866 N.W.2d 893
Minn.2015Background
- Scott Selmer, admitted 1984, faced a Director petition (Jan 2014) alleging a pattern of frivolous/harassing litigation, failure to obey court orders, and refusal to comply with discovery tied mainly to disputes arising from his tenure as SPUL CEO (2008–2011).
- Multiple actions: state district suits (Hennepin, Ramsey), repeated appeals to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and a brief federal suit — many dismissed for frivolity, procedural defects, or failure to comply with orders.
- Key misconduct examples: missed informational filing leading to dismissal (then vacatur conditioned on $2,400 sanctions which Selmer did not pay); failure to correct appellate filing defects; filing duplicative Hennepin suit while Ramsey court retained jurisdiction; intentional refusal to respond to discovery served in Ramsey County.
- Referee found violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 3.4(c), 3.4(d), and 8.4(d), and identified multiple aggravating factors (prior discipline, repeated similar misconduct, lack of remorse); no mitigating factors found.
- The referee recommended an indefinite suspension with a minimum 12‑month bar on seeking reinstatement; the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and ordered suspension effective 14 days after filing, costs, and conditions for reinstatement (including satisfying outstanding sanctions and passing the professional responsibility bar portion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Director) | Defendant's Argument (Selmer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether referee’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Findings supported by record and credible evidence; uphold referee | Challenges several findings (mislabeling counterclaim, motions made, monetary damages in federal suit) | Findings not clearly erroneous — record supports them |
| Whether Selmer violated Rules 1.1 and 3.1 (competence; bringing frivolous claims) | Pattern of frivolous suits and appeals lacking legal basis | Claimed good‑faith belief district courts lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction | Violations upheld; many filings were frivolous and lacked a proper basis |
| Whether Selmer violated Rules 3.4(c) and 3.4(d) (disobeying tribunal orders; failing to comply with discovery) | Intentionally refused to comply with orders and discovery despite court directions | Argued refusal was justified by belief that courts lacked jurisdiction | Violations upheld; belief in lack of jurisdiction did not justify refusal to comply or failures on appeal |
| Appropriate discipline | Indefinite suspension with no petition for reinstatement for 12 months (referee’s recommendation) | No meaningful response to recommended discipline; defends conduct | Court adopted referee’s recommendation: suspension effective in 14 days; no reinstatement petition for 12 months; costs and conditions imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Selmer, 568 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1997) (prior suspension for pattern of harassing/frivolous litigation; used as comparable discipline)
- In re Selmer, 529 N.W.2d 684 (Minn. 1995) (prior public reprimand and probation involving discovery abuse)
- In re Grigsby, 764 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 2009) (Director’s burden: clear and convincing evidence; review standards)
- In re Wentzell, 656 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. 2003) (deference to referee’s factual findings; clear‑error standard)
- In re Lundeen, 811 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (factors for assessing discipline; cumulative misconduct consideration)