William D. NeSmith III Decided I Needed No Help. Then He Went Silent.

As of October 17, 2026. Times are Eastern.

The Man Who Decided I Did Not Need Help:

On May 12, 2026, at 2:12 PM, William D. NeSmith III wrote me: “Based upon your communications, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process.”

I am a disabled dad who likes dogs, donuts, and dad jokes. I write with assistive technology.

It was his first email to me. It asks me not one question. He read my emails, the ones my software helped me write, and decided from them that I did not need help writing.

The State Bar of Georgia’s own biography says he “regularly teaches continuing legal education courses in ethics and professionalism for the State Bar of Georgia”. It says he served on the Bar’s disciplinary Investigative Panel for seven years: “Served as Chair.”

Then he went further. In the same email: “From the substance of your correspondence, it appears that your invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation or access assistance and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome regarding the underlying grievance matter.”

I asked for access. He wrote back about my motives.

What I Allege:

1. He questioned my motive for asking. I allege that on May 12, 2026, at 2:12 PM, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, wrote that my ADA request “may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation or access assistance and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome regarding the underlying grievance matter.” It appears to me that a lawyer who teaches ethics put a motive on a disabled man’s request for help, in writing, to that man alone. Source: his May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM email.
2. He decided I did not need help. I allege that in the same email he wrote that “it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process.” I allege that he wrote it after his mailbox had opened my April 30, 2026 ADA accommodation request at 3:26 PM that day, and in an email that itself refers to “your April 30 submission.” Sources: his May 12, 2:12 PM email; the April 30, 2026 read receipt.
3. The rug pull. I allege that he offered me a meeting at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2026 (“I am available at 11.30 only.”), that his mailbox opened my acceptance at 9:25 PM, and that at 7:34 AM on May 13 he wrote “there is no meeting between you and I at 11:30.” Sources: his 7:34 AM email with the 6:37 PM email quoted inside it; the 9:25 PM read receipt. Full page: the rug pull
4. A broken promise on deadline day. I allege that at 1:29 PM on May 13, 2026 he wrote “I will do my best to provide my response tomorrow,” that tomorrow was May 14, the last day of the written cure window I had set, and that no email from him came that day. Sources: his May 13, 1:29 PM email; my May 12, 8:54 PM email (“The May 14, 2026, 17:00 ET cure window remains in effect.”); my mailbox for May 14.
5. He shut the door outside “formal legal process.” I allege that at 11:05 AM on May 15, 2026, writing “as counsel for the State Bar of Georgia,” he told me “the State Bar of Georgia will not engage in further substantive correspondence with you concerning your threatened claims or the allegations set forth in your recent communications outside formal legal process.” In the same email he called my correspondence “substantial speculation, hyperbole, and incorrect factual assertions.” The same email said the limit “does not apply to correspondence related specifically to a requested accommodation”. Source: his May 15, 2026, 11:05 AM email.
6. A habit of reading and ignoring. I allege that from May 18 to September 19, 2026 I sent him seven written requests, that his mailbox returned a read receipt on every one, and that he answered none of them. They are listed on his profile. As of October 17, 2026, his mailbox has returned 11 read receipts on my emails since his last email to me. Sources: the read receipts in my mailbox; the “Requests I Made That Were Ignored” table on his profile.
7. The silent treatment. I allege that his last email to me was sent May 15, 2026, at 11:05 AM, and that as of October 17, 2026 he has sent me none in 155 days. Source: my mailbox, every message from his address.
8. The rubber stamp that cleared him. I allege that on May 15, 2026 I filed a grievance against him, and that on June 30, 2026 Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Chair of the State Disciplinary Board, dismissed it in a three sentence letter, emailed at 4:27 PM with William D. NeSmith III copied. The letter says: “I find no basis for this grievance to be forwarded to the State Bar Disciplinary Board for investigation”. No investigation was opened. Source: the June 30, 2026 dismissal letter and its email. Full page: the grievance and the dismissal

Eight acts, as of October 17, 2026. Seven are his. The eighth is the letter that cleared him. On May 13, 2026 I wrote him what I thought it was: “Five, after five documented requests to stop, is not confusion. It is harassment.” I have not changed my mind.

What It Did to a Disabled Dad:

Every reply I sent cost me time, stamina and the price of the software I write with. I spent it on the State Bar of Georgia because I believed the people who run the lawyers’ ethics office would treat a disabled man fairly. On May 12 I learned that one of them had decided I did not need help. In the same email he wondered what I was really after.

What This Page Does Not Say:

This page does not say why William D. NeSmith III wrote what he wrote. It does not say what my grievance against him alleged. The word harassment is my opinion, written in my own May 13, 2026 email and based on the dated acts above. The quotations are his.

I have invited the State Bar of Georgia to identify any inaccuracy on this page. As of October 17, 2026, it has identified none.

Back to William D. NeSmith III