State Bar of Georgia · ADA Access Diary · Day 8 of 25
NeSmith issued a written ADA-coverage denial at 2:12 PM, sent to me only with all institutional recipients stripped. At 6:37 PM NeSmith sent a one-line meeting offer ("I am available at 11.30 only"), again to me only. I sent two emails: a forward to the President asking whether NeSmith's letter is the Bar's official position, and a formal response to NeSmith restoring the cc list. Late that evening (8:54 PM) I accepted the meeting and made access requests.
What had to be true
For NeSmith's denial to stand, the Bar had to take the position that it is "not a public entity" subject to Title II, directly opposite to Shiptenko granting accommodations days earlier. For me to ask "who speaks for the Bar," two officials had to be writing contradictory positions about the same matter.
What I argued
- Asked the President to confirm in writing "whether Mr. NeSmith's letter is the official position of the State Bar of Georgia."
- Rejected the motive accusation: "I did not invoke ADA access to force a disciplinary outcome." "I did not lose the evidence. I did not misclassify the evidence… The Bar did."
- Asked whether the Bar agrees it is "not a Title II public entity" and has "no obligation to publish an ADA Coordinator."
- Demanded the Bar state whether the April 10 dismissal is "operative, vacated, superseded, or under reconsideration."
- (Evening) Requested use of assistive note-taking software in the meeting under "28 C.F.R. Section 35.160(b)(1) effective communication and Section 35.130(b)(7) reasonable modification," a single institutional point of contact, and "Please do not transmit further correspondence in this matter to me alone."
What the Bar said
NeSmith (2:12 PM): "The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity," "we are not required to have a published ADA Coordinator," "it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions," and "Your invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation for a functional limitation and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome." NeSmith (6:37 PM): "I am available at 11.30 only."
What it cost
I had to reconstruct and restore the institutional distribution that NeSmith stripped, then reorganize his schedule for the offered meeting. I documented relying on paid assistive technology to do this rebuilding.
The documents from this day
- The Bar told me it is not a public entity subject to the ADA
- I forwarded the Deputy General Counsel’s ADA denial and asked leadership to confirm the Bar’s position
- I answered the Bar’s claim that it is not subject to the ADA
- The Deputy General Counsel replied on the Bar’s ADA position
- I confirmed the meeting and asked for the access and dial-in details
Read the full story on the State Bar page. See the record in the document room.