Title: KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION V. MELISSA JAN WILLIAMSON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022-SC-0051-KB
State: Kentucky
Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court
Date: June 16, 2022

TO BE PUBLISHED Supreme Court of Kentucky 2022-SC-0051-KB KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT V. IN SUPREME COURT MELISSA JAN WILLIAMSON RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to SCR1 3.380(2)2, the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) moves the Court to suspend Melissa Jan Williamson,3 a member of the Kentucky Bar Association, for failure to file an Answer to a Charge. For the following reasons, we grant the KBA’s motion and suspend Williamson from the practice of law in Kentucky indefinitely. The Charge at issue arises out of an unanswered Bar Complaint filed against Williamson concerning her representation of client Angela Davis in a divorce matter. Ms. Davis paid Williamson $800 to handle her divorce, which 1 Supreme Court Rules. 2 The substantive provisions of SCR 3.380(2) were moved to SCR 3.167(1) by our Administrative Order 2022-11 (effective April 1, 2022). 3 Williamson was admitted to practice law in Kentucky on January 10, 1995 and has no prior discipline. 2 Williamson failed to adequately manage. On behalf of Ms. Dalton, Williamson filed a Verified Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and the Care Custody and Control of One Minor Child. At the final hearing on June 12, 2018, Williamson informed the circuit court that Ms. Dalton wanted half of her husband’s 401K plan. The court directed Williamson to draft the decree but that it needed to know how much money was in the 401K before it could divide it. Williamson did not know that amount, but said once she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator and find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”). Ms. Dalton did not hear from Williamson for months after the final hearing. At some point she contacted the circuit court clerk to inquire into the status of her case and learned that Williamson had not filed anything to finalize her divorce. Ms. Dalton requested that the clerk put the case on the docket. At the July 30, 2019, motion hour, nearly a year after the final hearing, the court signed the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage prepared by Williamson. That document did not mention restoring Ms. Dalton to her maiden name as had been requested in the Petition, or the 401K division. Ms. Dalton asked Williamson if she had filed for half of the 401K and Williamson said she had not. Williamson then prepared another Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage which granted Ms. Dalton half of her husband’s 401K. The court signed it on August 20, 2019. 3 Thereafter, Ms. Dalton phoned Williamson’s office repeatedly and was informed that she was working on the QDRO and would call her back, but she never did. In late 2020/early 2021, Ms. Dalton discovered that Williamson had closed her law office sometime in 2020 without notifying her. Williamson failed to complete the work she was retained to do in Ms. Dalton’s divorce action and did not refund the unearned portion of the fee. On August 11, 2021, Williamson was served with a Bar Complaint. She did not file a response by its August 31 due date. Bar Counsel emailed Williamson several times in September 2021, reminding her that her response had not been received and that failure to respond could result in a charge for violating SCR 3.130(8.1)(b).4 Williamson was granted a three-week extension of time in which to respond to the Bar Complaint but never filed a response. At its November 8, 2021, meeting, the Inquiry Commission reviewed all available information relating to the Bar Complaint and authorized a Charge against Williamson, which was filed with the Disciplinary Clerk on December 10, 2021. Count I of the Charge alleges Williamson violated SCR 3.130(1.3), which states “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client[,]” by not preparing and submitting the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage for over a year, 4 SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) states that in connection with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority[.]” 4 by not including that Ms. Dalton be restored to her maiden name, and by not completing the work involving division of Mr. Dalton’s retirement account. Count II alleges Williamson violated SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), which states “[a] lawyer shall . . . (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; [and] (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information[,]” by not letting Ms. Dalton know the status of her divorce action and the QDRO, and by not responding to her reasonable requests for information regarding her case. Count III alleges Williamson violated SCR 3.130(1.4)(b), which states “[a] lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation[,]” by not telling Ms. Dalton that she had closed her law office, which could have affected Ms. Dalton’s decision regarding the representation. Count IV alleges Williamson violated SCR 3.130(1.16)(d), which states “[u]pon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as . . . refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred[,]” by abandoning the representation and not refunding any of the $800 fee even though she did not complete the work. Count V alleges Williamson violated SCR 3.130(8.1)(b), which states that in connection with a disciplinary matter, a lawyer shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority,” by failing to respond to the Bar Complaint, despite being warned 5 that failure to respond to the Office of Bar Counsel’s demand for information could result in additional charges under this Rule, and despite being reminded her response was overdue and obtaining an extension of time to file it. On December 27, 2021, Williamson was served with the Charge by certified mail at her bar roster address and she signed the certified mail green card. Included with the Charge was a cover letter which informed her an Answer to the Charge was due within thirty (30) days of the notice and that “[p]ursuant to SCR 3.380, if you fail to file an Answer to the Charge . . . the Court may in its discretion, sua sponte, or upon motion by the Office of Bar Counsel, suspend you for an indefinite period of time.” On February 1, 2022, Bar Counsel sent Williamson an email reminding her that the Inquiry Commission had issued a Charge against her, that she signed the certified mail green card on December 27, 2021, and that her Answer was due on January 26, 2022. The email further informed Williamson that she was in default because she had not filed an Answer. Williamson did not reply to the email. Bar Counsel also called Williamson’s business/cell phone number on February 2, but no one answered, and Bar Counsel could not leave a message because the voicemail box was full. As the record reflects, Williamson is aware of the Charge filed against her and was informed by letter of the possible consequences of not filing an Answer to the Charge. She did not respond to an email reminding her she is in default and has not answered the Charge. As a result, this Court hereby orders, 6 pursuant to SCR 3.167(1), that Williamson is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely. All sitting. All concur. ENTERED: June 16, 2022 ______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE