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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 16 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP2303-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Scott E. Selmer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Scott E. Selmer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY SELMER REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 371 Wis. 2d 377,882 N.W.2d 815 
PDC No:2016 WI 71 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 3, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 16
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2015AP2303-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott E. Selmer, Attorney at Law:   
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Scott E. Selmer,   
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
MAR 3, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
with conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee L. 
Michael Tobin recommending that the court reinstate the license 
of Scott E. Selmer to practice law in Wisconsin with conditions.  
No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation, so our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).  Upon careful review of the matter, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
agree that Attorney Selmer's petition for reinstatement should 
be granted, upon two conditions, as set forth herein.  We 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
2 
 
reserve the question whether the costs of this reinstatement 
proceeding, should be paid by Attorney Selmer, pending receipt 
of additional information.1  
¶2 
Attorney Selmer was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1978, and admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 
1984.  Attorney Selmer has received professional discipline in 
both jurisdictions; his Minnesota law license remains suspended.  
¶3 
Attorney 
Selmer's 
Wisconsin 
disciplinary 
history 
consists of the following: 
 A 1990 private reprimand for filing documents with the 
Pierce County Circuit Court and Wisconsin Court of 
Appeals during a time when his license was suspended for 
failure to meet continuing legal education requirements.  
Private Reprimand No. 1990-23 (electronic copy available 
at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/000021.html). 
 A 1995 public reprimand for failure 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, and failing to maintain 
proper 
trust 
account 
books 
and 
records, 
falsely 
certifying that he had done so, and commingling personal 
and 
client 
funds 
in 
his 
trust 
account. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Selmer, 195 Wis. 2d 687, 
538 N.W.2d 252 (1995). 
 A 
1999 
one-year 
suspension 
imposed 
as 
discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for engaging in a 
pattern of frivolous and harassing conduct by filing 
counterclaims alleging racial discrimination in actions 
brought against him by his creditors and by filing claims 
in 
state 
and 
federal 
courts 
alleging 
racial 
discrimination, knowingly offering false and misleading 
                                                 
1 On February 8, 2021, Referee Tobin filed a supplemental 
report 
recommending 
the 
court 
exercise 
discretion 
under 
SCR 22.24(1m)(f) and 22.29(5), and impose no costs in this 
proceeding.  This matter remains pending. 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
3 
 
evidence in response to discovery requests, failing to 
supplement 
incomplete 
and 
misleading 
responses 
to 
discovery requests, failing to comply or make reasonably 
diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery 
requests, making false statements of fact in attempts to 
advance his own interests, and engaging in dishonest 
conduct in those actions.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Selmer, 227 Wis. 2d 85, 595 N.W.2d 73 (1999). 
 A 2009 public reprimand imposed as discipline reciprocal 
to discipline imposed in Minnesota for failing to comply 
with 
terms 
of 
probation, 
failing 
to 
file 
timely 
individual income tax returns, and a fifth-degree assault 
conviction.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Selmer, 2009 WI 15, 315 Wis. 2d 650, 761 N.W.2d 6.   
 A 
2016 
one-year 
suspension 
imposed 
as 
discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for engaging in a 
pattern of frivolous and harassing litigation, failure to 
obey court orders and a failure to comply with legally 
proper 
discovery 
requests. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Selmer, 2016 WI 71, 371 Wis. 2d 377, 
882 N.W.2d 815. 
¶4 
On April 8, 2020, Attorney Selmer filed a petition 
seeking reinstatement from the one-year license suspension, 
which expired in July 2017.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a response on October 22, 2020, stating that based 
upon its investigation it would not oppose Attorney Selmer's 
reinstatement, but would recommend his reinstatement be subject 
to certain conditions, namely entering into a payment plan for 
outstanding unpaid costs, and mentoring by another attorney.  
¶5 
Referee Tobin conducted an evidentiary hearing on 
November 19, 2020.  The only witness at the hearing was Attorney 
Selmer.  
¶6 
On December 30, 2020, Referee Tobin issued a report 
making detailed findings.  Referee Tobin concluded that Attorney 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
4 
 
