Page 1 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

Sean L. Hartfield, OSB 020591

PO Box 11266

Portland, OR 97211

503-701-1124

sean@hartfieldlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff (Pro Se)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

SEAN L. HARTFIELD, Case No. 3:16-cv-00068

Plaintiff. COMPLAINT:

14th Amendment - Equal Protection:

vs. (Race & Class-of-One)

Oregon Law

(Fraud)

OREGON STATE BAR, and

Unknown Individuals (J. Doe Nos. 1 10) Jury Trial Requested

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Sean L. Hartfield (Hartfield) alleges that defendant Oregon State Bar (the 

bar) and J. Doe No. 1 through J. Doe No. 10, violated plaintiffs rights protected under the 

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by subjecting 

Hartfield to an illegal, arbitrary and irrational application of the bars regulatory authority.

2. Hartfield further alleges that the bar violated Oregon law by falsely presenting itself as 

working primarily for the benefit of the public when in fact its primary goals include the 

financial benefit of the bar, the financial and professional benefit of selected members, and the 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 16
Page 2 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

illegal use of the bars regulatory authority to engage in arbitrary, irrational and selective 

prosecutions.

II. JURISDICTION

3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution, with the jurisdiction of this Court predicated on 

28 USC §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

III. PARTIES

4. Hartfield is an African American and was at all material times relevant to this Complaint 

a citizen of the United Stated, a resident of Portland, Oregon, and a member of the bar.

5. The bar is, and was at all material times relevant to this Complaint, a public corporation.

6. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, individual defendants J. 

Doe No. 1 through J. Doe No. 10 were agents, employees, officials, staff, and/or representatives 

of the bar. Each J. Doe defendant is sued in his/her respective individual capacity.

IV. COMMON FACTS

7. The bar was established to license and discipline lawyers, to regulate the practice of law, 

to provide a variety of services to bar members and the public, and to provide specialized 

professional services to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.

8. The bar asserts that it functions to provide protection to the public,that it works to 

eliminate bias in the justice system and to ensure access to justice for all,and that it is 

committed to serving and valuing its diverse community, to advancing equality in the justice 

system, and to removing barriers to that system.

9. As a condition of practicing law in the state of Oregon, lawyers must be members of the 

bar and pay dues/fees to the bar.

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 16
Page 3 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

10. The treasury of the state of Oregon is not legally pledged to satisfy the bars financial 

obligations, and the bar has the power to take property in its own name.

11. Ostensibly to assist the public in finding the right lawyer,the bar operates a Lawyer 

Referral Service (LRS).The bar does not disclose to the public that the bar receives a 12% 

kick-back on each LRS-referred matter in which the lawyer earns and collects attorneysfees. 

12. Because of its financial interest in referring the public to LRS members who pay a kickback to the bar, the bar

s LRS does not maintain a list of pro bono lawyers or organizations that 

might otherwise assist poor or low income members of the public for free or at a rate that does 

not include a kick-back to the bar.

13. In 2002, Hartfield became a licensed member of the bar and began practicing law from 

his office in northeast Portland on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Hartfield has maintained a 

membership in the bar since 2002.

14. Between 2000 and 2005, when the majority of Oregons elderly, working class African 

American homeowners resided in north and northeast Portland, economic development in the 

area led to rapid and substantial increases in their real property values. These homeowners, often 

with limited educations, were increasingly targeted by con artists presenting to them in various 

forms such as friendsor family, home improvement contractors, and trusted professionals such 

as attorneys, accountants, and real estate agents, all seeking to take financial advantage of them.

15. Though most elderly, African American homeowners in north and northeast Portland 

were of low income or moderate means, Hartfields law practice began taking on more and more 

of their cases as elder abuse spread throughout the community, particularly in the form of 

residential deed and/or home equity theft. Further, their limited incomes rarely allowed them to 

pay litigation expenses and/or a retainer for the legal services.

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 16
Page 4 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

16. In 2003, Mrs. Myrtle Nickerson (Mrs. Nickerson) hired Hartfield regarding the 

administration of her sister Ella Mae Websters estate in the Multnomah County Probate 

Department. Mrs. Nickerson was one of eight heirs to the Webster estate, and the remaining 

seven heirs were residents of the state of Texas. One of the other seven heirs was represented by 

a guardian, and one of the heirs died in the course of the administration of the Webster estate. 

