A State Office Answered a Thank-You in 19 Minutes. The Bar Couldn’t Confirm a Grievance in 4 Days.

A record of the Bar’s response times to one disabled complainant, set against what California and North Carolina publish for complainants.

How long it took the Bar to answer me. And who got answered first.

One disabled complainant. Seven things I asked the Bar to confirm or decide. The Bar’s speed tracked one variable: who the matter was about, and who was watching. A state office that owed me nothing answered a thank-you in 19 minutes. The disciplinary authority I was forced to use would not confirm, in four days, that a grievance against one of its own lawyers had even arrived.

What I sent	What came back	Time to hear back	The two facts that don’t reconcile
Feb 3 — Asked whether my evidence was in the grievance file	Confirmation only after repeated follow-ups	More than 100 days	Dismissed April 10 for “no rebuttal received.” The rebuttals were received and misclassified — admitted in writing April 21 and again May 5.
Feb 25 — Filed a grievance against an attorney	Dismissed, pre-assignment, as a “fee dispute”	~6 days	My filing said, in the caption and the body, that it was not a fee complaint. Dismissed as one. The respondent was copied on his own favorable outcome.
Apr 30 – May 7 — Asked four times for a decision date or written status	“Several weeks”	41 days of asking; still unreviewed	“Several weeks” promised. Three-plus months later, the file is still not reviewed.
May 18–21 — Asked the reconsideration reviewer to confirm receipt (third email marked “THIRD REQUEST”)	Acknowledgment only after the third request	Three emails	I paid a fee for reconsideration. The reviewer would not confirm receipt until I sent a “THIRD REQUEST.”
After dismissal — 63 written questions about status and procedure	13 answered	50 unanswered	Then, in writing, from an unsigned address: such requests “will not be processed.”
May 29 — Filed a grievance against a Bar official, through the approved written ADA route	Nothing	4 days, three follow-ups, no confirmation	A portal filing against an outside lawyer generates an automatic confirmation. A filing against one of the Bar’s own, through the Bar’s own approved accommodation, gets silence.
Contrast — the State ADA Coordinator’s Office — I sent a thank-you	A reply	19 minutes	An office that owed me no process answered a thank-you in 19 minutes. The disciplinary authority I was forced to use will not confirm a grievance arrived in four days.

What a complainant can find published

Item	California	North Carolina	Georgia
Published ADA grievance / access procedure	Yes	Yes	Not found
Named ADA Coordinator	Yes	Yes	Not found
Written-response / delay structure	Yes	Yes	Not found
Reconsideration path published	Yes	—	Not found
Written notice whether a file opens or is referred	—	Yes	Not found
Retention of ADA grievance materials	Yes (≥ 3 yrs)	—	Not found
Complainant-facing timing benchmark	—	—	Not found

“Not found” means the public-facing route a complainant would use was searched and the item was not located. State Bar of Georgia public-facing grievance pages reviewed June 1, 2026.

The issue is not merely that it took too long.

Georgia gave me no public benchmark, no visible ADA route, no human file-placement safeguard, no clear reconsideration status, and no way to know when silence became a failure. In that vacuum, I had to keep asking. Then the Bar treated the asking as the problem.

The rerouting was a choice, not a necessity.

On May 26, the Bar’s designated ADA contact routed ten of my fifteen access questions to the one official who had denied Title II coverage, questioned my need for assistance, questioned my motives, and shut down correspondence. No rule required that routing. There was no shortage of other people.

The motive attack reverses the timeline.

The April 10 dismissal had already issued. It already said no rebuttal had been received. The Bar later admitted that my February 3 and February 20 submissions were received, misclassified, and not added to the file when that dismissal was reviewed. So my motive was not to influence an outcome. The outcome already existed. My motive was to get a fair read on the complete file, like any other complainant should receive.

What the Bar never said.

Not once did anyone at the Bar say thank you. Not once did anyone say I’m sorry. Not once did anyone acknowledge the money I spent on a process no one will explain. I told them I was managing a family medical emergency. No one asked after my family. They found time to overnight updates to the respondent. They did not find time to confirm that my filing arrived.

Source: Bar correspondence and the post-dismissal question ledger; California and North Carolina published ADA materials; State Bar of Georgia public-facing grievance pages reviewed June 1, 2026. Personal names redacted.

This is what one disabled complainant was sent and shown. You are not alone. Join the club.

[Español: pendiente]