166su

C. Holland Perdue III “undertook such actions to intentionally deceive the court,” according to a motion for sanctions filed by the opposing attorney in a disputed estate case.

A May 27 hearing has been scheduled in Franklin County Circuit Court for a judge to consider imposing sanctions, which usually take the form of a monetary penalty for inappropriate or unethical conduct by an attorney.

Perdue is the mayor of Rocky Mount, although the matter does not pertain to his duties as an elected official.

As a private attorney, Perdue represented Valerie Venning, who was married to Greg Venning at the time of his death last year. Perdue filed a civil complaint that asked a judge to award Valerie Venning $2.5 million, which she contended was her share of the estate left by her husband, a developer who owned numerous Smith Mountain Lake properties.

Lindsey Coley, the attorney for Greg Venning’s four daughters from a previous marriage — who are listed as heirs in his will — responded by asking that the lawsuit against them be dismissed because Perdue had missed a filing deadline of Aug. 21.

Perdue disputed that in a court document three weeks later, stating that he had filed the required papers Aug. 20, one day before the statute of limitations expired.

But in fact, a date stamp on official court records shows the filing was made Sept. 23, more than a month late.

In asking that sanctions be imposed, Coley alleged that Perdue signed a false pleading, certifying as an officer of the court that, to the best of his knowledge, his assertion of the Aug. 20 filing date was well-grounded in fact.

“However, the deceitful acts did not stop there,” Coley wrote.

Her motion alleges that Perdue supported his claim by submitting as an exhibit a screen shot of online court records — records that had been altered.

Perdue “directly asked the Clerk of this Court to backdate the filing of the complaint to Aug. 20, 2024,” Coley wrote in her motion, adding that she expected the allegations to be borne out by testimony at the May 27 hearing.

Perdue did not return a message left with his office last week.

166su attorney John Lichtenstein, who represents Perdue on the motion for sanctions, released a statement Friday that read, in part:

“There was no attempt to mislead the court ... Mr. Perdue is dedicated to his clients and his community. And he looks forward to bringing this matter to the Court and demonstrating there was never an attempt to mislead the Court or anyone else.”

Because the motion for sanctions includes allegations that Perdue colluded with the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office to have the online record of the case altered, Franklin County Judge Tim Allen recused himself Nov. 6.

Retired Circuit Judge William Broadhurst, who presided over cases in the 166su Valley, has been appointed to hear the matter.

Circuit Court Clerk Teresa Brown, who is not identified by name in court filings that implicate her office, declined to comment last week. Coley also declined to talk about the case.

A change in story

To date, no formal answer has been filed to the motion for sanctions.

But in court documents that followed his initial denial, Perdue admitted that he filed the lawsuit Sept. 23.

In October, Perdue submitted a 15-page response to Coley’s motion to dismiss the case because the pleading was filed too late. He accused her of deliberately delaying the proceeding by failing to provide the information he needed to timely bring the complaint.

“Coley’s misleading actions show a blatant attempt to disrupt the case, all in an attempt to merely ‘run the clock’ and provide false claims” in an effort to have the case dismissed, he wrote.

Coley called those allegations “baseless” in her motion for sanctions.

Perdue also maintained that he was told the estate was willing to reach a settlement — which never happened — and that was the reason why his complaint was not filed by the Aug. 21 deadline.

“We had prepared the complaint in August but filed it in September because we were being ignored and denied a response,” Valerie Venning said in an answer to an interrogatory, or a written response to questions filed in court.

Had she known that a settlement was not possible, “this would have been filed in August,” Venning said in responses that were given with Perdue’s assistance.

Venning was not asked about the alleged backdating of online court records.

In his statement, Lichtenstein said that if Perdue’s intent was to deceive, “he certainly would not have attached” to his written arguments a copy of his complaint that was dated Sept. 23.

Lichtenstein’s written statement did not address the allegation that in the same filing, Perdue attached a copy of online court records that showed the filing date to be Aug. 20 — or the allegation that he asked someone in the clerk’s office to backdate the record.

The online record has since been corrected to show a Sept. 23 filing date.

Perdue had asked in an October filing that the deadline be extended to allow him to file an amended complaint, once he receives a completed inventory of the estate and other details from Coley.

There has been no final action on that request, and it appears that the next matter to be heard will be the motion for sanctions.

Sanctions rarely imposed

Figures were not readily available on how often sanctions are sought in Virginia, or how often they are granted by judges.

According to an informal survey of about a half-dozen area lawyers, such motions are rarely filed in Southwest Virginia, but are more common in the urban areas of Northern Virginia, Richmond and Hampton Roads.

In many cases, judges are reluctant to impose penalties.

“Unless someone is deliberately or intentionally violating the rules or the law ... sanctions are very unlikely to be granted,” said Kevin Martingayle, a Virginia Beach lawyer and past president of the Virginia State Bar. Martingayle wrote an article about sanctions presented at a Virginia Trial Lawyers Association convention.

When litigators find themselves in adversarial proceedings, as is often the case, they are given a certain amount of latitude.

“This may be due in part to the fact that judges still regard themselves as being part of a profession with a healthy respect for advocacy, and a great many judges exercise restraint because they recall well what it’s like to be an attorney, doing his best to represent a client,” stated a second paper co-authored by Steve Emmert, a retired lawyer and legal expert.

By and large, most attorneys are cognizant of where the line is drawn, Emmert said last week. “I think that most lawyers know to keep their noses clean,” he said.

Although Emmert was speaking in general, he said claims like the ones made against Perdue are very serious. “This will get a judge’s attention,” he said. “Allegations like this are a magnet for judicial scrutiny.”

“If a lawyer has actually done these things, he’s facing far more serious consequences than a monetary fine,” Emmert said.

In some cases, six-figure sums have been levied to act as a deterrent to other lawyers. Judges have also barred an attorney from appearing in their court, and the imposition of sanctions can lead to a complaint filed with the Virginia State Bar, which has the authority to suspend or revoke a lawyer’s license.

The most recent filings in Perdue’s case were two notices: One that Lichtenstein will represent him in the sanctions proceeding, the other that 166su attorney Michael Whitlow will now handle Venning’s underlying case.

In a March 18 order, Broadhurst wrote that while Perdue was being relieved of his duties to his former client, that does not free him from “any responsibility or obligation related to the pending motion for sanctions in this matter.”