Photo: Bigstock

A divorce attorney who submitted a client-written response to a motion to compel documents must pay opposing counsel $900 in fees, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.

The court upheld a Clearfield County judge's sanctions ruling against LaVieta Lerch, who represents Amy Farrell in her divorce matter. Lerch was held in contempt for failing to comply with a motion to compel discovery by allowing her client to respond to the motion herself.

In that motion, Farrell expressed an unwillingness to comply with the document request, claiming it was "no one's business," according to Superior Court Judge Carolyn H. Nichols' opinion.

Lerch was subsequently chastised by the Clearfield County judge, according to the Superior Court's opinion:

"The court: So you just gave it to your client and asked her to write a response?

Attorney Lerch: She wanted to write a response.

The court: I consider this response to be extremely unprofessional, and I really can't believe that this is how you would respond to [husband's counsel's] request. Is this how you practice law? This is unacceptable."

Nichols said that Lerch did not challenge the amount of attorney fees on appeal, lowered from $1,500 to $900, but argued that there was no factual basis for the court finding her in contempt.

"Initially, with respect to attorney Lerch's argument that she cannot be held in contempt because the trial court's August 3, 2018 order did not specifically name her, she did not cite any pertinent authorities. Therefore, attorney Lerch has waived that argument on appeal," Nichols said.

Nichols added, "Regardless, on the merits, the trial court acted within its authority to sanction counsel under Rule 4019 for engaging in conduct that required the moving party to file a motion for sanctions. Here, the conduct would include permitting Ms. Farrell's discovery responses that Ms. Farrell prepared herself to be served on opposing counsel—responses that did not comply with the trial court's August 3, 2018 order. … Ms. Farrell refused to provide some of the requested information and responded 'N/A' to others requests with no explanation."

Lastly, Nichols said, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Lerch.

"With respect to attorney Lerch's argument that counsel can never be personally responsible for obtaining documents from her client, we disagree," Nichols said. "Attorney Lerch's decision to serve Ms. Farrell's pro se, unresponsive discovery responses that attacked Mr. Farrell and refused to provide documents is a basis upon which the trial court may sanction counsel."

Lerch did not respond to a call seeking comment. Lea Ann Heltzel, the husband's lawyer, also did not return a call seeking comment.