I Asked Russell D. Willard and Damon E. Elmore of the Georgia Bar: Who Is Your ADA Coordinator?

From: the complainant
Subject: Written Request for ADA Route, HR Complaint Status, Rule Authority, Evidence Custody, and Rule 4-224 Classification
Attachments: 1 PDF.

Mr. Willard and Mr. Elmore:

This is not a merits submission. It is not a grievance supplement. It does not ask the State Bar to reconsider any disciplinary determination through this email.

This is a written request for institutional answers from the officials responsible for the Bar’s rules, records, access process, and preservation obligations.

I am directing this request to you because the questions concern institutional authority, custody of records, ADA access routing, grievance classification, and preservation. I am not copying Chair DeLoach on this request because part of the request concerns the authority under which State Disciplinary Board involvement occurred in grievances involving Office of the General Counsel personnel. The substantive answer should come from institutional custodians who are not the subject of that authority question.

If records responsive to this request are held by Chair DeLoach, the State Disciplinary Board, the Clerk of the State Disciplinary Boards, or any related office, please preserve and obtain those records through the appropriate internal channel.

I am asking for written answers to five categories:

1. the current ADA route and responsible employee;
2. the status of the June 8 HR complaint;
3. the rule authority and screening standard applied to the June 30 determinations;
4. ████████████████████████; and
5. the Rule 4-224 classification and preservation status of the dismissed grievance records.

Please respond on or before Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 5:00 PM Eastern.

I. ADA ROUTE AND PUBLIC DESIGNATION

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits exclusion from, denial of benefits of, or discrimination in the services, programs, or activities of a public entity by reason of disability.

The implementing regulations are specific.

28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a) requires a covered public entity with 50 or more employees to designate at least one employee to coordinate Title II compliance and to make available to interested persons the name, office address, and telephone number of the designated employee or employees.

28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b) requires the same entity to adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging disability discrimination.

28 C.F.R. § 35.106 requires the entity to make available to applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons information regarding Title II and its applicability to the entity’s services, programs, or activities.

Designation and publication are not the same thing.

A responsible employee who exists only inside internal correspondence has not been made publicly available to interested persons. A disabled member of the public should not have to email individual Bar employees for months to learn who handles disability access in the attorney discipline process.

Please answer:

1. Who is the State Bar’s current ADA Coordinator or responsible employee for disabled members of the public using the attorney discipline process?

2. Where is that person identified publicly?

3. Where is the disability grievance procedure for disabled public users of the attorney discipline process published?

4. If the Bar contends that it employs fewer than 50 persons, please state that position in writing.

5. If the Bar contends that it is not subject to Title II for the attorney discipline process, please state that position in writing and identify who made that determination, when, and on what authority.

6. If the Bar contends that another judicial branch entity holds the Title II designation and grievance procedure obligation for the attorney discipline process, please identify that entity, the person responsible, and the published procedure.

The six June 30 dispositions issued from “Dismissal” <OGCNoReply@gabar.org>, a no reply mailbox. They were decisions a member of the public could not answer, sent from an address that could not receive an answer, copying the respondents.

II. JUNE 8 HR COMPLAINT

On June 8, 2026, I sent a written HR complaint to Sandra Dixon, Director of Human Resources, with Bar leadership copied.

I requested confirmation by close of business the next day.

I did not receive a substantive response.

On September 5, 2026, I sent a follow up to Human Resources. The read receipt shows that COO Sarah Coole read that follow up on September 6, 2026 at 2:09 PM Eastern. As of September 14, 2026, I have received no human acknowledgment.

That silence matters because the June 8 complaint did not ask HR to decide the merits of a grievance. It asked for a conflict screened employee conduct and access review outside the same chain whose conduct was being challenged.

Please answer:

1. Was the June 8 HR complaint logged?

2. Was it assigned?

3. Was it investigated?

4. Was it forwarded?

5. Was it closed?

6. If it was forwarded, identify the date, recipient, transmittal, and current status.

7. If it was closed without response, identify who made that decision and on what basis.

8. If it was not logged or assigned, state that plainly.

9. If the Bar contends that HR is not the correct route for a complaint by a disabled member of the public concerning ADA access and employee conduct, identify the correct route in writing.

This request does not alter any separate deadline already pending regarding the June 8 HR complaint, including the September 18 deadline previously noticed.

III. RULE AUTHORITY, SCREENING STANDARD, AND JUNE 30 DETERMINATIONS

The April 10 and June 30 determinations created a record problem that requires institutional clarification.

The April 10, 2026 dismissal of Grievance No. ██████-█████ invoked the proof quantum. It stated: “Violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct must be proven by a ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard.”

The pattern therefore predates June 30.

