A lawyer wanted $727,000 in fees for settling a $25,000 Monroe County lawsuit.

But what Cynthia L. Pollick actually got was a stern reprimand from a flabbergasted federal judge, a $25,000 fine, and Supreme Court Disciplinary Board investigation.Pollick, of Pittston, Luzerne County, asked for the fees for her work on a 2007 civil rights suit. The suit was filed by Patricia and William Young III, the parents of a Pleasant Valley High School student, alleging that former history teacher Bruce H. Smith showed the teenagers images of nude female murder victims and made sexually explicit comments.The suit was settled in July 2016."This civil rights action has come to be known for all of the wrong reasons. Sad to say, after 10 years of protracted and unnecessarily contentious litigation, it appears that all plaintiff's counsel, Cynthia L. Pollick, Esquire, has managed to accomplish is disrespecting this Court as an institution and embarrassing herself in the eyes of many of its constituents," U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote in his Sept. 6 ruling denying Pollick's request.Her request "felt more like an attempted bank robbery than a genuine effort to recover a reasonable fee bill," Brann wrote."Indeed, Ms. Pollick 'prevailed' on only one claim against one defendant in this odyssey of a litigation - and I use the term 'prevailed' exceptionally loosely. In fact, opposing counsel, after having offered settlements as high as $150,000 that Ms. Pollick rejected, made this case go away for a nuisance value of $25,000.""Ms. Pollick now contends that she is entitled to $727,000 in fees. That mindset is equal parts brazen and delusional," Brann wrote.Pollick's fee petition, he wrote, is "mind-boggling and outrageously excessive.""In fact, it is more than that. The vast majority of Ms. Pollick's entries are larded with excreta unbecoming of any attorney in this district (and certainly unbillable to a client under any stretch of the imagination)," Brann wrote.He said Pollick padded her time, a practice that "reeks both of impropriety and lack of judgment. All of these details will be included in my submission of this matter to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for that regulatory body's review," Brann wrote.The Youngs' federal civil rights suit, filed in May 2007 against Smith and the school district, came about after their then 16-year-old daughter "found Smith's teaching materials, which frequently involved sexually explicit content and depictions, personally offensive," according to court documents.The Youngs alleged that the school district improperly disclosed their concerns and facilitated student backlash against their daughter and retaliation by Smith.The suit was an equal protection claim against Smith for creating a sexually hostile educational environment and a First Amendment retaliation claim against the school district, then-Principal John J. Gress, and then-Superintendent Dr. Frank Pullo for retaliating against their daughter after she complained.Smith returned to teach after the Youngs filed their complaint and taught the same course for several years. He then voluntarily resigned from the teaching profession entirely to make a change in career. For the past several years he has been a successful script writer, director and producer for several movies, according to court documents.