Misconduct complaint filed against Frederick Melms

Lakeland Times publisher Gregg Walker has filed an attorney-misconduct complaint with the state court system alleging that Frederick Melms (no association with Melms, Hogan & Francois law firm), an attorney for Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad, has violated multiple provisions of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

Walker filed the claim on December 19 with the state’s Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), which is the state Supreme Court agency that screens, investigates, and litigates misconduct and medical incapacity issues.

Specifically, Walker’s complaint alleges that Frederick Melms violated the rules by making disparaging and unprofessional public remarks directed at Walker and by knowingly pursuing baseless criminal perjury charges against him.

In the first allegation, Walker asked the OLR to investigate Frederick Melms for conduct Walker says violated the rules’ requirement that attorneys “abstain from all offensive personality.”

“In his remarks at Minocqua Brewing Company (MBC) on September 10, 2024, Melms told an audience that I should ‘f—-off,’” Walker wrote. “This is a violation of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(g), which requires attorneys to abide by the attorney oath they swear upon becoming a member of the Wisconsin Bar. In the oath, there is a requirement that attorneys ‘abstain from all offensive personality,’ which the Wisconsin Supreme Court has interpreted to mean refraining from conduct that ‘reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.’”

Remarks like those Frederick Melms made are the types of statements that would fit the bill, Walker contends.

“Melms has also baselessly pursued a perjury charge against me for my testimony in a permanent restraining order case against his client, and then broadcast his filing on his client’s podcast,” the complaint states. “Such conduct is a violation of SCR 20:3.1(a)(3), which states that in the representation of a client, a lawyer ‘shall not . . . ‘[f]ile a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.’”

Walker observed that, at the conclusion of the restraining order hearing, the presiding official specifically rejected Frederick Melms’s allegation that Walker committed perjury. 

“By nevertheless pursuing criminal charges against me and then publicly alleging a claim of perjury, attorney Melms’s conduct serves no other purpose than to ‘merely . . . harass or maliciously injure,’” the complaint states.

Frederick Melms has represented Bangstad in both civil and criminal matters involving Walker and The Lakeland Times, including a defamation lawsuit in which Walker won what is thought to be the largest defamation award in state history; restraining-order proceedings; and a since-dropped criminal defamation case in which Bangstad was arrested after he posted a fake rendering showing Walker and an employee in a pornographic pose. 

Bangstad called the image a parody.

Public remarks at MBC

One of the two allegations focuses on remarks Frederick Melms made on Sept. 10, 2024, during a public gathering at the Minocqua Brewing Company (MBC) in Minocqua.

According to the complaint, Bangstad invited Frederick Melms to speak to the crowd following his own remarks, referring to him by his first name and prompting an enthusiastic response from Bangstad’s patrons.

“Melms, dressed in a suit, came to the stage as people chanted his name,” Walker wrote in the complaint. “Melms spoke about the litigation he has participated in on behalf of Bangstad and MBC, including filing suit against Donald Trump and challenging Wisconsin’s school voucher program.”

After that, Walker wrote, Frederick Melms turned his attention to Walker. He quoted Frederick Melms at the event: “[W]hen working directly for Minocqua Brewing Company, we’ve done great work, too. We’ve told that guy across the street to f—k off.”

Walker wrote that Bangstad then interjected to clarify for those who might not know who the “guy across the street” was that Frederick Melms was referring to Walker and The Lakeland Times, which Walker owns, and that is located directly across the street from MBC.

“At the time attorney Melms told me to ‘f—k off,’ Bangstad and I were in the midst of litigating a defamation case,” Walker wrote. “The matter went to trial in October 2023 and resulted in a $750,000 judgment in my favor. In September 2024, the case was on appeal by Bangstad. It subsequently settled.”

Stated simply, Walker alleged, Frederick Melms’s comment using such profanity aimed at Walker was a violation of the attorney’s oath that a licensed attorney shall not engage in “offensive personality.”

“Supreme Court Rule 20:8.4(g) states that it is ‘professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . violate the attorney’s oath,’” Walker wrote. “The oath attorneys take in Wisconsin requires them to ‘solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of the Bar’ they will ‘abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness . . . .’” 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said that an attorney’s behavior constitutes “offensive personality” when, in the course of legal practice, it “reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law,” Walker wrote, citing In re DeLadurantey. “Conduct the court found to constitute ‘offensive personality’ includes instances involving ‘generally rude, discourteous, abusive, aggressive, and hostile statements.’” 

When attorneys behave in such a manner, Walker wrote, the DeLadurantey court found that the court has a legitimate interest in prohibiting such conduct and disciplining attorneys who engage in it to protect the public and the administration of justice.

