation Practice Group at Mandelbaum Barrett PC where he represents clients in a wide array of civil disputes including, among others, breach of contract, shareholder disputes, tort, First Amendment, and civil rights claims.
A former Deputy Attorney General with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Austin is well-versed in Title 59 claims under New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act and Section 1983 civil rights claims. He has extensive experience in all facets of pre-trial and trial litigation at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts. He has written and argued multiple dispositive motions, successfully argued multiple appeals before the New Jersey Appellate Division, and has helped author numerous briefs, including ones before the United States and New Jersey Supreme Courts. He is admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Austin received his B.A. in Political Science and History and an M.A. in History from East Tennessee State University. He received his J.D. magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, from Rutgers Law School where he was an Executive Editor of the Rutgers Law Review. After law school, Austin served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Stuart Rabner of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- State of New Jersey
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- East Tennessee State University, B.A., and M.A.
- Rutgers Law School, J.D. Magna Cum Laude
Mandelbaum Barrett PC Represents the ACDL-NJ to Defend Attorney’s Right to Practice Law Free of Criminal Charges
March 3, 2025
Mandelbaum Barrett PC attorneys Robert C. Scrivo, Andrew Gimigliano, and Austin W.B. Hilton, supported a significant legal victory, appearing as Amicus Curiae counsel for the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (“ACDL-NJ”) in State v. Norcross. The ACDL’s argument centered on the prosecution of an attorney for engaging in the ordinary practice of law—a matter of critical importance to the legal profession. In a 96-page opinion, the trial court dismissed the indictment in its entirety. The court’s decision is drawing widespread attention, reinforcing the implications for prosecutorial overreach and the sanctity of legal representation.