Selmer had satisfied his burden of proof and had met all the 
requirements for reinstatement set forth in SCR 22.31 and 
22.29(4).2  The referee thereby recommended Attorney Selmer's 
reinstatement to the practice of law on the two conditions 
recommended by the OLR. 
¶7 
The referee found that Attorney Selmer has fully 
complied with the terms of the order of suspension.  Although he 
has not fully paid the costs of prior disciplinary proceedings 
for demonstrated financial reasons, he has stated his intent to 
establish payment arrangements for any costs he may owe.3  The 
referee notes that during his suspension, Attorney Selmer 
resided primarily in Minnesota, working at various part-time 
non-legal jobs, and attending school.  Attorney Selmer testified 
to difficulty finding and maintaining employment when employers 
learned of his disciplinary history through internet searches.  
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2021, substantial changes were made 
to the rules pertaining to lawyer disciplinary procedures, 
including the reinstatement rules, SCR 22.29 through 22.33.  
See S. Ct. Order 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 
19-12, 2020 WI 62  (issued June 30, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021).  
Because this reinstatement proceeding commenced prior to January 
1, 2021, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to January 
1, 2021. 
3 According to the OLR, Attorney Selmer has not paid the 
$842.52 in costs from the 2016 disciplinary matter and owes 
$15,830.35 
in 
costs 
imposed 
for 
previous 
disciplinary 
proceedings, 
exclusive 
of 
post-judgment 
interest. 
 
No 
restitution was ordered in the underlying reciprocal suspension 
order. 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
At the hearing, Attorney Selmer testified that some of 
his prior misconduct occurred when he was representing himself 
and that he has learned that he should advocate to the best of 
his ability, but should pull back from future situations that 
could arguably run afoul of ethical rules.  Attorney Selmer also 
indicated that he would seek advice from other attorneys, such 
as through the State Bar's Ethics Hotline.  If reinstated, 
Attorney Selmer intends to engage in service work such as public 
defender representation, mediation, arbitration, and document 
review.  
¶9 
The referee noted that Attorney Selmer provided 
positive written recommendations from five individuals who 
recommended his reinstatement and who attest to Attorney 
Selmer's "honesty and candor," "impeccable honesty," and "fair 
and honest" character.  In addition, Attorney Selmer provided 
the testimony of ethics expert Professor Richard Painter, who 
testified on Attorney Selmer's behalf in a 2019 Minnesota 
reinstatement proceeding, describing Attorney Selmer as "very 
honest" and "very earnest." 
¶10 In deciding whether to recommend reinstatement, the 
referee 
acknowledged 
that 
Attorney 
Selmer's 
extensive 
disciplinary history is a concern, but concluded that "the 
entire record, including the age of some of this disciplinary 
history, the expiration of the current suspension period in July 
2017, and the strength of the current references, outweighs this 
concern."  
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 The referee then addressed whether conditions should 
be imposed upon Attorney Selmer's reinstatement.  The OLR 
supported Attorney Selmer's reinstatement provided that Attorney 
Selmer's return to practice be under the supervision of a 
mentor, and that Attorney Selmer enter into a payment plan to 
repay costs owed from this proceeding and prior Wisconsin 
disciplinary proceedings.  Attorney Selmer did not oppose the 
payment plan condition, but he expressed strong reservations 
about supervision by a mentor, and queried whether this 
condition 
was 
influenced 
by 
racial 
bias. 
 
The 
referee 
acknowledged Attorney Selmer's "strong opinions regarding not 
only his personal history, but also the disparate treatment that 
minorities encounter in the justice system" citing Ashley 
Nellis, The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in 
State 
Prisons 
(2016), 
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-
racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons. 
¶12 Ultimately, the referee found that nothing in this 
proceeding suggests that the OLR's recommendation is racially 
motivated and that the extent and nature of Attorney Selmer's 
disciplinary record - five separate disciplinary proceedings 
involving abuse of legal process, frivolous filings, and failure 
to file required reports and documents – support requiring 
supervision by a mentor as a condition of his reinstatement.  
The referee added that the appropriateness of a mentoring 
condition is bolstered by the fact that it has been several 
years since Attorney Selmer has practiced law.  Moreover, he is 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
7 
 
likely to be a solo practitioner, at least initially, and 
thereby not subject to a direct supervisor, as many attorneys 
have as part of employment in a private firm or a government 
agency.4  Attorney Selmer has indicated that although he 
disagrees with a mentoring condition he will abide by it if 
imposed.  Having concluded that Attorney Selmer had met his 
burden 
with 
respect 
to 
each 
of 
the 
requirements 
of 
reinstatement, the referee recommended reinstatement, upon the 
two conditions requested by the OLR.   
¶13 No appeal was filed so our review proceeds under 
SCR 22.33(3). 
 