The Webster estate included, in part, income from several oil and gas leases in the state of Texas, 

assets in investment accounts, and assets previously managed by a conservator. Around 

September 2004, after the inventory and final accounting were submitted, the probate court 

approved the payment of attorney fees to Hartfields law office, as well as monies for costs and 

expenses which had been advanced by the firm. Hartfield had waived more than half of the legal 

fees recoverable in that matter.

17. Following the closing of the Webster estate, Mrs. Nickerson and Hartfield continued to 

communicate socially because they lived in the same community and because Mrs. Nickerson

would sometimes stop by Hartfields office when she walked to do errands.

18. In the fall of 2004, Mrs. Nickerson advised Hartfield that a contractor had refused to 

complete work on the Nickerson home after her husband, Nathan Nickerson, had fully paid the 

contractor with a check which had been promptly cashed by the contractor. Hartfield 

communicated with the contractor and recovered all monies the contractor had taken from the 

Nickersons. Hartfield did not charge the Nickersons for any services Hartfield provided in that 

matter.

19. Later in the fall of 2004, Mrs. Nickerson advised Hartfield that Nathan Nickerson was

writing checks to people under unusual circumstances and that she was concerned that people 

might be taking advantage of him because of what appeared to Mrs. Nickerson to be changes in 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 4 of 16
Page 5 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

his demeanor, personality, and in his ability to care for himself. Hartfield advised Mrs. 

Nickerson of her options, of related problems she might encounter, and of immediate proactive 

measures she could take if she believed Nathan Nickerson was experiencing a diminished mental 

capacity. Ultimately, Hartfield accompanied Mrs. Nickerson and Nathan Nickerson to their 

banks and worked with the respective banking representatives to place safeguards on their 

accounts. Hartfield did not charge the Nickersons for any services Hartfield provided in that 

matter.

20. Around that same period, Hartfield was contacted by the Nickersons financial consultant 

who urgently requested that a power-of-attorney from Nathan Nickerson to Mrs. Nickerson be 

obtained so that Mrs. Nickerson could authorize the financial consultant to take certain actions 

regarding the Nickersons annuity investments.

21. After several meetings with the Nickersons over the following weeks, Hartfield 

determined that it would not be appropriate for Nathan Nickerson to execute a power-of-attorney 

based on what appeared to be Nathan Nickersons diminished mental capacity. Hartfield advised 

Mrs. Nickerson that a conservatorship would provide her with the authority to act on Nathan 

Nickersons behalf regarding the annuity investments. Hartfield informed Mrs. Nickerson of the 

amount of the court fees for the conservatorship and he advised Mrs. Nickerson that because the 

conservatorship for Nathan Nickerson would be relatively simple as compared to the Webster 

matter, Hartfield would not charge Mrs. Nickerson for any services Hartfield provided on her 

behalf for the conservatorship for Nathan Nickerson.

22. Mrs. Nickerson later advised Hartfield that Nathan Nickersons mental state appeared to 

be deteriorating and that she had grown concerned for their safety. At Mrs. Nickersons request, 

Hartfield began assisting her with research of assisted living facilities that could care for Nathan

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 5 of 16
Page 6 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

Nickerson. Hartfield and Mrs. Nickerson learned that for the type services Mrs. Nickerson

believed would be best under the circumstances, the expense would be several thousand dollars 

per month. After Hartfield researched potential resources such as Medicare/Medicaid and 

advised Mrs. Nickerson that she might be required to spend much of their savings before 

whatever Medicare/Medicaid services might be available, Mrs. Nickerson grew became alarmed 

that the thousands in monthly expenses for Nathan Nickersons care could quickly deplete their 

savings. Further, despite Hartfields assurances otherwise, Mrs. Nickerson remained fearful that 

she might somehow lose her home. Because of Hartfields limited experience in the area, 

Hartfield advised Mrs. Nickerson that she would need to speak to someone other than Hartfield 

to get advice about what would actually be required of her to qualify for resources such as 

Medicare/Medicaid. Hartfield charged no fee to the Nickersons for his services related to these 

matters.

