2016 WI 71

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.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SELMER

OPINION FILED: July 15, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 71

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

JUL 15, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 

On November 13, 2015, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

filed a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 

(SCR) 22.22,1 requesting this court suspend Attorney Scott E. 

 

1 SCR 22.22 (Reciprocal discipline) provides: 

(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 

misconduct or a license suspension for medical 

(continued)
No. 2015AP2303-D 

2

 

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. 

(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 

judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 

discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 

medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 

practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 

this state, the director may file a complaint in the 

supreme court containing all of the following: 

(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 

from the other jurisdiction. 

(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 

attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 

20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 

grounds set forth in sub.(3) that the imposition of 

the identical discipline or license suspension by the 

supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 

basis for the claim. 

(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 

discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 

the following is present: 

(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 

so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 

constitute a deprivation of due process. 

(b) There was such an infirmity of proof 

establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 

the supreme court could not accept as final the 

conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 

incapacity, 

(c) The misconduct justifies substantially 

different discipline in this state. 

(4) Except as provided in sub.(3), a final 

adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 

has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 

(continued)
No. 2015AP2303-D 

3

Selmer’s license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 12 

months, as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by 

the Minnesota Supreme Court. Upon our review, we agree that it 

is appropriate to impose the same 12-month suspension imposed by 

the Minnesota Supreme Court, as well as the costs of this 

proceeding, and we reject Attorney Selmer’s arguments to the 

contrary.

¶2 Attorney Selmer was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1978. Attorney Selmer's Wisconsin law license is 

currently suspended for failure to comply with CLE reporting 

requirements, for failure to pay annual bar dues, and for 

failure to provide a required trust account certification. 

 

shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's 

misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 

proceeding under this rule. 

(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 

under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 

and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the 

hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 

imposition of discipline or license suspension 

different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 

to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 

discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 

is unwarranted. 

(6) If the discipline or license suspension 

imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 

reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 

the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 

stay expires.
No. 2015AP2303-D 

4

Attorney Selmer was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 

1984. He presently resides in New York.

¶3 The following facts are taken from the OLR's complaint 

relating to the Minnesota disciplinary proceedings and the 

documents attached to that complaint. Attorney Selmer's 

professional disciplinary history in Wisconsin consists of: 

• A 1990 private reprimand for practicing law when his 

license was suspended for failure to meet CLE 

requirements, by filing documents with the Pierce 

County Circuit Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals. 

Private Reprimand 1990-23. 

• 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. Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Selmer, 195 Wis. 2d 687, 538 N.W.2d 252 (1995). 

• A 1999 one-year suspension 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 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. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Selmer, 227 

Wis. 2d 85, 595 N.W.2d 373 (1999). 

• A 2009 public reprimand for failure to comply with 

the terms of probation, failure to file timely 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

5

individual income tax returns, and a fifth-degree 

assault conviction. Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Selmer, 2009 WI 15, 315 Wis. 2d 650, 761 N.W. 2d 6. 

¶4 In the Minnesota proceeding giving rise to this 

reciprocal discipline case, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted 

that Attorney Selmer had been disciplined in Minnesota on four 

prior occasions. In 1995 Attorney Selmer was publically 

reprimanded and placed on probation for several violations, 

including abusing the discovery process. In re Selmer, 529 

N.W.2d 684, 685 (Minn. 1995). In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme 

Court affirmed an admonition issued to Attorney Selmer for 

improperly charging a client. In 1997, the Minnesota Supreme 

Court suspended Attorney Selmer for 12 months for engaging in a 

pattern of harassing and frivolous litigation and failing to 

comply with discovery requests. In re Selmer, 568 N.W.2d 702, 

704-05 (Minn. 1997). In 2008, the Minnesota Supreme Court

publicly reprimanded Attorney Selmer and placed him on probation 

in part for failing to pay a judgment entered against him. In re 

Selmer, 749 N.W.2d 30, 33 (Minn. 2008). 

¶5 On July 15, 2015, effective July 29, 2015, the 

Minnesota Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Attorney Selmer's 

Minnesota law license, with no right to petition for 

reinstatement for a minimum of 12 months. The Minnesota Supreme 

Court found that Attorney Selmer violated Minnesota Rules of 

Professional Conduct sections 1.1, 3.1, 3.4(c), 3.4(d), and 

8.4(d) through a pattern of frivolous and harassing litigation, 

a failure to obey court orders, and a failure to comply with 

legally proper discovery requests. The Minnesota court found 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

6

that Attorney Selmer filed ten separate lawsuits in two 

different counties, the court of appeals, and a Minnesota 

federal district court, and then repeatedly failed to obey court 

orders, appear for hearings, or otherwise respond to pleadings 

and discovery requests. All ten lawsuits were dismissed based 

either on the frivolity of Attorney Selmer's arguments or 

because he failed to comply with court rules. The court noted 

that two of Attorney Selmer's four prior Minnesota disciplinary 

proceedings were for similar conduct, engaging in a pattern of 

harassing and frivolous litigation.

¶6 In its complaint, the OLR alleged that Attorney Selmer 

is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing to 

notify OLR of his suspension in Minnesota for professional 

misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its 

imposition, Selmer violated SCR 22.22(1). 

¶7 The OLR asked this court to issue an order, pursuant 

to SCR 22.22(2)(b), directing Attorney Selmer to inform the 

court in writing of any claim by him, predicated upon the 

grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), that the imposition of 

discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota would be 

unwarranted, and of the factual basis for any such claim. Delay 

ensued because of difficulty completing proof of service. This 

court issued the requested order on February 9, 2016.

