Christopher Bayre Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC, et al.

In 2016, Christopher Chamberlin (“Petitioner”) of New Jersey contacted Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC (“HBH7“Defendants7“Respondents”) of California for legal representation in a Marin County probate case to remove the executor of his mother’s estate (Michael J. Levin, “Levin”) for fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bad faith. Petitioner conditioned the engagement upon no conflicts with Levin’s influential and politically powerful cousins. (Pet. App., 120a, n.4). HBH falsely told Petitioner there were no conflicts. Once hired, HBH deliberately mishandled the case causing dam­ age. (Pet. App., 86a). In 2018, Petitioner discovered HBH’s conflict. In 2019, Petitioner, pro se, filed a diver­ sity action1 against HBH. The district court found HBH committed malpractice, but was not conflicted; and caused no damage beyond $2,831.91. (Pet. App., 74a75a, 77a-81a, 126a-27a). The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a dismissive “Oral Screening Memorandum.” (Pet. App., 2a-3a). The questions presented are: 1. Whether HBH (concealing its family rela­ tionship with the adverse party in the underlying probate litigation) violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights to freely associate and make contracts with con­ flict-free counsel, depriving Petitioner of due process and access to the courts? 1 Petitioner’s Verified FAC (ECF-47) contains many of the undisputed facts repeated here, the rest were obtained in discovon/1 nlo/'nn in ncoAnJ ujl j uiiu ^iuvou xxx vxxv x^wxu.