23. Around mid-February 2005, Nathan Nickerson was admitted to an assisted living facility 

at an expense of approximately $3,250.00 per month.

24. Because Hartfield was aware of Mrs. Nickersons financial concerns related to the 

thousands being spent for Nathan Nickersons care, Hartfield advanced the $504.00 court filing 

fee on Mrs. Nickersons behalf when she was hesitant to provide the funds.

25. In the course of representing Mrs. Nickerson as conservator for Nathan Nickerson, 

Hartfield grew concerned when he and Mrs. Nickerson were unable to obtain records from the 

Nickersonsfinancial planner in support of amounts the financial planner said was held in 

various annuity accounts. Because Mrs. Nickerson was unfamiliar with the account balances and 

could not locate any prior related balance sheets, and because Nathan Nickerson was 

incapacitated and could not verify whether the balances were consistent with his understanding 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 6 of 16
Page 7 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

of the accounts, Hartfield insisted on something more than what appeared to be a statement 

compiled by the financial planner who had managed the accounts. Though Mrs. Nickerson 

appeared to trust the financial planner, Hartfield explained to Mrs. Nickerson that she and 

Hartfield had a duty to verify the amounts provided by the financial planner before presenting

those amounts to the court as accurate. 

26. Ultimately, Hartfield was unable to obtain complete financial records to support the 

amounts provided by the Nickersonsfinancial planner, and Hartfield remained concerned that 

there were likely additional funds which were subject to the conservatorship. Thus, though 

Hartfield knew that an inventory and final accounting were due in the matter, Hartfield 

concluded that it would be improper to file a final accounting which would only include the 

amounts provided by the Nickersonsfinancial planner, particularly where Hartfield and Mrs. 

Nickerson would effectively be attesting to the accuracy of the amounts submitted to the court.

27. The probate court record reflects that on or about February 7, 2007, Judge Tennyson 

issued to Hartfield and to Mrs. Nickerson an Order [to appear on March 7, 2007] to Show Cause 

as to why he or she should not be removed as said officer and/or found in contemptfor failure 

to file an inventory, and warning that FAILURE TO APPEAR OR CORRECT DEFICIENCY 

MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THE FIDUCIARY OR SUCH OTHER ACTIONS AS 

THE COURT MAY DEEM PROPER.

28. When Mrs. Nickerson was alarmed at having received a copy of the February 7, 2007 

court order referenced above, Hartfield advised Mrs. Nickerson that the only way to fix the 

matter was to file an inventory and final accounting, that Hartfield would only facilitate the filing 

of the inventory and final accounting if his concerns regarding their accuracy were addressed, 

and that Mrs. Nickerson would be removed as conservator if no inventory and final accounting 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 7 of 16
Page 8 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

were filed. Mrs. Nickerson was further advised that a subsequent conservator would likely file 

the inventory based on the statement provided by the Nickersonsfinancial planner and nothing 

more.

29. Nathan Nickerson died on February 25, 2007.

30. When neither Hartfield nor Mrs. Nickerson appeared on March, 7, 2007, someone from 

the probate court left a message for Hartfield instructing him to appear in court the following 

day. Hartfield appeared the next day and advised Judge Tennyson (in chambers) that Nathan 

Nickerson had died the prior week. Judge Tennyson then instructed Hartfield to provide a final 

accounting which provided what assets there were, what actions Mrs. Nickerson had taken, and 

what was necessary to transfer the conservatorship over to the estate that might be opened on 

Nathan Nickersons behalf. The March 7, 2007 hearing date was continued (rescheduled) to 

April 3, 2007.

31. Hartfield informed Mrs. Nickerson of Judge Tennysons instructions regarding assets that 

might transfer to an estate that might be opened on Nathan Nickersons behalf.

32. Judge Tennyson later testified that it was her understanding that at some point Hartfield 

contacted some unidentified person at the probate court and requested that the March 7, 2007 

hearing date which was continued to April 3, 2007, again be rescheduled. Judge Tennyson 

further testified that it was her understanding that Hartfields request was approved and that the 

unidentified person at the probate court instructed Hartfield to file with the court a letter stating 

that the hearing was to be rescheduled to April 30, 2007.

