Date: October 27, 2026, 5:21 PM ET
From: The complainant
To: Senior Assistant General Counsel and ADA Coordinator John J. Shiptenko, State Bar of Georgia
Cc: General Counsel Russell D. Willard and the State Bar recipients of his October 21 email, the State ADA Coordinator’s Office, and ADA Matters
Subject: Open ADA Issues, New Grievances and Title II Complaints, and ADA Request
Transcript typed from the native sent message. Only names and personal details are removed, each marked in brackets. Nothing else is reworded.
Transcript:
Mr. Shiptenko,
The State Bar of Georgia has a complete, systemic disregard for ADA law. No matter how many times it says it is compliant, or that it has dealt with these issues, it has not. They still exist.
For six months your office has tried to get out of its federal responsibilities under Title II. That effort has now turned into harassment of me. Mr. Willard’s October 21 email is in the record.
What I asked for on day one
On April 20, 2026, my first ADA request went to Mr. Willard and his office. It asked for six things:
“Written/email communication with the Office in this matter.” Granted May 4. On October 21 Mr. Willard wrote that I “should not expect to hear directly from any State Bar-affiliated personnel regarding anything arising from these seven dismissed grievances or their appropriate disposition.”
“A single named Office contact with a direct email address.” Never. On May 7 I was told to write to two people. Sixteen State Bar addresses have written to me since.
Written confirmation that what I send is received and “placed before the reviewing attorney before any further disposition is issued.” Once, on May 21, for one submission. On May 20 you wrote: “You can contact Ms. Nash directly to verify her receipt.”
“Reasonable deadline flexibility for surgery, hospitalization, recovery, or related medical limitations.” Offered May 4.
“Identification of the State Bar’s published accommodation procedure for grievance participants, if one exists.” Never identified. None is published.
“Preservation of all records concerning this accommodation request.” Never confirmed in writing.
Six requests. One granted, then cut off. One offered. One done once. Three never done. The next day, April 21, I sent your office a WCAG 2.1 audit of gabar.org. No one has answered it in writing.
Your complaint system is still not accessible
As of October 27, 2026, I can find no page on the State Bar’s website that tells a person how to file an ADA complaint about the State Bar or its own lawyers, and no published ADA grievance procedure. Your homepage has no link to anything about the ADA, accessibility or accommodations. So I am filing with you.
The accessibility notice at the bottom of my emails
This was not a request made once and forgotten. In May, the footer to my emails explained that I use assistive technology and voice to text to write and offered to clarify errors. By May 29, it asked the recipient to identify the specific passage so I could clarify it in writing. Starting September 14, it expressly requested email communication in an accessible electronic format as a reasonable modification and for effective communication, with 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7) and 35.160 cited. That statement was on my October 7 email to Mr. Willard. His October 21 reply answered that very message. The access request was in front of the person who answered it.
New grievances and Title II complaints
These are new. They are not the same as any complaint I have submitted before.
Your office never answers who gets what. Your intake system is still not ADA compliant, six months after easy fixes that would make it so. So here they are. Your team can figure it out. I am done doing your job.
My grievance against Russell D. Willard, General Counsel, about his October 21 email and the six months before it.
My second grievance against William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, on what has happened since June 30, 2026.
My grievance against Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Chair, State Disciplinary Board, about the four letters he signed on June 30, 2026.
My Title II complaint about the Office of the General Counsel, as to the conduct of Mr. Willard and Mr. NeSmith, attached to this email and filed with you as the State Bar’s ADA Coordinator, with my October 7 complaint attached as filed.
My Title II complaint about Human Resources, as to the conduct of Ms. Dixon, attached to this email and filed with you as the State Bar’s ADA Coordinator, with my October 7 complaint attached as filed.
Twelve ADA issues still in dispute as of October 27, 2026
My attached ADA request identifies twelve issues I continue to dispute as unresolved. Those issues are not twelve new Title II complaints. They are the outstanding access, routing and effective communication questions I have raised over the past six months. I first raised them on these dates:
April 30: a reliable, named ADA contact for routing and effective communication, not merely an address to which I can send email.
May 15: an accessible, independent route when a grievance concerns a lawyer who handles my ADA requests.
