Vol. 82, No. 4, April 2009
Disciplinary proceeding against Scott E. Selmer
On Feb. 17, 2009, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Scott E. Selmer, Golden Valley, Minn., as discipline reciprocal to a May 22, 2008, Minnesota Supreme Court order publicly reprimanding Selmer and placing him on one year of unsupervised probation. Selmer also failed to notify Wisconsin’s Office of Lawyer Regulation of his Minnesota discipline within 20 days of the discipline, contrary to SCR 22.22(1).
The Minnesota discipline arose out of Selmer’s violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), by failing to comply with the terms of probation, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c), 8.1(a), (b), 8.4(c), (d), and Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR); failing to timely file individual income tax returns, in violation of MRPC 8.4 (b) and (d); and being convicted of fifth-degree assault, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). Selmer also violated RLPR 13(a) by failing to file an answer by the deadline of 20 days after service of the petition.
Selmer’s Wisconsin disciplinary history consists of a 1990 consensual private reprimand, a 1995 public reprimand, and a 1999 reciprocal one-year suspension.
Disciplinary proceeding against Thomas O. Mulligan
On Jan. 29, 2009, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Thomas O. Mulligan, Spooner. In addition, the court ordered Mulligan to complete six hours of CLE-approved coursework on legal research and writing and six hours of CLE-approved coursework on appellate practice by Dec. 31, 2009, and to pay the full $6,114.71 cost of the disciplinary proceeding by March 30, 2009. Disciplinary Proceedings against Mulligan, 2009 WI 12.
Mulligan’s public reprimand was based on professional misconduct committed in connection with his representation of an individual and a business in an appeal of an unfavorable civil judgment.
Mulligan violated former SCR 20:1.2(a) and 20:1.4(b) (both in effect before July 1, 2007) by failing to consult with a client regarding Mulligan’s intent to proceed with the appeal without obtaining the trial transcripts and regarding Mulligan’s decision to seek in the appeal only de novo review of a contract at issue in the litigation.
Mulligan received consensual private reprimands in 1997 and 2005.