Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Scott E. Selmer

Citation: 2005 WI 91

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 91 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1998AP886-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott E. Selmer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Scott E. Selmer, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SELMER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 24, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 91
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  1998AP886-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott E. Selmer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Scott E. Selmer, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Russell Hanson, that Scott E. Selmer's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated.  The Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) have 
joined in that recommendation. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that Scott E. Selmer's license to 
practice law should be reinstated, subject to his compliance 
with current continuing legal education (CLE) requirements.  
No. 
1998AP886-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Selmer shall also be required to pay the costs of the 
reinstatement proceeding.   
¶3 
Selmer, a Minnesota attorney, was admitted to practice 
law in Wisconsin in 1978.  In 1990, the OLR's predecessor, the 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board), 
privately reprimanded Selmer for failing to provide competent 
representation by filing papers that reflected a lack of 
knowledge of Wisconsin appellate procedure and tribunals, and 
for filing documents while 
administratively 
suspended for 
failure to comply with CLE requirements.  
¶4 
In 1995, Attorney Selmer received a public reprimand 
as reciprocal discipline for a reprimand imposed upon him by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court.  In re Disciplinary Action Against 
Selmer, 529 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. 1995).  Misconduct consisted of 
failing to promptly provide his client in a personal injury 
matter a full accounting of funds he received on her behalf, 
charging and suing that client to collect an unreasonable fee, 
abusing the discovery process in that action, failing to 
maintain proper trust account books and records and falsely 
certifying that he had done so, and commingling personal and 
client funds in his trust account.  This court conditioned 
Attorney Selmer's continued practice of law on his furnishing 
the Board copies of his trust account records for a period of 
two years. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Selmer, 
195 Wis. 2d 687, 538 N.W.2d 252 (1995). 
¶5 
Attorney Selmer's current license suspension was also 
imposed as reciprocal discipline for misconduct that occurred in 
No. 
1998AP886-D   
 
3 
 
Minnesota.  In re Disciplinary Action Against Selmer, 568 N.W.2d 
702 (Minn. 1997).  The Minnesota court concluded that Selmer had 
engaged in a pattern of frivolous and harassing conduct by 
filing counterclaims alleging racial discrimination in actions 
brought against him by personal creditors and by filing claims 
in state and federal courts alleging racial discrimination.  See 
id.  The Minnesota courts concluded that Selmer's claims of 
racial discrimination lacked merit, and concluded further that 
Selmer knowingly offered false and misleading evidence in 
response to discovery requests, failed to supplement incomplete 
and misleading responses to discovery requests, failed to comply 
or make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally 
proper discovery requests, made false statements of fact in 
attempts to advance his own interests, and engaged in dishonest 
conduct in those actions. Id.  He was suspended for a period of 
twelve months for this misconduct.  Id.   By order dated 
November 30, 2001, the Minnesota court conditionally reinstated 
Selmer's 
license to practice law 
in 
Minnesota.  
In re 
Disciplinary Action Against Selmer, 636 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 2001). 
¶6 
On May 13, 2003, Selmer filed this petition pursuant 
to SCR 22.29, seeking reinstatement of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  Various procedural delays ensued.  On April 
14, 
2004, 
the 
OLR 
formally 
opposed 
the 
petition 
for 
reinstatement primarily on the basis of these delays, which 
included the provision of necessary documentation to the OLR.   
¶7 
On May 4, 2004, Referee Hanson conducted a hearing, 
which was continued and concluded on October 25, 2004.  See SCR 
No. 
1998AP886-D   
 
4 
 
22.30. Referee Hanson filed his report and recommendation on 
November 26, 2004.  Neither party appealed.  The matter was 
again delayed to permit Selmer to complete all necessary 
continuing educational requirements. 
¶8 
The referee concluded that since his reinstatement in 
Minnesota, Attorney Selmer's conduct has been "exemplary."  The 
attorney who supervised him during the reinstatement process in 
Minnesota testified on his behalf at the reinstatement hearing, 
opining that he "will act in conformity [with the Rules of 
Professional Conduct]" and stating:  "I think . . . he will be 
extremely careful about all of his dealings and that he will 
comport himself in an ethical way." 
¶9 
The 
referee 
found 
credible 
and 
persuasive 
the 
testimony from various character witnesses Selmer produced.  The 
referee noted that Selmer had accounted for his time in 
Minnesota and that there was no evidence he has practiced law in 
Wisconsin since his suspension.  He is in full compliance with 
the Minnesota CLE requirements and is now in compliance with the 
requirements imposed in Wisconsin. 
¶10 Ultimately, the referee concluded: 
The recommendations of others who entered their 
support 
for 
the 
respondent 
were 
impressive 
and 
persuasive and the respondent himself clearly highly 
desires the return of his Wisconsin license.  I can 
find no failure on his part significant enough to 
recommend against his reinstatement and I, therefore, 
recommend it. 
¶11 As noted, the OLR did not appeal the report and 
recommendation.  It has filed a statement of costs incurred in 
No. 
1998AP886-D   
 
5 
 
connection with the reinstatement proceeding, in the amount of 
$9,053.34.  
¶12 Following submission of this matter to the court 
further delay ensued as Selmer sought to provide the BBE with 
necessary 
documentation 
regarding 
compliance 
with 
CLE 
requirements.  We have now been advised that this documentation 
has been provided and that the BBE recommends his reinstatement.   
¶13 After review of the record we conclude that Selmer has 
established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he 
has 
satisfied 
all 
the 
criteria 
for 
reinstatement.  
Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
we 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
recommendation that Mr. Selmer's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated.  We conclude further that he should be 
required to pay the costs of this reinstatement proceeding. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Scott E. Selmer to practice law in Wisconsin is 
granted, effective the date of this order, subject to compliance 
with current continuing legal education requirements. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the 
date of this order Scott E. Selmer pay to the OLR the costs of 
this proceeding.  If the costs are not paid within the time 
specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability 
to pay the costs within that time, the license of Scott E. 
Selmer to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until 
further order of the court. 
No. 
1998AP886-D   
 
 
 
1