Judge Suspends Attorney in DA Removal Case

Ruling follows failed petition against Rutherford County district attorney; legal experts say sanctions may draw attention to risks of extraordinary legal challenges.

A Rutherford County Superior Court judge has suspended attorney Andrew LaBreche from practicing law in North Carolina for three years after finding he violated Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure in filing a petition seeking the removal of District Attorney Ted Bell from office.

LaBreche is a former judicial candidate. He ran unsuccessfully against Robert Martelle for District Court Judge in the Republican March primary.   

In a 23-page order filed Thursday, Superior Court Judge William Stetzer granted Bell's motion for sanctions, ordered LaBreche to pay attorney's fees and costs to be determined later, and imposed additional conditions before LaBreche may seek reinstatement of his law license. Bell was represented by attorney Sean Devereux. LaBreche represented himself, which was called out by Judge Stetzer in his order.

The case began in December 2025 when Matthew Fenner, represented by LaBreche at the time, filed a petition under North Carolina law seeking Bell's removal as district attorney. Fenner was allegedly assaulted and Bell's attorney deposed him in this case. State law allows citizens to petition the courts to remove certain public officials, including district attorneys, under limited circumstances. Fenner is now represented by Anthony Morrow.

The case has become synonymous with years of delays in one of North Carolina's most closely watched criminal prosecutions. The case stems from allegations that in January 2013, Fenner, a former member of the Word of Faith Fellowship church, was held down, choked and beaten for about two hours during a violent practice known as "blasting," which church members allegedly claimed would expel "homosexual demons." Church leaders were indicted on charges including second-degree kidnapping and assault. The first trial ended in a mistrial in 2017 after a juror introduced unauthorized outside research during deliberations, and more than 4,900 days passed before the case moved toward retrial. A gag order was issued by Judge Gary Gavenus, but it was not publicly known for years that the gag order had expired, according to a WCAB News review of public records when the petition case was first announced.

An independent investigation attributed much of the delay to COVID-19-related court shutdowns and repeated changes in attorneys on both sides because of withdrawals and health issues. Fenner, however, accused Bell of intentionally delaying the prosecution and giving preferential treatment to church leaders because of the fellowship's political influence in Rutherford County, including attempting to schedule a court hearing during Fenner's medical residency interviews. Fenner petitioned to have Bell removed from office, but a judge dismissed the request, finding insufficient evidence that Bell deliberately stalled the prosecution. The cases were later reassigned to a special prosecutor, and Bell was subsequently defeated in his reelection bid in March 2026.

The court appointed independent counsel to investigate the allegations. After interviewing 23 witnesses and reviewing evidence, independent counsel concluded there was insufficient evidence to support moving forward with a removal hearing. The petition was later dismissed.

Bell subsequently sought sanctions against LaBreche, arguing the attorney filed claims without adequate factual or legal support.

Following a three-day evidentiary hearing in July, Judge Stetzer agreed. The court found LaBreche failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing investigation, advanced allegations the court determined lacked evidentiary support, filed the petition for improper purposes, and made false statements during the sanctions proceedings.  

Stetzer allowed evidence to be heard in the case that was not directly tied to Fenner's allegations, including a Rutherford County Sheriff's Office police report that was under seal by the State Bureau of Investigation from a complaint made alleging corruption. 

While it was under sealed evidence, court records show Judge Stetzer allowed it into evidence, and watched a police interview LaBreche gave in Aug. 2025. The court order shows Stetzer did not authorize the police body cam footage from the interview to be publicly released. 

Stetzer also wrote that a Facebook account alleging cover-ups and questions about real estate deals tied to drug investigations was authored by LaBreche using a pseudonym. In "Justice for Sale" by Jay Lesher, that individual recounted years of factual events and history in the area. It closed by asking anyone with information to contact the FBI. LaBreche maintained in court filings he did not control that account.

"The Court finds that, for years prior to filing the Petition and Amended Petition, Attorney LaBreche pursued his own investigation into what he subjectively believed to be widespread corruption involving Senior Resident Superior Court Judge J. Thomas Davis and District Attorney Bell," Stetzer said. "As part of that effort, in August 2025, Attorney LaBreche appeared before Lt. Snyder seeking to initiate a State Bureau of Investigation inquiry into Judge Davis."

"Based upon the totality of the evidence, the Court finds that Attorney Labreche knowingly made false statements concerning the authorship of the Justice for Sale article and the identity of 'Jay Lesher' in an effort to conceal Attorney Labreche’s role in publishing the article and to mislead the Court regarding a material issue bearing upon his credibility, motive, and intent...Ultimately, the Court finds that there was no factual basis for the Petition or the Amended Petition," Stetzer said.

LaBreche has the right to appeal the ruling.

Broader implications

While the order addresses the conduct of one attorney in one case, it also highlights the high legal standard required when seeking the removal of an elected public official.

District attorneys hold broad prosecutorial authority, and North Carolina law provides a judicial process for citizens to challenge alleged misconduct. Such petitions are uncommon, and courts require substantial factual and legal support before allowing them to proceed.

"The Court nevertheless concludes that Attorney Labreche failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of the Petition and Amended Petition, asserted numerous material factual allegations that he knew or reasonably should have known were untrue or unsupported by the evidence available to him, and filed the proceedings for improper purposes, including delaying the underlying criminal prosecution and harassing, embarrassing, and publicly discrediting District Attorney Ted Bell," Stetzer said.

The sanctions imposed in this case may draw attention within the legal community because they extend beyond dismissal of the petition. In addition to suspending LaBreche's law license for three years, the court ordered him to comply with State Bar suspension requirements, undergo a psychological evaluation before seeking reinstatement and practice under a State Bar-approved monitor for one year if reinstated.

"Based upon the totality of the evidence, including Attorney Labreche’s prior history with District Attorney Bell, his prior public statements and publications concerning District Attorney Bell, his own testimony and admissions, the deposition testimony of Mr. Fenner, and the timing and effect of the Petition and Amended Petition, the Court finds that Attorney Labreche harbored significant personal animosity toward District Attorney Bell at the time he filed the Petition and Amended Petition," Stetzer said.

The ruling also raises a broader legal question that may be debated beyond this case: whether significant sanctions in unsuccessful public-official removal cases could discourage attorneys from pursuing similar claims in the future that intersect with the First Amendment, even when they believe misconduct has occurred. 

"The Court recognizes that attorneys, like all citizens, enjoy the constitutional right to free speech, and nothing in this Order should be construed as criticizing or disciplining Attorney Labreche merely for expressing his opinions," Stetzer said. "Rather, the Court considers this evidence solely for the limited purpose of establishing the nature of the longstanding relationship (and animosity) between Attorney Labreche and District Attorney Bell and, in conjunction with the other evidence presented, Attorney Labreche's motive, intent, and state of mind in filing the Petition for Removal."

Ultimately, appellate courts may have the final word on whether Judge Stetzer's sanctions were appropriate. Until then, the order serves both as a significant disciplinary action against an attorney and as a reminder of the rigorous standards governing extraordinary legal actions against elected officials.

Bell, first elected in 2014, remains in office until the end of his term this year. He lost the March primary election, which was won by David Norris.

Stetzer previously served as interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.