¶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:

¶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 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.

¶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.

¶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."

¶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:

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 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, 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.

¶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.

¶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).