Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Scott E. Selmer

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  94-1319-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against SCOTT E. SELMER, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
OCT 10, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded and condition imposed.   
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the referee 
that Attorney Scott E. Selmer be publicly reprimanded and placed 
on two years' probation as discipline for professional misconduct. 
 That misconduct consisted of his 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.   
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
2 
 
We determine that the recommended public reprimand is 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Attorney 
Selmer's 
professional misconduct but do not accept the recommendation that 
he be placed on probation.  The discipline recommended by the 
referee is identical to that imposed on Attorney Selmer by the 
Minnesota 
Supreme 
Court 
for 
Attorney 
Selmer's 
professional 
misconduct in these matters.  However, the terms of probation 
imposed in Minnesota are merely requirements that he conform to 
specified rules of attorney professional conduct.  Furthermore, we 
do not consider probation an appropriate form of discipline in 
misconduct cases.  However, because of Attorney Selmer's trust 
account violations, we impose as a condition on his continued 
practice of law for a period of two years the requirement that he 
furnish the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) 
a copy of his trust account records quarterly or as the Board may 
otherwise direct.   
 
Attorney Selmer was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1978 and practices in Minneapolis.  He has not previously been the 
subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding in Wisconsin.  Based on 
a stipulation of the parties, the referee, Attorney Janet A. 
Jenkins, made a finding of those facts found by the Minnesota 
Supreme Court in the disciplinary proceeding there.   
 
Attorney Selmer was retained to represent a client in a 
personal injury matter in Wisconsin, for which it was agreed that 
he would be paid a contingent fee of one-third of all amounts 
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
3 
recovered at or prior to trial or 45 percent of all amounts 
recovered in the event an appeal was necessary.  Attorney Selmer 
commenced an action in July, 1986 and the defendant insurer 
notified him it would seek a declaratory judgment of no coverage. 
 The summons and complaint in the declaratory judgment action were 
served on the client but she was unsuccessful in reaching Attorney 
Selmer because he had resigned from his law firm and had not 
notified her.  Consequently, no answer to the complaint was filed. 
 When he learned that a motion for default judgment was set for 
hearing, Attorney Selmer requested a postponement but it was 
denied.  Because he was delayed on his way to the court for the 
hearing, the insurer was granted default judgment.   
 
Attorney Selmer appealed the default judgment to the 
Wisconsin Court of Appeals in June, 1989 but dismissed the appeal 
after filing a motion to vacate the judgment in the circuit court. 
 Attorney Selmer consented to a private reprimand from the Board 
for having incompetently filed that appeal:  his notice of appeal 
was captioned in federal district court and stated that the appeal 
was being made to the United States Court of Appeals.  Moreover, 
at the time he filed that notice of appeal, Attorney Selmer was 
suspended from practice in Wisconsin for failure to comply with 
continuing legal education requirements.   
 
The client's claim ultimately went to arbitration and the 
client was awarded $10,000.  When he informed her of his receipt 
of that amount, the client asked Attorney Selmer to send her the 
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
4 
check but he did not do so.  He and the client corresponded 
thereafter on the question of how the proceeds of the settlement 
should be distributed and on November 5, 1990, the client wrote to 
him requesting an accounting.   
 
On November 15, 1990, Attorney Selmer filed the first of 
three actions against his client for fees and costs asserted to be 
owing to him.  The court dismissed the complaint on the ground 
that Attorney Selmer had not made a demand upon his client prior 
to initiating the action.  Attorney Selmer then commenced a small 
claims action to recover the costs of collection and an action for 
attorney fees.  Those actions claimed fees and expenses in varying 
amounts:  the first action sought $4500, the amount to which he 
would have been entitled had the settlement been obtained after an 
appeal; in the second action, he sought $10,203.   
 
In one of those actions, Attorney Selmer did not respond to 
interrogatories and a request for document production, despite 
frequent requests of opposing counsel to do so.   He did respond, 
however, the day before the hearing on a motion to compel 
discovery.  Thereafter, the client's attorney moved for a 
protective order and sanctions and the motion was granted.  In 
November, 
1991 
the 
parties 
submitted 
the 
matter 
to 
fee 
arbitration, as the result of which the client was awarded $3338 
and Attorney Selmer $6662.   
 