33. Hartfield acknowledged that he called the probate court while traveling to request a 

rescheduling of the April 3, 2007, hearing date. Hartfield denied remembering any instruction to 

submit a letter stating that the hearing was to be rescheduled to April 30, 2007, and noted that 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 8 of 16
Page 9 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

such a procedure sounded very oddto him. Regardless, at no point was there ever a court 

order setting an April 30, 2007 hearing date for the Show Cause Order previously scheduled for 

March 7, 2007.

34. Judge Tennyson testified that when Hartfield did not appear on April 30, 2007, she 

removed Mrs. Nickerson as conservator on or about May 1, 2007, and issued to Hartfield an

Order [to appear on May 8, 2007] to Show Cause for Contempt of Court for failure to appear as 

directed on April 30, 2007. The order was purportedly mailed to Hartfield on May 1, 2007, but 

Hartfield did not learn of the order until some time after May 8, 2007. Thus, Hartfield did not 

appear in the probate court on May 8, 2007.

35. On or about June 29, 2007, Judge Tennyson sent to the bar a letter complaint in which 

she stated that Hartfields conduct in the course of representing Mrs. Nickerson appeared to be 

neglect of a legal matter.

36. Hartfield cooperated with the bar throughout the course of its investigation resulting from 

Judge Tennysons complaint. Hartfields cooperation with the bar included corresponding with 

the bars disciplinary attorney via various phone calls and written correspondences. Further, 

Hartfield encouraged the bar to speak with Mrs. Nickerson as soon as possible because Hartfield 

believed Mrs. Nickerson would be forthright and honest in her responses regarding her 

interactions with Hartfield during the course of his representation of her over the prior five years, 

including circumstances surrounding her role as conservator for Nathan Nickerson.

37. After removing Mrs. Nickerson as conservator, Judge Tennyson appointed Ron D. Bailey 

of the law office of Duffy Kekel LLP as the attorney and successor conservator to replace Mrs. 

Nickerson as conservator. Mr. Bailey notes that he subsequently conferred with Mrs. Nickerson, 

her financial advisor, and Mrs. Nickersons son Ralph Nickerson. Mr. Bailey filed an inventory 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 9 of 16
Page 10 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

and final accounting which was consistent with the amounts previously provided to Hartfield by 

the Nickersonsfinancial planner.

38. In a letter dated September 7, 2007, written to Mr. Bailey and filed with the court on or 

about September 12, 2007, Ralph Nickerson objected to Mr. Baileys attorney fee statement and 

the final accounting, stating:

With all due respect to you the court appointed legal representative of the above 

referenced case and pursuant to your overture to client Myrtle Nickerson 83 years 

of age and not sophisticated in such matters, at the advice of her son and power 

of attorney ask that you immediately notify the court that we object to the 

proceedings of the First and Final Account and Petition for Order Approving 

Account and Distributing Conservatorship Assets of Nathan Nickerson. That on 

the grounds of a suspicion of misrepresentation, both now and before, as well as 

any other legal matters that may be uncovered as unfavorable to the best interest 

of his estate, Myrtle Nickerson does hereby assert her intention to contest, and to 

pursue with all due diligence a satisfactory reconciliation of the proceedings of 

the subject conservatorship before her signature of approval is rendered.

Ralph Nickerson signed the letter as Power of Attorney for Myrtle Nickerson.

39. Hartfield was surprised to learn that Ralph Nickerson was Mrs. Nickersons power of 

attorney because over the years that Hartfield had known her, Mrs. Nickerson had previously 

only allowed her daughter to attend meetings with Hartfield and to otherwise obtain any 

information regarding the Nickersonslegal, financial, and/or personal matters.

40. Having filed the objection on his mothers behalf, and despite the fact that he was not a 

licensed attorney, Ralph Nickerson was then allowed to appear at the hearing and cross-examine 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 10 of 16
Page 11 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

witnesses. At the onset of the hearing, Judge Tennyson stated that today at issue I think is the 

objection filed by Mr. [Ralph] Nickerson sort of on behalf of Mrs. Nickerson related to the final 

account really having to do with the fees and costs[.]In the course of the hearing, Judge 

Tennyson stated to Ralph Nickerson 

Frankly, I will tell you the courts perspective is that Mr. Bailey did your family 

and the court a favor by stepping in when Mr. Hartfield didnt do his job. And 

your family may have a claim against Mr. Hartfield, or through the professional 

liability fund, for his failing to follow through on a case. Whether youre doing it 

for no fee or whether youre doing it for a fee, you owe your client exactly the 

same duty of representation and Mr. Hartfield failed the court, quite clearly, 

because I removed him and your mother, from this case. But, he also failed your 

family. So there may be a claim there. But this is not something I can resolve 

today and I certainly cant give yall any legal advice about how to handle that. 