May 18 and October 9: the State Bar’s published ADA complaint and grievance procedure.
June 30: a written route to respond to grievance decisions sent from a mailbox that does not accept replies.
May 18: the ADA contact notice on the grievance form. The form changed in June without notice to me.
By May 12: written procedures for submitting and verifying receipt of video evidence.
May 18: identification of the ADA role referred to on the Spanish language form.
June 8: acknowledgment and handling of my Human Resources disability complaint.
June 17: an independent person to review an ADA request involving a lawyer I had grieved. You closed my October 7 matter on October 8; I still seek an answer to this issue.
May 12: a proposed telephone meeting that was withdrawn May 13, without a replacement.
September 14: the outcome of the review of ADA notices and processes that you described on May 7.
September 14: written assurance about preservation of records while federal complaints remain pending.
Closing a request is not the same as supplying a written answer to each question. A form that was changed is not evidence that every other issue was addressed. Please identify, for each of these twelve, the dated decision or answer you say resolved it, or the named person who will answer it. I also attach fifteen specific questions about these filings. Please answer those in writing by November 9, 2026, at 5 PM, and confirm receipt of each attachment now.
Parking
Your own parking page says the deck at the Bar Center clears 6’8″ and tells anyone in a taller vehicle to “find alternate parking arrangements.” The 2010 ADA Standards require 98 inches of vertical clearance for van accessible spaces. Third party parking sites list an ADA and van accessible entrance on Ted Turner Drive. Your own page does not mention it. It says nothing about accessible parking at all. A disabled visitor in a raised roof van who reads your page is told to go somewhere else.
“NOT TERRIBLY HANDICAP FRIENDLY”
That is not my line. It is from a five star public review of the Bar Center, posted on Yelp on August 27, 2013. The reviewer called it an “Absolutely fabulous facility.” Then wrote that “the 6th level is where you enter” and: “NOT TERRIBLY HANDICAP FRIENDLY, as stairs and no elevator between deck floors.” It has been public for thirteen years. I do not know if it is still true. Your website does not say.
Title II requires a public entity to make sure people can “obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.163(a). It requires signs at inaccessible entrances “directing users to an accessible entrance or to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.163(b).
Before anyone walks the building
Count it. Twelve open ADA issues are listed above and in my request, attached. This email adds four: the website, the parking information, job postings with no way to ask for an accommodation, and a “physical labor” requirement on a lawyer’s job. That is at least sixteen, and no one has yet inspected the Bar Center, where most access problems are found.
When the Department of Justice reviews government buildings, it keeps finding the same problems. Its own list includes: “Parking garages do not have adequate vertical clearance for vans.” “There are no ‘van accessible’ spaces.” “The route has steps but no ramp.” “Round doorknob hardware prevents someone who cannot grasp or turn a doorknob from entering.” “Doors are too heavy to open.” “Grab bars are missing or too short.” “Jury boxes and witness stands can only be accessed by climbing a step.” “No assistive listening systems are provided for people who are hard of hearing.” The Bar Center has a courtroom, a conference center and a parking deck. I am not saying any of these is true at the Bar Center. I am asking you to tell me which are not.
Send me the State Bar’s ADA self evaluation and its transition plan for the Bar Center, if they exist. 28 C.F.R. § 35.105(c); 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(1). If they do not exist, say so.
Job postings
None of your three current job postings tells a disabled applicant how to ask for an accommodation. Two of them, one for a lawyer, require “physical labor.”
ADA training for Georgia lawyers
On October 26, 2026, I searched the catalog of your own Institute of Continuing Legal Education. “Disability,” “disabilities,” “Americans with Disabilities” and “accessibility” each returned zero programs. A search for “ADA” returned eleven programs. I opened every one. Each matched only because a speaker is named Adam or Adams. Not one of the eleven has a single segment on the ADA. Tomorrow, October 28, the same catalog runs “Staying Current and Competent.” Mr. Willard teaches its Ethics hour at 1:45 PM. To no one’s surprise, the State Bar’s own catalog does not have a single course on the law it tells me it does not have to follow.
