Walker rejects Melms’s $50K demand as extortion attempt

Lakeland Times and Northwoods River News publisher Gregg Walker this week rejected a demand for a $50,000 payment to attorney Frederick Melms (no association with Melms, Hogan & Francois law firm) and said he will not withdraw a professional misconduct complaint against the attorney or retract the newspaper’s reporting after Frederick Melms threatened a defamation lawsuit.

Frederick Melms, who represents Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad, demanded the payment, a front-page retraction, and a public apology after Walker filed a misconduct complaint against him with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and The Lakeland Times reported on the filing in its Jan. 16 edition.

In a Jan. 23 email, Melms said the allegations in the complaints were frivolous, had caused him and his law practice reputational harm and lowered his standing in the community, and he gave Walker and the newspaper until Jan. 30 to meet his terms.

Walker dismissed the message as a baseless attempt to derail a legitimate disciplinary inquiry and to extort money.

“I will not withdraw the complaint because the allegations in it are true, with ample evidence to support the claims,” Walker said this week. “The newspaper will not retract the story, either, because it represents accurate reporting of the complaint I filed.”

Specifically, Walker alleges that Frederick Melms violated ethical rules by engaging in what the attorney’s oath calls “offensive personality” and by pursuing a perjury claim that a judge explicitly rejected.

In his complaint, Walker pointed to remarks Frederick Melms made at a public gathering at the Minocqua Brewing Company in September 2024, as well as to Frederick Melms’s later efforts to accuse Walker of perjury following restraining-order proceedings in July 2025.

According to Walker’s OLR complaint, Bangstad invited Frederick Melms to speak at the brewery on Sept. 10, 2024, introducing him to a crowd of patrons who chanted his name as he came to the stage.

Frederick Melms spoke about lawsuits he had filed on Bangstad’s behalf, including litigation against former President Donald Trump and a challenge to Wisconsin’s school voucher program. 

He then turned his attention to Walker and the Times, which is located directly across the street from the brewery.

“[W]hen working directly for Minocqua Brewing Company, we’ve done great work, too,” Frederick Melms said, according to Walker’s complaint. “We’ve told that guy across the street to f—k off.”

Bangstad then clarified to the crowd that the “guy across the street” was Walker and the Times.

At the time, Walker and Bangstad were litigating a defamation case that later resulted in a $750,000 judgment in Walker’s favor.

Walker alleges that Melms’s remark violated Supreme Court Rule 20:8.4(g) and the attorney’s oath, which requires lawyers to “abstain from all offensive personality.”

“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 . . . .,’”  Walker wrote in the complaint.

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.

Anyone in the audience would have understood that he was Bangstad’s attorney and that he believed litigating against Walker was the equivalent of telling Walker to “f—k off,” Walker wrote.

“These comments do not reflect upon Melms as a citizen, but upon him as an attorney,” Walker stated in his complaint. “Furthermore, the comment reflects adversely on attorney Melms’s fitness to practice law.”

Walker cited Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent defining “offensive personality” as conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law and includes rude, discourteous, abusive, aggressive, or hostile statements.

Perjury allegations rejected by court

The second allegation in Walker’s complaint arises from events outside the Times building on June 27, 2025, when Walker said he was harassed by a group of people gathered at the brewery, including Bangstad, while Bangstad was facing criminal defamation charges.

Walker called the police, Bangstad was arrested for disorderly conduct and bail jumping, and Walker later obtained a temporary restraining order.

At a July 18, 2025, hearing on a permanent restraining order, Walker testified that he heard someone in the crowd yell “Go die,” among other insults.

During closing arguments, Frederick Melms accused Walker of lying under oath.

“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,” Frederick Melms said, according to the complaint.

Judge Martha Milanowski rejected that accusation.

“I don’t find that [Walker] perjured himself today,” the judge 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.”

Despite that ruling, Frederick Melms and Bangstad later sought to have Walker charged with perjury, first by contacting the Oneida County district attorney and later by petitioning the circuit court after the prosecutor declined to bring charges.

Frederick Melms also discussed the perjury claim on Bangstad’s podcast, saying Walker gave false testimony and made up evidence “because he wanted to win,” according to the complaint.

Walker alleges those actions — the pursuit of charges and the comments related to it — violated Supreme Court Rule 20:3.1, which prohibits lawyers from advancing unwarranted claims or taking actions that serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another person.

As of the complaint’s writing, no court had charged Walker with perjury, Walker wrote, and he asserted that the pursuit of a perjury charge would serve no other purpose than to “harass or maliciously injure.” 

Under Wisconsin law, all misconduct grievances filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation are screened to determine whether they fall within the agency’s jurisdiction.

“After preliminary evaluation, staff may also forward the matter to another agency; attempt to reconcile the matter between the grievant and attorney if it is a minor dispute; or refer the matter to the director for diversion, investigation, or resolution by consent reprimand,” the OLR states on its website. “If the grievance sets forth sufficient information to support an allegation of a violation of Chapter 20 of the Supreme Court Rules, OLR staff may initiate an investigation.”

After the investigation is completed, the director may dismiss the matter for lack of sufficient evidence of cause to proceed, divert the matter to an alternatives to discipline program, obtain the respondent’s consent to a private or public reprimand, or present the matter to the Preliminary Review Committee for a determination of whether there is cause to proceed, the OLR states. 