In the ████████ dismissal, Ms. Nash wrote that I had “failed to satisfy the elements that would sustain a referral of this matter to the State Disciplinary Board.” She then invoked the clear and convincing evidence standard and concluded that there was “insufficient evidence presented” that Mr. ████████’s conduct rose to the level of violating the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

That language placed the evidentiary burden on the complainant at screening.

Rule 4-202 gives the Office of the General Counsel the screening and evidence collection function. It authorizes the Office to collect evidence and information, request subpoena assistance, forward a grievance to the respondent for response, dismiss matters that do not present sufficient merit to proceed, and forward matters that appear to allege a violation.

Rule 4-221.2 states: “In all proceedings under this Chapter, the burden of proof shall be on the State Bar of Georgia.” It further states that, in proceedings after a finding of Probable Cause, the quantum of proof required of the State Bar shall be clear and convincing evidence.

The rule places the burden of proof on the State Bar. Ms. Nash’s ████████ letter found “insufficient evidence presented” and placed that burden on the complainant.

Those are different stages and different burdens.

The issue is not whether a dismissal may consider the sufficiency of evidence. The issue is whether a public complainant can be required to satisfy the State Bar’s ultimate post probable cause proof burden before referral, before respondent answer, before subpoena power, and before the Office uses the collection tools Rule 4-202 gives it.

The same problem appears in the June 30 ███████ reconsideration determination.

That letter states that the Office “does not act as a trier of fact in resolving contested versions of events ████████████████████████.” It then concludes that the evidence does not establish, “by clear and convincing evidence,” a violation by ███████.

Those two statements do not sit comfortably together.

The Office cannot disclaim a trier of fact role while applying a trial quantum of proof to close a matter at the screening or reconsideration stage. If the Office used clear and convincing evidence only as shorthand for whether the Bar could ultimately prove a violation, then the letters should say that. They do not. They say the evidence presented was insufficient, and they place that insufficiency on the complainant.

That is the burden shift.

It is also not universal office language.

Chair DeLoach’s June 30 dispositions involving Morrison, NeSmith, Burgess, and Shiptenko used the referral or investigation formulation. In ███████-Burgess 1, the native PDF identifies a fourteen page narrative, fourteen pages of exhibits, and review for violations of Rules 8.4, 5.1, and 5.3. In ███████-NeSmith 1, Chair DeLoach wrote that he found “no basis for this grievance to be forwarded to the State Bar Disciplinary Board for investigation.”

Rule 4-202(e) states the Office’s own screening test: “Upon completion of its screening of a matter, the Office of the General Counsel shall be empowered to dismiss those matters that do not present sufficient merit to proceed.”

Those are screening formulations.

Ms. Nash’s two June 30 determinations used the proof quantum. The April 10 dismissal used it too.

In my own grievance against Mr. ███████, the Office used the Rule 4-202(c) process. It forwarded Grievance No. ██████-█████ to Mr. ███████, who submitted a sworn response dated February 2, 2026, and that response was provided to me. I submitted rebuttal material on February 3 and February 20, 2026. The April 10, 2026 dismissal nonetheless stated that “we did not receive a rebuttal.” On April 21, 2026, Assistant General Counsel Burgess wrote: “You are correct that we received emails from you on February 3, 2026, and February 20, 2026.”

Please answer:

1. What exact standard was applied to the ████████ grievance at screening?

2. What exact standard was applied to the ███████ reconsideration determination?

3. What rule authorizes the Office to apply the clear and convincing evidence quantum before a finding of probable cause?

4. What rule authorizes the Office to assign the burden of evidentiary presentation to the complainant before referral or investigation?

5. Was Mr. ████████ asked to respond before dismissal?

6. If Mr. ████████ was not asked to respond, why not?

7. Was any conflict screen performed before a grievance involving Mr. ████████, ████████████████████████, was screened and dismissed?

8. If a conflict screen was performed, identify who performed it, what records were reviewed, and what conclusion was reached.

9. If the Bar contends that the clear and convincing evidence language was merely standard dismissal language, explain why Chair DeLoach’s dispositions in the same record used the referral or investigation formulation, and why Rule 4-202(e) states a sufficient merit test, instead.

IV. AUTHORITY FOR ROUTING OGC PERSONNEL GRIEVANCES

Several grievances involving Office of the General Counsel personnel were screened or dismissed through a process that appears to have involved Chair DeLoach or the State Disciplinary Board.

That may have been appropriate. But the authority for it has not been identified to me.

The question is not whether Chair DeLoach acted in good faith. The question is what rule, internal procedure, conflict screen, delegation, or appointment authorized the routing, and what records exist showing that process.

Both June 30 determinations signed by Ms. Nash issued on Office of the General Counsel letterhead listing Russell D. Willard, General Counsel, and, among the Office’s lawyers, Leigh Burgess, Andreea N. Morrison, Adrienne D. Nash, William D. NeSmith, III, and John J. Shiptenko.

