Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Scott E. Selmer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2009 WI 15 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2008AP2868-D 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: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: February 17, 2009 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: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, FEB 17, 2009 v. David R. Schanker Clerk of Supreme Court Scott E. Selmer, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 has PER filed CURIAM. a The complaint Office and of motion Lawyer Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.22 requesting that this court impose reciprocal discipline against Attorney Scott E. Selmer identical to imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. the public reprimand The OLR's complaint further alleges that Attorney Selmer failed to notify the OLR of No. the public reprimand in Minnesota within 20 2008AP2868-D 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 would be unwarranted. by Attorney the Minnesota Selmer failed Supreme to Court 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 suspension. under a continuing legal education (CLE) 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 1 of one year for professional SCR 22.22(1) provides: misconduct in Minnesota 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. 2 No. 2008AP2868-D 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. Disciplinary Proceedings N.W.2d 373 (1999). Against Selmer, 227 See In re Wis. 2d 85, 595 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 the SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court "shall impose 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. that any of these three Attorney Selmer has not alleged exceptions exist. Accordingly, the imposition of reciprocal discipline against Attorney Selmer is warranted. 3 No. ¶6 IT reprimanded IS as ORDERED reciprocal that Scott discipline Minnesota Supreme Court. 4 E. to Selmer that 2008AP2868-D is imposed publicly by the No. 1 2008AP2868-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