¶8 On March 1, 2016, Attorney Selmer responded to this 

court’s order. He filed an answer to the order to show cause, 

an answer to the complaint, and a motion to dismiss or for an 

extension of time. 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

7

¶9 Attorney Selmer’s cursory answer merely denies "each 

and every material allegation of the complaint" and seeks 

dismissal of the complaint. 

¶10 Attorney Selmer contends the "Minnesota court that 

held him in violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional 

Responsibility were specious due to the fact that the original 

trial court of Minnesota lacked subject matter jurisdiction in 

the original action which culminated in respondent's 

suspension." He asks this court to dismiss the order to show 

cause, enter judgment in his favor, and, in the alternative, he

seeks a trial on the merits.

¶11 On March 16, 2016, the court ordered the OLR to 

respond to Attorney Selmer’s filings. OLR did so, maintaining 

that imposition of reciprocal discipline is appropriate based on 

the record presented to this court. We agree.

¶12 We decline the OLR’s invitation to strike Attorney 

Selmer's cursory answer, but agree that it is wholly 

insufficient to warrant dismissal of the OLR complaint. 

¶13 Next we consider Attorney Selmer’s challenge to the 

order to show cause. Attached to the OLR disciplinary complaint 

are a number of documents from the Minnesota disciplinary 

proceeding including the 18-page petition for disciplinary 

action filed in December 2013, an affidavit of service, the 

referee’s detailed and thoughtful 26-page findings of fact, 

conclusions of law and recommendation for discipline, and the 

17-page per curiam decision rendered by the Minnesota Supreme 

Court on July 15, 2015. 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

8

¶14 SCR 22.22(4) provides: "Except as provided in sub. 

(3), a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an 

attorney has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 

shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's misconduct or 

medical incapacity for purposes of a proceeding under this 

rule." 

¶15 A copy of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s final 

adjudication of Attorney Selmer's misconduct accompanies the OLR 

complaint and is conclusive evidence of Attorney's Selmer’s 

misconduct for purposes of this proceeding.

¶16 SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall impose the 

identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 

the following is present: 

(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 

so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 

constitute a deprivation of due process. 

(b) There was such an infirmity of proof 

establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 

the supreme court could not accept as final the 

conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 

incapacity. 

(c) The misconduct justifies substantially 

different discipline in this state. 

Attorney Selmer claims that the Minnesota trial court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction in the underlying action giving rise 

to his suspension, and as a basis for his motion to dismiss this 

action, relies upon all the files and records he filed in 

defense of the misconduct charges brought by the Minnesota 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

9

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Neither claim 

falls within the purview of SCR 22.22(a) through (c). 

¶17 SCR 22.22(3)(a) ensures that a disciplinary respondent 

is afforded "notice and opportunity to be heard." The record 

before this court demonstrates that Attorney Selmer was 

personally served with the Minnesota disciplinary complaint and 

that a full, two-day evidentiary hearing on the merits was 

conducted. Attorney Selmer participated in that hearing. 

Attorney Selmer has failed to demonstrate a lack of due process 

as to notice or opportunity to be heard in the Minnesota 

proceeding. 

¶18 SCR 22.22(3)(b) provides that this court shall impose 

the identical discipline or license suspension unless there "was 

such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct or 

medical incapacity that the supreme court could not accept as 

final the conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 

incapacity." Attorney Selmer fails to satisfy this criterion as 

well. Again, the Minnesota court conducted a full hearing on 

the merits. The referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and the certified copy of the Minnesota Supreme Court's opinion 

issued July 15, 2015 reflect the extensive procedural and 

substantive history of the Minnesota disciplinary process. 

¶19 SCR 22.22(3)(c) pertains if the misconduct justifies 

substantially different discipline in this state. The sanction 

imposed for Attorney Selmer’s misconduct in Minnesota is not 

substantially different from the typical sanction for comparable 

misconduct in Wisconsin. As the Minnesota Supreme Court noted, 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

10

Attorney Selmer’s misconduct was serious, and spanned a 

significant number of court files at the state district, federal 

district, and state appellate levels, all of which were 

dismissed based either on the frivolity of Attorney Selmer’s

arguments or because Attorney Selmer failed to comply with court 

rules. 

¶20 Attorney Selmer has wholly failed to provide any claim 

predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3) indicating 

that imposition of the identical discipline or license 

suspension by this court would be unwarranted. 

¶21 Finally, notwithstanding Attorney Selmer’s unsupported 

and conclusory denials, the record supports the OLR’s assertion 

that Attorney Selmer failed to timely notify OLR of his 

suspension in Minnesota, which constitutes misconduct pursuant 

to SCR 22.22(1).

¶22 Accordingly, we deny Attorney Selmer’s Motion to 

Dismiss or [for] Extension of Time and his request for a trial. 

We grant the OLR’s request and suspend Attorney Scott E. 

Selmer's license to practice law in Wisconsin for 12 months as 

discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon him in Minnesota.

¶23 Attorney Selmer shall pay the full costs of this 

proceeding which total $842.50 as of May 19, 2016. He has 

identified no factors that would justify a reduction in costs. 

See SCR 22.24(1m). 

¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Scott E. Selmer to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 12 

months, effective the date of this order. 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

11

¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Scott E. Selmer shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding which total $842.50 as 

of May 19, 2016. 

¶26 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 and 

failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, 

and failure to complete trust account certification, will remain 

in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension 

has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Scott E. Selmer shall comply with the 

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 

license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
No. 2015AP2303-D 

1