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

Citation: 2009 WI 15

Docket Number: 2008AP002868-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2009 WI 15 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2868-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. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SELMER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 17, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 15
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP2868-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 
 
FEB 17, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
has filed a complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22 
requesting that this court impose reciprocal discipline against 
Attorney Scott E. Selmer identical to the public reprimand 
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The OLR's complaint 
further alleges that Attorney Selmer failed to notify the OLR of 
No. 
2008AP2868-D   
 
2 
 
the public reprimand in Minnesota within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order, contrary to SCR 22.22(1).1   
¶2 
On November 20, 2008, in response to the OLR's motion, 
this court issued an order directing Attorney Selmer to show 
cause in writing by December 10, 2008, why the imposition of the 
identical discipline imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court 
would be unwarranted.  Attorney Selmer failed to respond to 
either the OLR's complaint or the order to show cause. 
¶3 
Attorney Selmer was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1978 and was admitted to practice law in Minnesota 
in 1991.  His most recent address is Golden Valley, Minnesota.  
In 1990 he received a consensual private reprimand for filing 
documents with the Pierce County circuit court and the court of 
appeals 
while 
under 
a 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
suspension.  In 1995 he was publicly reprimanded for failing to 
promptly provide a client in a personal injury matter with a 
full accounting of funds.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Selmer, 195 Wis. 2d 687, 538 N.W.2d 252 (1995).  In 1999 
Attorney Selmer's law license was reciprocally suspended for a 
period of one year for professional misconduct in Minnesota 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(1) provides:  Reciprocal discipline. 
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
No. 
2008AP2868-D   
 
3 
 
consisting of engaging in a pattern of frivolous and harassing 
conduct by filing counterclaims alleging racial discrimination 
in actions brought against him by his creditors.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Selmer, 227 Wis. 2d 85, 595 
N.W.2d 373 (1999).  Attorney Selmer's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is currently suspended for failure to comply with CLE 
requirements and for failure to pay his state bar dues. 
¶4 
On May 22, 2008, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered 
Attorney Selmer to be publicly reprimanded and also ordered one 
year of unsupervised probation.  The misconduct upon which 
Attorney Selmer's Minnesota discipline was imposed consisted of 
failure to comply with the terms of probation; failure to file 
timely individual income tax returns; and a fifth-degree assault 
conviction. 
¶5 
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court "shall impose 
the 
identical 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
unless . . . [t]he procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a 
deprivation of due process" violation; "there was such an 
infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct . . . that [this 
court] could not accept as final" the other jurisdiction's 
misconduct finding; or "the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline" here.  Attorney Selmer has not alleged 
that any of these three exceptions exist.  Accordingly, the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline against Attorney Selmer is 
warranted. 
No. 
2008AP2868-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that Scott E. Selmer is publicly 
reprimanded as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court.  
 
No. 
2008AP2868-D   
 
 
 
1