WILLIAMSPORT -- A Bethlehem lawyer has been accused by a federal judge of attempting to extort a settlement in a "baseless" civil case in which PPL Corp. and a labor union were the defendants.

The accusation is contained in a strongly-worded memorandum issued Tuesday by U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann who ordered Donald P. Russo to pay all the legal costs of PPL and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1600 for the litigation that has spanned nearly three years.

Brann will determine the amount of the award after PPL and the union local submit their cost totals and Russo has the opportunity to contest them.

In response to Russo claiming the sanction would severely hamper his ability to practice, Brann wrote his alleged financial circumstances "simply do not outweigh the need for adequate deterrence in this case."

The judge in October had granted defense motions for summary judgment, finding Russo filed a baseless job discrimination suit on behalf of union member Ernest Keister of Millmont in Union County.

Keister complained his pay and job description do not reflect the work he does for PPL, but according to Brann, he never filed a grievance through the union.

Brann pointed out Russo is no stranger to discipline having been reprimanded previously by U.S. Judge Robert D. Mariani in Scranton and the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court.

A federal judge in eastern Pennsylvania has termed Russo's employment discrimination work as "dubious, ill conceived, poorly presented, silly and riddled with credibility shortcomings," his memorandum noted.

The sanction is necessary because prior disciplinary measures have not prevented Russo from bringing frivolous employment discrimination lawsuits in federal court, the document states.

"The court trusts that Mr. Russo's consistently questionable practices will cease today," Brann wrote.

In the Keister case, the judge said Russo failed to demonstrate either defendant harbored any discriminatory animus toward his client whatsoever.

"This was a case built largely on Mr. Russo's posturing, the consistent filing of pleadings, which amounted to nothing more than bluffs that defendants here were not afraid to call," the judge wrote.

Had the defendants not been forced to deal with Russo's "circuitous and less than straightforward pleadings," this case would have ended long ago, he said.

"The intent and effect of Mr. Russo's conduct was to waste the defendants' monetary resources as well as their time and had largely the same impact on this court," Brann said.

He accused Russo of leading the court down the garden path claiming his client's allegations "turned out to be patently untrue" but he chose to plead them anyway.

Brann's 55-page memorandum contains numerous examples on why he found sanctions are needed.

After one of them the judge wrote this is just an example of Russo's many unclear contentions in this case "which have littered his paper and left the court and the defendants wasting time chasing unavailing leads and tumbling down legal rabbit holes."

As the judge said he instructed Russo during a recent hearing, "now is a good time for him to retire back to his office, review any pending federal lawsuits, and put some thought into whether this is the kind of lawyer he wants to be."