But in terms of Mr. Bailey attempting to come in and sort of recreate what had 

done on, his duty to the court is to do the best accounting that he can, based on the 

information thats available to him and then file what he can file in order to try to 

get the case resolved and to get this case dismissed because it doesnt need to be 

open anymore. Thats really the bottom line here.

41. Further, after informing Ralph Nickerson that all the notices that we sent out, except for 

the final one where we cited Mr. Hartfield in court for contempt, your mom got a notice that said 

[Mrs. Nickerson must also] appear,Judge Tennyson added: Ive said it to you once already 

this morning and Ill say it to you again: I think the Professional Liability Fund is your next stop 

in terms of getting some recompense for the fees that are going to be paid, because the court 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 11 of 16
Page 12 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

needs to wrap this up.Judge Tennyson then stated that whats going to happen is that I would 

order the fees to be paid and then you would take your claim to the Professional Liability Fund 

and it would be refunded to you at that point.

42. Ralph Nickerson, apparently under the belief that Mrs. Nickerson had a right to a free 

attorney regardless of her own actions as conservator, subsequently filed a claim against 

Hartfields professional liability fund. The insurance claim was denied.

43. At the close of Ralph Nickersons representation of his mother at the hearing, Judge 

Tennyson ordered that some clerical errors be corrected in the final accounting and granted the 

original $2,530.00 in fees and costs as originally requested by Mr. Bailey. Further, because Mr. 

Bailey would also be awarded additional fees and costs related to responding to the objection

filed by Ralph Nickerson, the total fees and costs ultimately awarded to the Mr. Bailey was 

$4,917.50.

44. Based in part on Hartfields race, the bar arbitrarily and irrationally failed and refused to 

offer diversion to Hartfield despite Hartfields eligibility for the program pursuant to Rule 2.10 

of the bars Rules of Procedure (Revised 3/20/2008). Instead, on or about April 23, 2008, the bar 

filed a formal complaint against Hartfield in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon alleging 

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct including neglect of a legal matter, failure to 

withdraw from representation when required to do so, and conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice.

45. Mrs. Myrtle Nickerson died on September 25, 2008.

46. In Hartfields deposition on February 19, 2009, and at Hartfields subsequent trial

resulting from the bars complaint to the Oregon Supreme Court, Hartfield acknowledged 

knowing that an inventory and final accounting needed to be filed in the matter. However, 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 12 of 16
Page 13 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

Hartfield stated his belief at the time was that the better course to take under the totality of the 

circumstances was 1) to avoid making any explanatory statements to the court because such 

statements were potentially harmful to his client Mrs. Myrtle Nickerson; and 2) to avoid 

knowingly filing an incomplete and/or fraudulent inventory and final accounting.

47. The Nickersonsson, Ralph Nickerson, appeared at Hartfields trial and confirmed that 

there were additional, undisclosed joint funds in amounts even greater than Hartfield believed 

existed.

48. Over the five-year period that Hartfield represented Mrs. Nickerson in various matters, 

Mrs. Nickerson never complained to any court or to the bar regarding Hartfields conduct or 

services provided.

49. In part based on Hartfields race, the bar assumed and argued that Hartfield must have 

had ulterior motives for refusing to file the inventory and final accounting, and requested that 

Hartfield be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days. The bars request for a 90 

suspension was illegal, arbitrary and irrational as compared to discipline applied to its other 

members. 

50. The trial panel concluded that Hartfield was not justified in failing to comply with the 

courts orders and to simply allow the conservatorship to languish pending his and his clients 

dismissal [and that by doing so] Hartfield did prejudice the administration of justice by delaying 

the court for many months in processing the conservatorship.The trial panel dismissed all other 

charges and gave Hartfield a public reprimand for violation of § 8.4(a)(4) of the Oregon Rules of 

Professional Conduct which prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 

justice.