In this situation, Walker continued, while Frederick Melms did not make the statement before a tribunal or in court documents, he nonetheless made it in the course of the practice of the profession. 

“Melms made the comment in the course of talking about other lawsuits he filed on behalf of Bangstad, he made it while representing Bangstad in a case against me, and he made it about filing a lawsuit against me,” Walker wrote. “Moreover, from Bangstad’s casual introduction and the crowd’s chanting, they seemed to all know Melms, presumably as Bangstad’s attorney.”

Thus, Walker contended, anyone in the audience would have understood that he was an attorney and that he believed litigating against Walker was the equivalent of telling Walker to “f—k off.” 

“These comments do not reflect upon Melms as a citizen, but upon him as an attorney,” he wrote. “Furthermore, the comment reflects adversely on attorney Melms’s fitness to practice law. It is the kind of rude and discourteous statement that constitutes ‘offensive personality.’” 

The preamble to the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Ethics states that a lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system, Walker observed.  

“Melms’ comment suggested to those listening that the legal system can be used as a formal middle finger, a way to punish perceived enemies instead of civil resolution of disputes between parties,” he wrote. “His comment and its implications thereby reflect poorly on his fitness to practice law, casting doubt on his respect for the legal system as a whole and his ability to appropriately participate in it.”

The pursuit of perjury claims

On June 27, 2025, Walker wrote that he left work at The Lakeland Times and was walking to his car when an unruly group across the highway at MBC started yelling at him. Bangstad was among them, Walker asserted.

“They were yelling many things from approximately 150 feet away, including that I was a ‘mother-f-er,’ a ‘F-ing asshole,’ and that I should ‘F-off,’” he wrote. “At the time, Bangstad was facing criminal defamation charges for vulgar and obscene Facebook posts he had made about me.”

As part of his bond condition, Walker observed, Bangstad was not to “intimidate [Walker] as a witness” in the criminal defamation case. Frederick Melms was Bangstad’s criminal defense attorney in the case.

“That bond condition was placed on Bangstad in November 2024, and the criminal case was not resolved at the time of this incident,” he wrote.

In June 2025, under a different bond, Bangstad was ordered not to have any contact with him, Walker continued. 

“I called the Minocqua Police Department, and officer Jarrett Radmer arrived at The Lakeland Times parking lot about five minutes later,” he wrote. “Officer Radmer agreed that the situation was dangerous and said that because ‘the crowd [at MBC] was still yelling profanities and being unreasonably loud and it being an establishment that sells alcohol,’ it was not safe for him to engage the group alone and he called for backup.”

Eventually, Walker wrote, officers arrested Bangstad and charged him with disorderly conduct and misdemeanor bail jumping. 

“Following this, I filed and was granted a temporary restraining order against Bangstad,” he wrote. “As a basis for the TRO, I referenced bond conditions from November 2024 as well as June 2025.”

Frederick Melms’s unethical conduct stems from a hearing for a permanent restraining order held on July 18, 2025, Walker continued.

“At the hearing, I testified about those yelling and their demeanor toward me,” he wrote. “Specifically, I testified that I heard someone yell, ‘Go die,’ among other insulting and harassing epithets. I completely stand by that testimony today and will not retract what I testified that I heard.”

Indeed, Walker related, Radmer and another witness corroborated much of his testimony about how tense the situation was. 

“Attorney Melms focused on the fact that other witnesses did not testify to hearing the word ‘die’ that evening,” he wrote. “But in closing arguments, my attorney did not press the point about that particular phrase, nor did my request for a restraining order depend upon it: the factual basis for the TRO was not that Bangstad told me to ‘Go die,’ but that Bangstad was harassing me at my place of employment.”

Despite that, Walker continued, Frederick Melms made much ado about the alleged conflicting testimony and, after Bangstad testified, said that he thought Walker should be charged with perjury.

Indeed, Walker emphasized, Frederick Melms stressed that point in his closing remarks.

“Melms said, ‘I think it’s pretty clear that Mr. Walker took the stand and lied because he knew that’s what he needed to get the restraining order,’” the complaint states. “He knew the bond conditions were about threats and he decided to come here and perjure himself in order to get this.”

But by Frederick Melms’s standard of perjury, Walker asserted, one of the witnesses he called in defense — Antoinette Furan — also committed perjury because she testified that she did not hear anyone swearing.

“The video evidence directly contradicted this testimony,” he wrote. “Ultimately the court did not grant the restraining order because the troubling actions occurred only in a single incident. The court did find, however, that Bangstad and the others’ behavior was ‘disturbing’ and ‘intimidating,’ and that there was a lot of yelling, flipping the bird, and expletives hurled at me.”

