ADA Matters Because All People Matter

A DISABLED DAD’S ADA MATTERS
Georgia on My Mind
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA • CITY OF BROOKHAVEN • GIRMA, GMA, AND GALLAGHER BASSETT • GEORGIA POST • STATE ADA COORDINATOR’S OFFICE

John J. Shiptenko Reversed in Five Days: Bar Is “not a public entity”

As of October 17, 2026. Times are Eastern.

On May 4, 2026 the State Bar of Georgia’s ADA contact granted my requests. By May 29 Shiptenko wrote that the Bar is not subject to Title II at all. In between, one email to me and one to the State’s ADA Coordinator told two different stories.

This is the rug pull, in four emails.

On May 4, 2026, at 10:56 AM, John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, wrote to me: “The OGC is granting the following ADA accommodations requested by you.” Written only communication. Accessible files. An offer to pause the review. “The State Bar wants to ensure that you have the same rights and opportunities as non-disabled grievants.”

Three days later came the double talk. At 10:01 AM on May 7, 2026, Shiptenko wrote to me: “A public entity can have numerous ADA coordinators.” Then: “We have more than one, depending on the program, service, or activity that the disabled individual needs to access. I am one of the designated ADA Coordinators”.

At 2:35 PM on May 12, 2026, Shiptenko wrote to someone else. Not to me. To Stacey Peace, the State ADA Coordinator. I was not copied. I first saw that email when her office produced it to me under the Georgia Open Records Act on September 22, 2026. It said: “I failed to clarify the institutional status of the State Bar of Georgia. The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state, or local government department or agency.”

Twenty three minutes earlier, at 2:12 PM, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, had sent me the same position in nearly the same words. Two lawyers. Two audiences. Twenty three minutes apart.

Thirty four minutes after Shiptenko’s email, at 3:09 PM, Stacey Peace answered Shiptenko: “there are instances where State Bars have been held to be Title II entities under the ADA due to State Bars serving as administrative arms of state supreme courts or state governments.” That is her view, sent as notice. It is not a court ruling. But the Bar had it in writing on May 12.

The next day, at 12:08 PM on May 13, 2026, Shiptenko wrote: “The State Bar has approved your accommodation request.”

Then the denial. At 3:15 PM on May 29, 2026, Shiptenko wrote: “To be clear, the State Bar’s position remains that it is not subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” And: “the State Bar absolutely will not engage in litigation-oriented questioning, legal debate, or adversarial email correspondence concerning statutory interpretation, legal theories, institutional liability, or anticipated claims.”

On June 2, 2026 I put my own name on it in a subject line to the Bar’s leaders: “accommodations granted then denied May 29, 2026.” Nobody wrote back to say I had it wrong.

What I Allege:

  1. The grant. I allege that on May 4, 2026, at 10:56 AM, John J. Shiptenko wrote, “The OGC is granting the following ADA accommodations requested by you,” and listed written only communication and accessible formats.
  2. The public entity line. I allege that on May 7, 2026, at 10:01 AM, Shiptenko wrote to me, “A public entity can have numerous ADA coordinators,” and, “I am one of the designated ADA Coordinators”.
  3. Double talk, in private. I allege that on May 12, 2026, at 2:35 PM, in an email to the State ADA Coordinator that did not copy me, Shiptenko wrote, “The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state, or local government department or agency.”
  4. Notice from the State. I allege that at 3:09 PM the same day, the State ADA Coordinator wrote back that State Bars “have been held to be Title II entities under the ADA.”
  5. The approval. I allege that on May 13, 2026, at 12:08 PM, Shiptenko wrote, “The State Bar has approved your accommodation request.”
  6. The denial. I allege that on May 29, 2026, at 3:15 PM, Shiptenko wrote, “the State Bar’s position remains that it is not subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” and that “such obligations would arise under Title III rather than Title II.”
  7. The door shut. I allege that in the same May 29 email Shiptenko wrote that “the State Bar absolutely will not engage” in what it called “adversarial email correspondence,” and wrote that I “must direct all those questions to Deputy General Counsel Bill NeSmith.”
  8. Upon information and belief, the Bar never told me, in any email I hold, which of its two May statements it stands behind: the one that called it “a public entity” with “numerous ADA coordinators,” or the one that called it “not a public entity.”

What It Did to Me:

I am a disabled dad who writes with voice software. I asked for help to take part in a process. I got a yes on May 4. Then I learned the Bar was telling the State one thing and telling me another. By May 29 the yes came with a sign on the door. The Bar would not discuss whether the law even applies to it.

Is this how they would treat their own family or friends that were disabled?

Back to John J. Shiptenko · What Is ADA Title II?

ADA Matters welcomes documented corrections. Write to info@adamatters.com with the correct fact and its source.