State Bar of Georgia · ADA Access Diary · Day 20 of 25
I sent a follow-up reporting that a grievance I had filed against a Bar official produced no confirmation at all, because I could not use the portal and the alternate route generated no receipt.
What had to be true
For there to be "no confirmation," the only automatic-confirmation route (the portal) had to be incompatible with my assistive technology, leaving me dependent on a third party who was unavailable.
What I argued
- The intake system has now failed on the same access issue more than once. The on-disk draft states: "This is the second time the Bar's intake system has failed me on the same access issue." (The Question Ledger renders the sent line as "This is the third time in four months I have had to chase confirmation that the Bar received what I sent." The "third time" wording is UNVERIFIED as the as-sent text; the mailbox could not be retrieved.)
- "I could not use the portal. The portal is not compatible with the assistive technology I use to file."
- Three written demands: confirmation of receipt with date and time; "An accessible way to file and to receive confirmation of receipt that does not require me to depend on a third party"; and the Bar's record of receipt.
- The principle: "A disabled person should be able to file a complaint and know it arrived. I should not have to ask twice."
What the Bar said
Addressed in the June 2 reply (below).
What it cost
I had to prove delivery of my own complaint a second time, and document that I depends on a third party to file at all: "I have relied on a third party to help me complete portal submissions. That person was not available when I needed to file." The repetition ("I should not have to ask twice") is the burden in my own words.
The documents from this day
Read the full story on the State Bar page. See the record in the document room.