Given that, Walker observed in the complaint, the court concluded that Walker did not perjure himself: “I don’t find that [Walker] perjured himself today,” judge Martha Milanowski said. “I don’t know what people said, I didn’t hear the word ‘die’ . . . but clearly there was a lot of expletives flying and it was rude.” 

Still, Walker continued, notwithstanding the favorable ruling and the court’s findings, Frederick Melms and Bangstad took their perjury allegation to the Oneida County district attorney, Jillian Pfeifer, who did not respond to the request to bring the charge against him, Walker pointed out.

“Not letting that deter them, Melms and Bangstad proceeded to petition the Oneida County circuit court to bring the charge under Wis. Stat. § 968.02(3), which allows a court to bring charges if a district attorney refuses and it finds probable cause,” he wrote. “Melms made comments about the petition on Bangstad’s podcast on November 5, 2025.”

In that podcast, Walker said, Bangstad introduced Frederick Melms as his attorney and gave background on the legal disputes before Frederick Melms discussed the petition.

“Melms said that I ‘gave some false testimony that [Bangstad] had threatened him and that [Bangstad] had told him to ‘go die,’” he wrote.

On the podcast, Walker asserted that Frederick Melms said that the latter claim was provably false and that Walker made up a “lot of evidence” … “because he wanted to win.”

As of the complaint’s writing, Walker stated, no court had charged him with perjury.

“The pursuit of a charge against me for perjury as well as comments made in connection to it implicate Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:3.1,” Walker asserted. “Under that rule, a lawyer, in representing a client shall not: (1) ‘knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law’; or (2) ‘[f]ile a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such an action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.’”

No ramble in the preamble

Both of the ethical violations Walker alleges are reflected in the general idea found in the rules’ preamble, Walker asserted, quoting the preamble: “A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”

Under the first standard, Walker wrote, a lawyer shall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted by law.

“This is a subjective standard, requiring that the court consider what the lawyer in fact knew at the time,” he wrote. “That knowledge can be inferred from relevant circumstances. A person is guilty of perjury if he or she, ‘under oath or affirmation makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, case, cause, action or proceeding’ before a court.”

As such, Walker continued, not everyone who testifies falsely under oath is guilty of perjury, only those who corruptly and willfully “attempt to mislead the investigating tribunal.” 

“Testimony is material if the trial court could have relied on it in rendering a decision, that is, if ‘it tended to prove or disprove facts of consequence to the determination,’” Walker wrote.

While Frederick Melms may or may not have been familiar with the exact elements of perjury after latching on to Bangstad’s invocation of it at the hearing, he surely had since researched it in pressing the issue with prosecutors and courts, Walker contended. 

“If not, he would likely be violating other rules,” he wrote.“As such, he knows that the reason the Oneida County district attorney ignored his request to charge me with perjury is because there is no basis for doing so.”

Unlike the first standard, Walker wrote, the second relevant standard from the rule employs an objective standard, requiring that a lawyer not file suit or take actions in representing a client “when it is obvious that such an action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” 

“Notably, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has found this rule violated when an attorney continued to file things that a court had already found meritless,” he wrote. “Attorney Melms is clearly violating this strain of the rule. In the hearing for a permanent restraining order, the court explicitly stated that she did not find that I had committed perjury. And, even more importantly, the court did not ultimately grant the restraining order and did not make any finding that Bangstad in fact threatened me with death.”

As such, Walker contended, there is no reputational or ongoing harm to Bangstad from his testimony. 

“Without any harm, the motivating reason for Melms and Bangstad to press the issue comes to the fore: to harass and intimidate me with the threat of a Class H felony,” he wrote. “Getting a prosecutor to charge me with perjury would serve no other purpose than ‘harass or maliciously injure.’ And by going on Bangstad’s podcast to promote the baseless filing, attorney Melms compounded the violation.”

Initially, according to OLR, all grievances are screened to determine whether they fall within the agency’s jurisdiction. The OLR may close the file, refer it elsewhere, attempt reconciliation in minor disputes, divert it to other agencies for minor disputes, or open it for investigation.

If an investigation is initiated, the attorney is notified and required to submit a response. After review, the OLR director may dismiss the matter, seek a private or public reprimand, divert the case to an alternative-to-discipline program, or present it to the Preliminary Review Committee.

Ultimately, if the Preliminary Review Committee finds cause to proceed, OLR may file a complaint with the Wisconsin Supreme Court alleging misconduct. The court then appoints a referee, holds a public evidentiary hearing, and ultimately determines whether discipline is warranted. Disciplinary decisions are published in the Wisconsin Reports and The Wisconsin Lawyer.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.