Deschutes County’s top civil attorney, Mark Pilliod, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against District Attorney Patrick Flaherty, alleging Flaherty made false accusations that damaged Pilliod’s reputation and violated his right to due process.

The lawsuit filed in Deschutes County Circuit Court on Wednesday seeks economic damages to be determined at trial and up to $450,000 in noneconomic damages. The lawsuit centers on a letter Flaherty sent to Deschutes County Commissioners a year ago, and on the grand jury Flaherty later convened to investigate Pilliod’s release of records in response to a public records request from The Bulletin. Pilliod released copies of job applications from newly hired deputy district attorneys without redacting driver’s license numbers that were on some applications.

Pilliod said his failure to redact the license numbers was inadvertent, but Flaherty pursued an investigation into whether Pilliod committed the crime of official misconduct under state law. Flaherty ended the investigation after Pilliod issued a mea culpa and paid the county $100 to cover some of the grand jury costs.

Flaherty also faces an ongoing lawsuit filed last year by prosecutors whom he fired upon taking office. The Oregon State Bar and the Oregon State Police are both investigating Flaherty’s actions with the grand jury.

Pilliod filed the lawsuit against Flaherty as an individual, but the state could end up paying for Flaherty’s defense because he is a state official.

Oregon Department of Justice spokesman Tony Green declined to comment Thursday because the department had not seen the lawsuit.

The state is paying an attorney to defend Flaherty against the lawsuit filed by former prosecutors, which so far has cost $38,800, state Department of Administrative Services spokeswoman Amy Velez wrote in an email Thursday.

Pilliod has not asked Deschutes County to foot the bill for the lawsuit, said Interim County Administrator Erik Kropp. The county spent approximately $16,000 last year on a lawyer to defend Pilliod during the grand jury investigation.

Pilliod’s lawsuit cited two specific instances in which Flaherty allegedly impugned Pilliod’s character.

A year ago, Flaherty wrote a letter to county commissioners in which he accused Pilliod of negotiating a contract with the deputy district attorneys’ union, despite Pilliod having a conflict of interest. As a result of this and other reasons, Flaherty wrote that the union contract was void and unenforceable.

Flaherty alleged that the conflict of interest arose because Pilliod was negotiating the labor contract on behalf of both Deschutes County and the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office. As the county’s top lawyer, Pilliod typically participates on county management bargaining teams that negotiate contracts with several county employee unions.

“The District Attorney’s Office is a State office while Deschutes County is a county governing body,” Flaherty wrote. “As you have seen from the dialogue over the past several months, the interests of the District Attorney’s Office are in many regards in conflict with the interest of Deschutes County. No attorney honoring the (state bar’s) Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct can represent two conflicting parties in such contract negotiations without obtaining an express written waiver of that conflict of interest prior to entering into those negotiations.”

Flaherty emailed the letter, which he had sent to commissioners prior to their vote on the union contract, to The Bulletin in January.

While Flaherty is an elected state official, the county general fund pays the salaries of all deputy district attorneys and office staff, as well as a $26,258 supplement to the district attorney’s $104,832 state salary.

Pilliod’s attorney, Roger Hennagin, wrote in the complaint filed Wednesday that if Flaherty’s allegations were true, Pilliod’s conduct would have violated Oregon State Bar professional conduct rules and Pilliod could face discipline and disbarment.

“Flaherty’s accusations against Pilliod were false in fact and innuendo, and imposed a stigma of personal and professional misconduct against Pilliod,” Hennagin wrote. “Flaherty acted with reckless disregard as to whether his accusations … were truthful or not.”

Flaherty then convened a grand jury in February 2011 to investigate Pilliod, which Hennagin alleged in the lawsuit was an act of retaliation against Pilliod for negotiating a labor contract with prosecutors. The grand jury investigation violated Pilliod’s right to due process, according to the lawsuit.

“Upon being publicly accused of misconduct and other unspecified unlawful conduct, Pilliod was constitutionally guaranteed the right to a public name clearing hearing,” Hennagin wrote.

Pilliod declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit.

“I think that everything that I want to say is really said in the lawsuit,” Pilliod said.

Flaherty declined to comment because he had not yet received a copy of the complaint.

County Commissioner Tammy Baney said she does not anticipate the lawsuit will impact Pilliod’s work for the county.

“I think we have all of the processes in place to make sure what is of a personal matter remains a personal matter, and I don’t foresee it causing any conflict or issues with his ability to handle his job duties,” Baney said.