Date: May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM ET
From: Deputy General Counsel William D. NeSmith III
To: The complainant (only)
To / Cc: (all institutional recipients removed)
Subject: ADA response
Transcript (redacted):
> I write in response to your email and attached correspondence directed to Mr. John Shiptenko. I am responding on behalf of the State Bar of Georgia concerning the issues you characterize as relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
>
> The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency. The State Bar receives no federal, state, or local governmental funding. Its assets are owned by the State Bar of Georgia itself and not by the State of Georgia. Although the State Bar serves as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia pursuant to the Court’s authority over the regulation of the legal profession, it nevertheless remains a private, member-funded, and member-governed organization. The State Bar of Georgia is not a department or agency of the State of Georgia, therefore we are not required to have a published ADA Coordinator.
>
> Notwithstanding, the State Bar of Georgia has made efforts to accommodate your needs.
>
> Your submissions were initially misclassified as supplemental correspondence rather than as timely rebuttals to [the respondent attorney]’s response. That administrative error has been corrected, and all of your submissions are now included in the grievance file. A grievance counsel has been assigned to review your request for reconsideration. Your previously requested accommodations – written-only communication and accessible format documents – were granted on May 4, 2026.
>
> At this time, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or in understanding or responding to correspondence from the State Bar. Your communications have been detailed, articulate, and demonstrate a thorough understanding of both legal standards and the Bar’s grievance procedures. Based on the record before me, the accommodations already provided appear sufficient to enable your meaningful participation in this process.
>
> 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 in the grievance and reconsideration process, or toward establishing a basis for further legal action against the State Bar. To the extent that is the case, please be advised that the ADA does not require a public entity – even assuming that characterization applied – to guarantee any particular substantive outcome in a grievance proceeding or to alter the merits-based evaluation of a complaint.
>
> In an effort to address the situation in the manner the State Bar believes is most productive and beneficial, the State Bar has taken the following steps: (1) corrected the administrative misclassification of your submissions; (2) confirmed that all materials are now in the grievance file; (3) assigned grievance counsel to review your request for reconsideration; (4) granted your accommodation requests for written-only communication and accessible format; and (5) continued to process your grievance in accordance with applicable procedures.
>
> You are welcome to continue to correspond with Mr. Shiptenko regarding any specific, good-faith requests for accommodation that would help you participate in the grievance process. However, please understand that the ADA accommodation process is not a mechanism for directing the Bar’s internal review process or for dictating the terms, timeline, or outcome of the reconsideration.
What this shows: The Deputy General Counsel wrote that the Bar “is not a public entity,” that it is “not required to have a published ADA Coordinator,” and that the complainant’s “invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation for a functional limitation and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome,” days after another Bar official had granted accommodations.