Minnesota Denies Reinstatement Petition
An attorney with a lengthy discipline history has been denied reinstatement by the Minnesota Supreme Court
In 2015, we indefinitely suspended petitioner Scott Selmer from the practice of law. Selmer petitioned for reinstatement in February 2023. Following a hearing, a divided panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board recommended against reinstatement, determining that Selmer failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had undergone moral change and was competent to practice law. The dissenting member of the panel found that Selmer had proven his moral change and that he “can be relied on.” The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (the Director) agrees with the recommendation of the panel to deny reinstatement. Selmer contests the panel’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation to deny reinstatement.
We determine that the panel’s findings are not clearly erroneous or inconsistent with our case law. Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that Selmer has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied the requirements for reinstatement. We therefore deny his petition for reinstatement.
He had been reinstated in 2001 after a prior suspension
Selmer’s next disciplinary matter—which resulted in his current suspension—occurred seven years later.
In 2015, we indefinitely suspended Selmer, with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 12 months, based on his conduct in several lawsuits stemming from the suspension of operations of an organization where Selmer served as president and CEO from 2008 to 2011. In re Selmer (Selmer V), 866 N.W.2d 893, 900–01 (Minn. 2015). His conduct included a pattern of harassing and frivolous litigation, failure to abide by court orders, and refusal to comply with discovery requests. Id. at 894–95. We observed that Selmer’s dispute with the organization “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 Selmer’s arguments or because Selmer failed to comply with court rules.” Id. at 900. And we concluded that Selmer’s abuse of the litigation process constituted “serious” misconduct and emphasized that it formed a pattern of misconduct occurring over several years. Id. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reciprocally disciplined Selmer by suspending him from the practice of law for 12 months. In re Selmer, 882 N.W.2d 815, 820 (Wis. 2016).
Thereafter
Since his suspension in 2015, Selmer has petitioned for reinstatement in Minnesota three times: in 2018, 2019, and 2023. We dismissed Selmer’s 2018 petition for failure to pay the filing fee. Selmer withdrew his 2019 petition after he failed the professional responsibility examination. Selmer’s 2023 petition is at issue here.
The court
Selmer was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1984. After a long history of misconduct, we suspended Selmer from the practice of law in 2015 due to a pattern of misconduct related to his work as an attorney. Following his suspension, Selmer did not practice law for approximately five years. Selmer was reinstated in Wisconsin in 2021, and according to his testimony at the hearing, he practiced in Wisconsin for a couple of years before seeking reinstatement here.
Notwithstanding Selmer’s testimony that his recent practice in Wisconsin demonstrates his competence to practice, we have significant concerns. None of Selmer’s witnesses were able to provide firsthand information regarding Selmer’s current competence. Selmer’s testimony was the only evidence of competence to practice law. He testified that since his reinstatement in Wisconsin, he had handled hundreds of cases while working as a public defender and a few civil matters, including some estate planning matters and a business advising matter. But Selmer did not provide any specific information about the type of work that he performed while working as a public defender. He also acknowledged resigning his public defender position in lieu of termination. Additionally, Selmer’s conduct during the 2020 collection actions, 2020 personal injury action, and 2022 financial institution litigation calls his competence into question. Given these circumstances and based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that Selmer has not met his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is competent to practice law.
Because Selmer did not prove by clear and convincing evidence his moral change or competence to practice law, we conclude that Selmer has not met his burden of proving that he is entitled to reinstatement.
(Mike Frisch)