|
Attorney reinstatement
proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
1 PER CURIAM. We review the
recommendation of the referee, Russell
Hanson, that Scott E. Selmer's license to
practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and
the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) have joined
in that recommendation.
2 We adopt the referee's findings of
fact and conclusions of law and agree that
Scott E. Selmer's license to practice law
should be reinstated, subject to his
compliance with current continuing legal
education (CLE) requirements. Attorney
Selmer shall also be required to pay the
costs of the reinstatement proceeding.
3 Selmer, a Minnesota attorney, was
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in
1978. In 1990, the OLR's predecessor, the
Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (Board), privately
reprimanded Selmer for failing to provide
competent representation by filing papers
that reflected a lack of knowledge of
Wisconsin appellate procedure and tribunals,
and for filing documents while
administratively suspended for failure to
comply with CLE requirements.
|
|
4 In 1995, Attorney Selmer received a
public reprimand as reciprocal discipline
for a reprimand imposed upon him by the
Minnesota Supreme Court. In re
Disciplinary Action Against Selmer, 529
N.W.2d 694 (Minn. 1995). Misconduct
consisted of failing 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, failing to
maintain proper trust account books and
records and falsely certifying that he had
done so, and commingling personal and client
funds in his trust account. This court
conditioned Attorney Selmer's continued
practice of law on his furnishing the Board
copies of his trust account records for a
period of two years. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Selmer,
195 Wis. 2d 687, 538 N.W.2d 252 (1995).
|
|
5 Attorney Selmer's current license
suspension was also imposed as reciprocal
discipline for misconduct that occurred in
Minnesota. In re Disciplinary Action
Against Selmer, 568 N.W.2d 702 (Minn.
1997). The Minnesota court concluded that
Selmer had engaged in a pattern of frivolous
and harassing conduct by filing
counterclaims alleging racial discrimination
in actions brought against him by personal
creditors and by filing claims in state and
federal courts alleging racial
discrimination. See id. The
Minnesota courts concluded that Selmer's
claims of racial discrimination lacked
merit, and concluded further that Selmer
knowingly offered false and misleading
evidence in response to discovery requests,
failed to supplement incomplete and
misleading responses to discovery requests,
failed to comply or make reasonably diligent
efforts to comply with legally proper
discovery requests, made false statements of
fact in attempts to advance his own
interests, and engaged in dishonest conduct
in those actions. Id. He was suspended
for a period of twelve months for this
misconduct. Id. By order dated
November 30, 2001, the Minnesota court
conditionally reinstated Selmer's license to
practice law in Minnesota. In re
Disciplinary Action Against Selmer, 636
N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 2001).
|
|
6 On May 13, 2003, Selmer filed this
petition pursuant to SCR 22.29, seeking
reinstatement of his license to practice law
in Wisconsin. Various procedural delays
ensued. On April 14, 2004, the OLR formally
opposed the petition for reinstatement
primarily on the basis of these delays,
which included the provision of necessary
documentation to the OLR.
|
|
7 On May 4, 2004, Referee Hanson
conducted a hearing, which was continued and
concluded on October 25, 2004. See SCR
22.30. Referee Hanson filed his report and
recommendation on November 26, 2004.
Neither party appealed. The matter was
again delayed to permit Selmer to complete
all necessary continuing educational
requirements.
8 The referee concluded that since his
reinstatement in Minnesota, Attorney
Selmer's conduct has been "exemplary." The
attorney who supervised him during the
reinstatement process in Minnesota testified
on his behalf at the reinstatement hearing,
opining that he "will act in conformity
[with the Rules of Professional Conduct]"
and stating: "I think . . . he will be
extremely careful about all of his dealings
and that he will comport himself in an
ethical way."
9 The referee found credible and
persuasive the testimony from various
character witnesses Selmer produced. The
referee noted that Selmer had accounted for
his time in Minnesota and that there was no
evidence he has practiced law in Wisconsin
since his suspension. He is in full
compliance with the Minnesota CLE
requirements and is now in compliance with
the requirements imposed in Wisconsin.
10 Ultimately, the referee concluded:
The recommendations of others who entered
their support for the respondent were
impressive and persuasive and the respondent
himself clearly highly desires the return of
his Wisconsin license. I can find no
failure on his part significant enough to
recommend against his reinstatement and I,
therefore, recommend it.
11 As noted, the OLR did not appeal the
report and recommendation. It has filed a
statement of costs incurred in connection
with the reinstatement proceeding, in the
amount of $9,053.34.
12 Following submission of this matter
to the court further delay ensued as Selmer
sought to provide the BBE with necessary
documentation regarding compliance with CLE
requirements. We have now been advised that
this documentation has been provided and
that the BBE recommends his reinstatement.
|
|
13 After review of the record we
conclude that Selmer has established by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
that he has satisfied all the criteria for
reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions
of law and we agree with the referee's
recommendation that Mr. Selmer's license to
practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated. We
conclude further that he should be required
to pay the costs of this reinstatement
proceeding.
14 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for
reinstatement of the license of Scott E.
Selmer to practice law in Wisconsin is
granted, effective the date of this order,
subject to compliance with current
continuing legal education requirements.
15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within
six months of the date of this order Scott
E. Selmer pay to the OLR the costs of this
proceeding. 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.
|