Title: OLR v. Scott E. Selmer
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP002303-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 2016

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