If an investigation proceeds and the Preliminary Review Committee finds cause, the OLR may file a disciplinary complaint with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which appoints a referee and holds a public hearing before deciding whether discipline is warranted.

Walker said his complaint was filed in good faith and supported by ample documentary evidence, transcripts and recordings.

Frederick Melms demands retraction and payment

In a Jan. 23 email sent to Walker and to reporter Richard Moore, the author of the Times’ story, Frederick Melms demanded a retraction, an apology and payment of $50,000. He also threatened to file suit if his terms were not met.

“For Settlement Purposes Only,” Frederick Melms entitled his email.

“I am writing so that the three of us may resolve my claims against you arising from the false, defamatory, and misleading statements your newspapers published about me, without the need for litigation,” he wrote.

Frederick Melms claimed the misconduct complaint was “patently frivolous” and said the OLR “appears to have dismissed” them without contacting him.

“Nothing I did violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and your suggestion that I acted unethically was tortious,” Frederick Melms wrote. “The article has caused reputational harm to me and my law practice, and has lowered my standing in the community.”

Frederick Melms demanded a full retraction of the Jan. 20 article, published on the front page of the Times and The Northwoods River News; a public apology stating the complaints were frivolous; and payment of $50,000 by the end of Jan. 30.

“If you fail to do so, I will file suit for conspiracy to injure a business and defamation and seek far more than $50,000,” he wrote, adding that he reserved the right to pursue punitive damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief. 

Walker rejected the demand outright.

“This was not a settlement offer,” Walker said. “This was a threat.”

Privilege protects disciplinary complaints

In addition, Walker pointed out, even if the allegations were false, Wisconsin law broadly protects statements made in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings — including disciplinary complaints — so long as the statements are relevant to the issues before the body conducting the proceeding.

In 1974’s Bergman v. Hupy, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that defamatory statements made in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged if they relate to the issues in the case, but, just as important, the court acknowledged that the privilege extended to quasi-judicial proceedings, such as petitions or complaints to administrative boards and similar bodies. A person making absolutely privileged statements cannot be sued for libel or slander because of them.

“As to statements made during quasi-judicial proceedings, the Wisconsin rule is that such statements are also absolutely privileged when the statements bear a proper relationship to the issues,” the court wrote. “Thus this court has held, ‘The great weight of authority is to the effect that the proceedings before administrative agencies are absolutely privileged. ...’ Recently, this court stated, ‘... And such absolute privilege has been extended to quasi-judicial proceedings ...’”

They also extend to statements made during investigatory proceedings.

The court emphasized the public policy interest in encouraging citizens to report misconduct without fear of retaliation, citing Schultz v. Strauss: “the policy of the law here steps in and controls the individual rights of redress. The freedom of inquiry, the right of exposing malversation in public men and public institutions to the proper authority, the importance of punishing offenses, and the danger of silencing inquiry and of affording impunity to guilt, have all combined to shut the door against prosecutions for libels in cases of that or of analogous nature.’”

Later cases, including Vultaggio v. Yasko in 1998, reiterated the extension of the privilege to statements made in investigatory settings, such as complaints to prosecutors and licensing authorities.

Walker said his complaint clearly meets the standards set in those cases.

“The statements in my complaint are factual, documented, and directly related to the ethical rules the OLR enforces,” he said. “That is exactly what the privilege doctrine is designed to protect.”

Standing by the reporting

Walker also said the newspaper’s Jan. 20 article accurately and fairly reported the filing and contents of the misconduct complaint.

“The story did not declare Mr. Melms guilty of anything,” Walker said. “It reported that a complaint was filed and summarized the allegations in that complaint. That is basic, routine reporting. It is Journalism 101.”

Walker said attempts to silence reporting about court filings and disciplinary proceedings threaten the public’s right to know.

“If lawyers can threaten newspapers into retracting stories about misconduct complaints simply by sending demand letters, then no one will ever report on professional discipline again,” he said.

The current dispute unfolds against a backdrop of years of litigation between the parties.

Frederick Melms has represented Bangstad in multiple civil and criminal matters involving Walker and the Times, including the defamation lawsuit that ended in a $750,000 verdict in Walker’s favor, restraining-order proceedings, and a criminal defamation case in which Bangstad was arrested after posting a fabricated pornographic rendering depicting Walker and a newspaper employee.

That criminal case was later dropped.

Walker said the ongoing pattern of harassment and public accusations underscores why they filed the misconduct complaint.

“When an attorney uses lawsuits, criminal accusations, and public insults as weapons, that is precisely what the disciplinary system exists to examine,” he said.

As of this week, the OLR had not publicly disclosed whether it has dismissed or opened an investigation into Walker’s complaint, consistent with confidentiality rules governing disciplinary screening.

While Frederick Melms in his email said the OLR “appeared to have dismissed the complaint,” Walker said he has not been notified that the complaint was dismissed. Under OLR procedure, the agency may take weeks or months to determine whether to proceed.

Walker said he remains confident in the merits of his complaint.

“I filed this complaint because I believe the rules were violated,” he said. “I stand by every word of it. And I stand by this paper’s reporting.”

Trevor Greene may be reached via email at [email protected].