The extension that saved you
On April 20, 2026, the same day my first ADA request went to your office, the Department of Justice extended its Title II deadline for accessible websites. For a public entity with a total population of 50,000 or more, the date moved from April 24, 2026 to April 26, 2027. 91 Fed. Reg. 20902; 28 C.F.R. § 35.200(b). The standard did not change: WCAG 2.1, Level A and Level AA. The Department wrote that it had “overestimated the capabilities (whether staffing or technology) of covered entities.” If the State Bar is what its lawyers tell federal courts, an arm of the State of Georgia, that is its date: April 26, 2027.
The State Bar got a one year reprieve. The lawyers who advise Georgia’s cities, counties, school districts and state agencies are your members. The State Bar should be the first to teach them what this rule requires. Its own catalog does not have one course on the ADA.
What federal law says about people who file ADA complaints
I have filed ADA complaints with the United States Department of Justice, and in Georgia with the Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts. Federal law protects a person who does that:
“No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).
“No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed … any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.134(b).
I filed a Title II complaint with the United States Department of Justice, mailed May 19, 2026, tracking [removed: tracking number]. I have received no acknowledgment.
What Mr. Willard calls “informational demands”
On October 21, Mr. Willard called what I asked for “informational demands.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a) says a public entity “shall make available to all interested individuals the name, office address, and telephone number” of its ADA coordinator. § 35.107(b) says it “shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints.” I asked for what the regulation says anyone may have.
Your office’s answers, side by side
The State ADA Coordinator, to you, May 12: “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.”
You, to her, May 12: the State Bar was “in the process of adding ADA information to our website and various forms.”
Mr. NeSmith, to me, May 12: “The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency.”
Your lawyers, to a federal court, May 12: “As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”
You, to me, May 29: “the State Bar’s position remains that it is not subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Your lawyers, to a federal court, September 28: “the State Bar and its employees are state actors.”
You, to me, October 8: “I am closing this matter.”
These cannot all be true, can they?
Put it together
No published ADA grievance procedure. No word on your website about accessible parking, and a parking page that tells a tall van to go somewhere else. Job postings with no way for a disabled applicant to ask for an accommodation. No ADA course for Georgia’s lawyers. Grievance forms fixed only after I pointed out the problem, with no word to me. An ADA Coordinator who closes requests instead of answering them. This is a lack of institutional control over basic ADA compliance, at the office that disciplines every lawyer in Georgia. And it sets a tone of institutional indifference to people with disabilities, and to every group that has been pushed to the margins.
On October 16, Jessica Farah, General Counsel for the Judicial Council of Georgia and Administrative Office of the Courts, wrote that her office “does not have the authority to investigate discrimination claims against local courts or the State Bar of Georgia,” and said the State Bar “may have their own procedures.” The State ADA Coordinator’s Office has separately said it cannot investigate or compel another institution to comply. So neither office has accepted responsibility for resolving my State Bar ADA complaints.
Mr. Willard’s October 21 email calls you “the designated ADA Coordinator, Senior Assistant General Counsel John Shiptenko.” On September 22, you wrote to me: “I am the State Bar’s ADA Coordinator, and you may continue to send your accommodation requests to me.” I am sending these complaints to you.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a), a covered public entity employing 50 or more people shall designate an employee to coordinate compliance, “including any investigation of any complaint communicated to it alleging its noncompliance with this part or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by this part.” Section 35.107(b) requires a published procedure for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints. The State Bar disputes its Title II status. That dispute does not tell me what you are doing with the filings in your hands.
Please confirm, in writing, whether you will coordinate review of each filing, who will investigate it, what procedure will govern, and when I will receive an accessible written decision. If you refuse to process any filing, identify the decision maker, the rule relied on, and the office to which it should be sent. The Judicial Council and the State ADA Coordinator’s Office have told me they cannot decide these complaints. Referring me back to either office is not an answer about what the State Bar will do.
Please confirm receipt of this email and each attachment in writing.
Respectfully,
[removed: name and contact details] ADA Matters Because All People Matter.
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. I apologize in advance for any typographical or transcription error. If any portion is unclear, please identify the specific portion and I will clarify in writing.
Related story: For the dated context, read Russell D. Willard, State Bar of Georgia: “your claim of being disabled”.