Please answer:

1. What written rule governs routing of grievances against lawyers employed in the Office of the General Counsel?

2. What written rule governs conflict screening when a grievance concerns the Office’s own conduct?

3. What written rule authorizes routing such grievances to the Chair of the State Disciplinary Board?

4. What role, if any, did the Office of the General Counsel play in receiving, logging, screening, summarizing, transmitting, or preparing materials for those grievances?

5. What role, if any, did Chair DeLoach play in screening, dismissing, or preserving those files?

6. What role, if any, did the Clerk of the State Disciplinary Boards play?

7. Were internal rules of the State Disciplinary Board or rules of the Clerk of the State Disciplinary Boards applied?

8. If yes, please identify the rule numbers or produce the relevant public citation.

9. If no written rule exists, please state that plainly.

████████████████████████

VII. RULE 4-224 CLASSIFICATION AND EXPUNGEMENT

Rule 4-224(a)(1) states that “those matters closed by the Office of the General Counsel after screening pursuant to Rule 4-202 (e) shall be expunged after one year.”

Rule 4-224(a)(2) states that “those matters dismissed by the State Disciplinary Board after a Probable Cause investigation pursuant to Rule 4-204 (a) shall be expunged after two years.”

The June 30 record includes Office of the General Counsel letters and State Disciplinary Board Chair letters.

A Chair’s dismissal with no identified Probable Cause investigation appears to fit neither quoted category. That makes classification unavoidable.

Please answer:

1. For each June 30 disposition, state whether the Bar classifies it as an OGC screening dismissal, a State Disciplinary Board dismissal after Probable Cause investigation, or some other category.

2. For each matter, state the Rule 4-224 expungement category the Bar contends applies.

3. For each matter, state the calculated expungement or destruction date.

4. For each matter, state whether a preservation hold is now in effect.

5. If a preservation hold is not in effect, identify who made that decision and on what basis.

A response by September 24, 2026, also permits the expungement classification question to be resolved well before any expungement date the Bar may have calculated.

VIII. PRESERVATION DEMAND

Preserve, effective immediately, all records relating to the matters described above.

This preservation demand includes all records held by or accessible to the Office of the General Counsel, the Executive Director, Human Resources, the President, the State Disciplinary Board, Chair DeLoach, the Clerk of the State Disciplinary Boards, any no reply or shared mailbox, and any records custodian or vendor used by the Bar.

The preserved records include:

1. assignment records;
2. screening records;
3. conflict screen records;
4. internal routing records;
5. drafts;
6. edits;
7. approvals;
8. metadata;
9. message traces;
10. mailbox audit logs;
11. SendAs records;
12. SendOnBehalf records;
13. distribution lists;
14. case management entries;
15. ████████████████;
16. cloud sharing logs;
17. download logs;
18. ████████████████;
19. records concerning the June 8 HR complaint;
20. records concerning the current ADA Coordinator or responsible employee;
21. records concerning any public ADA route or grievance procedure;
22. ████████████████;
23. records concerning Rule 4-224 classification;
24. records concerning expungement or destruction dates;
25. records concerning any preservation hold already applied or declined.

████████████████████████

IX. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

Please respond in writing only.

Do not call me.

Do not direct me to a telephone number as the primary route.

On May 4, 2026, the Office of the General Counsel granted written only communication and accessible electronic format as accommodations, and that grant remains in effect.

Please provide your written response on or before Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 5:00 PM Eastern.

If the Bar contends that it cannot answer any item because of confidentiality, internal process, privilege, lack of authority, or any other ground, state three things in writing:

1. the specific ground for refusal;
2. the specific rule, statute, policy, or privilege relied on; and
3. the name and title of the person who made that determination.

A general assertion of confidentiality is not an answer.

Confidentiality cannot reasonably prevent the Bar from identifying its current ADA contact, its published disability grievance route, who received the June 8 HR complaint, what screening standard was used, what Rule 4-224 classification applies, or whether unredacted evidence was accessed, copied, retained, returned, restricted, or preserved.

If the Bar contends that any requested action would create an undue burden, fundamental alteration, confidentiality problem, or other access limitation, state that position in writing and identify the person with authority to make that determination. Where a public entity claims that compliance would work a fundamental alteration or an undue burden, 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 requires the decision to be made by the head of the entity or a designee, made in writing, and supported by written reasons.

All prior accommodation requests, objections, claims, and rights are expressly reserved.

Respectfully,

██████ ███████

I am a person with a disability. I request written communication by email in an accessible electronic format as a reasonable modification and for effective communication under 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7) and 35.160. I use assistive technology to prepare written communications, so please allow for occasional typographical errors and identify any portion that requires clarification.