The investigation of the client's complaint to the Minnesota 
disciplinary authorities disclosed that Attorney Selmer had not 
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
5 
maintained proper trust accounts, commingled personal and trust 
account funds, improperly retained in his trust account some $1200 
in fees due him and issued four trust account checks payable to 
his employes.  Further, one of his trust accounts was a non-
interest-bearing account, contrary to the Minnesota rules.  
 
Accepting the Minnesota Supreme Court's findings of fact, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Selmer's conduct in these matters 
violated the following rules:  his failure to promptly provide his 
client with an accounting of funds he received on her behalf, 
despite her requests that he do so, violated SCR 20:1.15(b);1 his 
charging and suing to collect an unreasonable fee and his abuse of 
the discovery process in litigation against his client violated 
SCR 20:1.5(a)2 and 3.1(a)(3);3 his failure to maintain proper trust 
                     
     1  SCR 20:1.15(b) provides, in pertinent part:  Safekeeping 
property.   
 
. . . 
 
(b)  Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client 
or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify 
the client or third person in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third 
person any funds or other property that the client or third person 
is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third 
person, shall render a full accounting regarding such property.   
     2  SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part:  Fees 
 
(a)  A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.   
 
[The 
factors 
to 
be 
considered 
in 
determining 
the 
reasonableness of a fee are set forth in subs. (1) through (8).]  
   
     3  SCR 20:3.1 provides, in pertinent part:  Meritorious 
claims and contentions 
 
(a)  In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:   
 
. . . 
 
(3)  file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay 
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
6 
account records, his false certification that he had done so and 
his commingling of personal and client funds in his trust accounts 
violated SCR 20:1.15(a), (d) and (g)4 and SCR 20:8.4(c).5   
 
On the basis of that misconduct, the Minnesota Supreme Court 
publicly reprimanded Attorney Selmer and placed him on two years' 
(..continued) 
a trial or take other action on behalf of the client when the 
lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an action would serve 
merely to harass or maliciously injure another.   
     4 SCR 20:1.15 provides, in part:  Safekeeping property.   
 
(a)  A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer's 
own property, property of clients or third persons that is in the 
lawyer's possession in connection with a representation.  All 
funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts ... and no funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay account service charges may be deposited in such 
an account. ... 
 
. . . 
 
(d)  When, in the representation, a lawyer is in possession 
of property in which both the lawyer and another person claim 
interests, the property shall be treated by the lawyer as trust 
property until there is an accounting and severance of their 
interests.  If a dispute arises concerning their respective 
interests, the portion in dispute shall continue to be treated as 
trust property until the dispute is resolved.   
 
. . . 
 
(g)  A member of the State Bar of Wisconsin shall file with 
the State Bar annually, with payment of the member's State Bar 
dues or upon such other date as approved by the Supreme Court, a 
certificate stating whether the member is engaged in the private 
practice of law in Wisconsin and, if so, the name of each bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association in 
which the member maintains a trust account, safe deposit box, or 
both, as required by this section.  Each member shall explicitly 
certify therein that he or she has complied with each of the 
record-keeping requirements set forth in paragraph (3) hereof. ... 
     5  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; 
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
7 
probation on terms which included that he maintain books and 
records concerning his law office income and expenses and funds 
held on behalf of clients and make those books and records 
available to the disciplinary authorities upon their request and 
provide copies of all required monthly reconciliation and trial 
balances.  The referee in this proceeding recommended that the 
same discipline be imposed.  The referee further recommended that 
Attorney Selmer be required to pay the costs of the proceeding, 
with an exception, to which the Board agreed, of the cost of the 
client's travel to Wisconsin in connection with this proceeding.   
 
We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of 
law concerning Attorney Selmer's professional misconduct in these 
matters.  A public reprimand, together with the condition of 
submitting trust account records to the Board, is appropriate 
discipline for that misconduct.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Scott E. Selmer is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years, 
commencing the date of this order, Scott E. Selmer shall furnish 
to the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility quarterly or 
as the Board may otherwise direct a copy of his trust account 
records as specified by the Board.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Scott E. Selmer pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility the costs of this disciplinary proceeding as 
 
No. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
8 
recommended by the referee, provided that 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. 94-1319-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
94-1319-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Scott E. Selmer, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SELMER 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
October 10, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: