LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 9381606
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 9381606 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.
Retrieval annotation
Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: ERISA / defined contribution issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“on how much was in the 401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Williamson then failed to contact Dalton for a period of several months. Dalton eventually resorted to contacting the Circuit Court Clerk and she learned nothing had been filed finalizing her divorce. Dalton requested her case be put on the court's docket. At a hearing on July 30, 2019, at which Williamson appeared, the judge entered the final decr”
401(k)“se No. 18-CI-00035). Dalton paid Williamson $800 for her representation. Williamson filed the Verified Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on February 23, 2018. At the final hearing, Williamson informed the family court Dalton wanted half of her husband's 401k. The Judge asked Williamson to draft the decree and asked Williamson how much was in the 401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Williamson then failed”
Source and provenance
- Source type
- courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
- Permissions posture
- public
- Generated status
- machine draft public v0
- Review status
- gold label pending
- Jurisdiction metadata
- US
- Deterministic extraction
- pending
- Generated at
- May 14, 2026
Related public corpus pages
Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.
Clean opinion text
TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2022-SC-0461-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
MELISSA JAN WILLIAMSON RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
Melissa Jan Williamson, Kentucky Bar Association ("KBA") Number
85606, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky
on January 10, 1995. Her bar roster address is listed as P.O. Box 474, McKee,
Kentucky 40447. In this default case under SCR1 3.210, the KBA Board of
Governors ("the Board") recommends this Court find Williamson guilty of
violating one count each of SCR 3.130(1.3), SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), SCR
3.130(1.4)(b), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b).
For these violations, the Board recommends that Williamson be
suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 30
days and that she be required to pay the costs associated with this action. For
the reasons below, we agree and adopt the recommendation of the Board.
1 Supreme Court Rule.
I. BACKGROUND
In January of 2018, Angela Dalton hired Williamson to represent her in a
marriage dissolution action before the Jackson County Family Court (Dalton v.
Dalton, Case No. 18-CI-00035). Dalton paid Williamson $800 for her
representation. Williamson filed the Verified Petition for Dissolution of
Marriage on February 23, 2018. At the final hearing, Williamson informed the
family court Dalton wanted half of her husband's 401k. The Judge asked
Williamson to draft the decree and asked Williamson how much was in the
401k. Williamson informed the family court she was unaware of the amount in
the 401k, but after she had the decree, she would contact the Plan
Administrator to find out how she should prepare the Qualified Domestic
Relations Order ("QDRO").
Williamson then failed to contact Dalton for a period of several months.
Dalton eventually resorted to contacting the Circuit Court Clerk and she
learned nothing had been filed finalizing her divorce. Dalton requested her
case be put on the court's docket. At a hearing on July 30, 2019, at which
Williamson appeared, the judge entered the final decree. Contrary to Dalton's
request, the decree made no mention of restoring Dalton to her maiden name
or the division of her now-former husband's 401k. Williamson admitted to
Dalton that she had not filed the required documentation for Dalton to receive
half of the 401k prior to the hearing. Subsequently, Williamson prepared an
amended final decree in which Dalton received half of the 401k. The judge
signed the amended decree on August 20, 2019.
2
Afterwards, Dalton was again unable to reach Williamson. Williamson's
office told Dalton that Williamson was working on the QDRO and Williamson
would call Dalton back. Williamson failed to return those calls and in late
2020 or early 2021 Dalton discovered Williamson had closed her office but had
failed to notify her. Williamson never completed the QDRO and she did not
refund the unearned portion of her fee.
On July 27, 2021, Dalton filed a complaint against Williamson with the
KBA. The Office of Bar Counsel ("OBC") sent Williamson a copy of the
complaint along with instructions to respond within 20 days. On September
10, 2021, OBC contacted Williamson and Williamson requested a three-week
extension. Williamson again failed to respond to the complaint.
On December 10, 2021, the Inquiry Commission filed a Charge against
Williamson, a copy of which was served by certified mail upon Williamson. The
Charge alleged violations of SCR 3.130(1.3) for failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness, SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) for failure for keep Dalton
informed of her case, SCR 3.130(1.4)(b) for failure to explain matters
sufficiently to Dalton, SCR 3.130(1.16)(d) for failure to return any unearned fee
upon termination of representation, and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b) for Williamson's
failure to respond to the Inquiry Commission. Williamson did not answer the
Charge. OBC moved to suspend Williamson on February 11, 2021, for her
failure to answer and on March 7, 2022, this court issued an order to
Williamson to show cause why she should not be suspended. Williamson did
not respond. We suspended Williamson from the practice of law indefinitely on
3
June 16, 2022. The OBC submitted this matter to the Board by default
pursuant to SCR 3.210 and upon its review the Board found Williamson guilty
of all counts save the violation of SCR 3.130(1.16)(d). The Board then issued
the recommendation before us now.
II. PRIOR DISCIPLINE
Williamson's sole instance of prior discipline was her indefinite
suspension by this Court's June 16, 2022 order for her failure to answer the
charge now at issue.
III. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
The known applicable aggravating factors include: (1) bad faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply
with rules or order of the disciplinary agency; (2) vulnerability of the victim;
and (3) Williamson's substantial experience in the practice of law.
As a mitigating factor we note that Williamson in her 28 years as a
member of the bar has no history of prior discipline outside of this matter.
Further, the record indicates that Williamson performed sufficient work to earn
the fee paid by Dalton and Williamson was ultimately able to finalize Dalton's
divorce and provide Dalton with half of Dalton's ex-husband's 401k.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Board recommends that Williamson be suspended for 30 days and
be ordered to pay the costs associated with this action. Having reviewed the
record, we agree that the Board reached the appropriate conclusions as to
Williamson's guilt. Williamson has not filed a notice to this Court to review the
4
Board's decision, and we do not elect to review the decision of the Board under
SCR 3.370(8). Accordingly, the decision of the Board is adopted under SCR
3.370(9).
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Melissa Jan Williamson is found guilty of violating SCR 3.130(1.3),
SCR 3.130(1.4)(a), SCR 3.130(1.4)(b), and SCR 3.130(8.1)(b).;
2. Melissa Jan Williamson is suspended from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky for 30 days.
3. Under SCR 3.390, Williamson:
a. shall notify all clients in writing of her inability to continue to
represent them and shall furnish copies of all such letters to the
Director of the Kentucky Bar Association. These notices shall
be mailed or emailed to the respective clients within ten (10)
days or the entry of this Order, if not already mailed.
Williamson shall make arrangements to return all active files to
the client or new counsel and shall return all unearned attorney
fees and client property to the client and shall advise the
Director of such arrangements within the ten (10) day period;
b. must not, during the term of suspension and until
reinstatement, accept new clients or collect unearned fees;
c. must immediately cancel any pending advertisements; must
terminate any advertising activity for the duration of the term of
5
suspension; and must not allow her name to be used by a law
firm in any manner until she is reinstated.
4. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Williamson is directed to pay all costs
associated with these disciplinary proceedings against her, said sum
being $198.18, for which execution may issue from this Court upon
finality of this Opinion and Order.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: March 23, 2023.
______________________________________
CHIEF JUSTICE
6