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 13 of 16
Page 14 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

51. Hartfield appealed the trial courts decision to the Oregon Supreme Court which upheld 

the trial panels decision.

52. As a result of the bars illegal, arbitrary and irrational application of its regulatory 

authority toward Hartfield, the bar obtained a $4,200.20 judgment for costs against Hartfield and 

placed a lien on Hartfields home. Interest on the judgment accrued at 9% per annum from 

January 3, 2011 until Hartfield was able to pay it off in December 2015. Hartfield never 

recovered the $504.00 that was advanced to Mrs. Nickerson for court fees.

53. As a further result of the bars illegal, arbitrary and irrational application of its regulatory 

authority toward Hartfield, Hartfield suffered damage to his reputation, goodwill and respect in 

the community, damage to the legal communitys respect and confidence in Hartfield, emotional 

distress, angst, and humiliation. For the purpose of exacerbating the humiliation and 

embarrassment Hartfield experienced, the bar published a public reprimand in the December 

2010 issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin. The published statement is incorporated herein by 

reference as Exhibit 1.

54. In part based on Hartfields race, and as recently as 2014, the bar has continued to subject 

Hartfield to an illegal, arbitrary and irrational application of its regulatory authority, treating 

Hartfield less favorably than the bars other members.

55. Defendants J. Doe No. 1 through J. Doe No. 10, through their individual actions, 

collectively and with deliberate indifference, while acting with authority granted to them by the 

bar, allowed and/or caused the bars violation of Hartfields rights as alleged herein.

V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

56. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 55 above.

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 14 of 16
Page 15 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

57. Defendantsprosecution of Hartfield was not the result of any legitimate regulatory 

action, but rather was the result of racial animus and spite.

58. As a result of defendantsviolations of Hartfields rights as alleged herein, Hartfield 

suffered economic and non-economic damages in amounts to be determined at trial.

59. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, plaintiff should be awarded his attorney fees, 

costs and expenses.

VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Oregon Law: Fraud

60. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 55 above.

61. The bars material assertions and representations that it functions to provide protection 

to the public,that it works to eliminate bias in the justice system and to ensure access to justice 

for all,and that it is committed to serving and valuing its diverse community, to advancing 

equality in the justice system, and to removing barriers to that systemwere knowingly false, 

and defendants knew the bars assertions were false at all material time.

62. The bar made the material and false assertions and representations as alleged herein with 

intent that they be acted on by Hartfield and others, and to encourage continued membership in 

the bar and the payment of dues and fees to the bar.

63. At all material time, Hartfield was ignorant of the falsity of the bars material and false 

assertions and representations as alleged herein.

64. Hartfield had a right to and did rely on the bars material and false assertions and 

representations throughout the course of his law practice, continued his membership in the bar, 

and paid dues and fees to the bar, all while believing the bar primary goals included providing 

protection to the public, eliminating bias and ensuring access to justice for all, serving and 

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 15 of 16
Page 16 Complaint: Sean L. Hartfield vs. Oregon State Bar

valuing our diverse community, advancing equality in the justice system, and removing barriers 

to that system. Further, Hartfield made personal sacrifices to aid the bar and the public in 

reaching those primary goals, only to learn that his sacrifices were wasted because some of 

Hartfields clients, particularly African Americans, were ultimately disserved by Oregons legal 

system as a result of the bars actual goals, policies and practices.

65. Hartfields damages and injuries as alleged herein were caused by the bars material and 

false assertions and representations as alleged herein, and defendantsconduct as alleged herein.

66. As a result of defendantsfraud as alleged herein, Hartfield suffered economic and noneconomic damages in amounts to be determined at trial.

VII. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

67. Hartfield hereby requests a jury trial.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays for relief from the Court as follows:

1. Accept jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal and state claims;

2. Award non-economic and economic damages against defendants in amounts to be 

determined at trial;

3. Award litigation costs/expenses pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988 where applicable;

and

4. Grant Hartfield such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this January 14, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sean L. Hartfield

Sean Hartfield

Attorney for Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Case 3:16-cv-00068-ST Document 1 Filed 01/14/16 Page 16 of 16