When 
we 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation, we will adopt the referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  
¶14 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement must show all the following:  
(a) The petitioner desires to have the petitioner's license 
reinstated.  
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during the period 
of suspension or revocation.  
                                                 
4 Supervising 
attorneys 
have 
responsibility 
to 
make 
"reasonable efforts" to ensure ethical conduct by all attorneys 
under their supervision.  See SCR 20:5.1(b) (Responsibilities of 
partners, managers, and supervisory lawyers). 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
8 
 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms of the 
order of suspension or revocation and will continue to comply 
with them until the petitioner's license is reinstated.  
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and learning 
in the law by attendance at identified educational activities.  
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts.  
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the requirements 
set forth in SCR 22.26.  
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if 
reinstated.  
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's business 
activities during the period of suspension or revocation.  
¶15 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)(c) provides that an 
attorney seeking reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating 
all of the above requirements by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence.  Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) also provides 
that an attorney seeking reinstatement must show by clear, 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
9 
 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 
moral character to practice law; that his or her resumption of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest; 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the underlying disciplinary order.  See SCR 22.31(1)(a), (b), 
and (d).  
¶16 Upon review of the record and the excellent report 
detailing Attorney Selmer's satisfaction of each of these 
criteria, 
we 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and we agree that Attorney Selmer has 
established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he has satisfied all the criteria necessary for reinstatement 
and may be reinstated, upon conditions.  We agree that Attorney 
Selmer's disciplinary record supports the OLR's request and the 
referee's recommendation that a payment plan should be required 
and that an attorney should be appointed to mentor Attorney 
Selmer during his transition back to the practice of law, to 
ensure protection of the public and to aid the administration of 
justice.  
¶17 Accordingly, we accept the referee's recommendation to 
reinstate 
Attorney 
Selmer's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin, subject to the conditions as set forth herein.  We 
reserve the question whether Attorney Selmer shall be required 
to pay the full costs of this proceeding, pending receipt of 
further information; the costs issue will be resolved by 
separate order. 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
10 
 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Scott E. Selmer to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 
this order, upon the following conditions: 
(1) 
Scott E. Selmer shall, promptly upon reinstatement and 
prior to his resumption of the practice of law, 
identify an attorney approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation who shall be appointed to serve as a mentor 
to Attorney Selmer and to oversee his practice of law 
for a period of 18 months, and who shall provide 
written quarterly reports to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation commencing three months after Attorney 
Selmer's reinstatement, and continuing for a period of 
18 months thereafter;5 and 
(2) 
Scott E. Selmer shall, promptly upon reinstatement, 
enter into a written agreement with the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation to repay costs related to his prior 
Wisconsin disciplinary proceedings together with any 
costs imposed related to this proceeding, commensurate 
with his ability to pay.  This agreement shall require 
that Attorney Selmer provide the OLR with financial 
information upon request to facilitate review of his 
ability to repay these costs. 
                                                 
5 The 
OLR's 
pre-hearing 
written 
response 
to 
Attorney 
Selmer's petition recommended a two-year duration for this 
condition.  The referee deemed 18 months sufficient and the OLR 
has not appealed this recommendation. 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
11 
 
¶19 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Scott E. Selmer's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, for 
failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 
certification, and for noncompliance with continuing legal 
education requirements, will remain in effect until each reason 
for the administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to 
SCR 22.28(1).  
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court reserves the 
question of the payment of costs for this proceeding, pending 
receipt of additional information; the costs issue will be 
resolved by separate order. 
 
 
No. 
2015AP2303-D   
 
 
 
1