EMAIL SENT · 2026-04-30
Read the text transcript
Dear State ADA Coordinator's Office,
I am asking for help with the State Bar of Georgia and its apparent lack of a Title II ADA access route for disabled members of the public who use the Bar's attorney-grievance process.
At a glance:
* Who: ██████ ███████ — SSA-determined disabled, receiving SSDI, currently in active medical treatment with surgery scheduled within the next fifteen days.
* What: Public-program-access question concerning the State Bar of Georgia's attorney-grievance process — specifically, the absence of a visible ADA route for disabled members of the public.
* When: Active matter. Time-sensitive because of personal medical timing and a finite license window on primary video evidence already obtained at significant personal cost. Bar's open reconsideration cure window closes May 5, 2026.
* Why this Office: Requesting technical assistance, routing guidance, and (where appropriate) model materials — not investigation, not adjudication, not enforcement against the Bar. I understand this Office provides technical assistance and informal guidance to public entities; that is the role I am invoking.
I am a qualified individual with a disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), SSA-determined disabled and receiving SSDI, with documented upper-extremity and cognitive/communication limitations. Telephone communication is not effective for me on this issue. Medical documentation is available upon request and should be handled confidentially.
The State Bar's acknowledged file-handling problem has shifted the burden of intake auditing, record reconstruction, mailing, printing, and escalation onto me while I am disabled and in active treatment. I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for help identifying the ADA access route so this process does not require a disabled public complainant to become the Bar's records auditor just to be heard.
What this is about
In late January 2026, I filed an attorney-discipline grievance with the State Bar of Georgia against ██████████ █████████ ███████ K. ███████. The Bar dismissed the file on April 10, 2026. Eleven days later, the Bar's own Assistant General Counsel, Leigh Burgess, wrote that my February 3 and February 20 submissions had been received but misclassified, that "no rebuttal was present" when Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison reviewed the file, and — in her words — "I apologize for the oversight." "The oversight" is the Bar's own phrase for what happened. After the Bar acknowledged the oversight, it declined to identify the reassigned reviewer when asked, routed my disability-accommodation request to outside counsel, and told me my "participation is not required, as the file is complete."
What I am asking for, in two parallel tracks
One — technical assistance from your Office to identify the correct ADA access route for disabled members of the public using the State Bar's grievance process. Specific questions are below.
Two — that the State Bar of Georgia follow its Title II requirements: designate an ADA Coordinator / responsible employee under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a), publish a public-facing Title II grievance procedure under § 35.107(b), post the § 35.106 public notice, and ensure § 35.160 effective communication for disabled members of the public who use the grievance process. I am not asking your Office to enforce that against the Bar. I am asking for the kind of technical-assistance guidance and informal encouragement that helps a state regulatory body reach Title II baseline without enforcement.
Why this is urgent
The urgency comes from three facts.
First, the underlying grievance involves video evidence. The evidence includes █████████-camera and related video evidence that I believe directly contradicts multiple statements made to the State Bar by a ██████████████ █████████.
Second, the person affected was a person facing serious, life-altering consequences. This is not a theoretical access problem.
Third, the Bar has already acknowledged the file-handling problem in writing. Assistant General Counsel Leigh Burgess confirmed that the Bar received my February 3 and February 20 submissions, but explained that they were misclassified and not added to the grievance file before Ms. Morrison reviewed it. She also wrote, "I apologize for the oversight." That admission is why this is no longer just a disputed characterization. The Bar's own record shows that received submissions were not in the file when the grievance was reviewed.
I tried the Bar first
Before coming to your Office, I made repeated direct attempts to resolve this with the State Bar. The first section of the package contains those prior attempts so your Office can see the sequence before reviewing the legal analysis. I am not asking you to take my word for what happened; I am providing the Bar's own invitations, my submissions, delivery confirmations, correction requests, and the Bar's later admission that the submissions were received but not added to the file.
I have spent thousands of dollars preserving records, obtaining and organizing video evidence, preparing exhibits, and trying to get the record heard through the process the Bar itself provided. I still cannot identify a visible ADA access route for a disabled public complainant using the State Bar grievance process.
That is exactly why I am asking for your Office's help.
I understand your Office is not an enforcement body and I am not asking it to decide the underlying grievance. My requests are tailored to what a State ADA technical-assistance office can do: identify the correct ADA route, provide model procedures or guidance, clarify the proper state contact, and assist with technical compliance if the State Bar is willing to engage.
Comparable bars already publish ADA routes
This is not my personal view of what ADA outreach should look like. Comparable bar systems already publish visible ADA access routes.
The Florida Bar expressly tells people with disabilities how to request a reasonable accommodation to file a misconduct complaint against an attorney or a UPL complaint. The State Bar of California publishes an ADA grievance procedure, identifies an ADA Coordinator, gives filing instructions, and provides reconsideration procedures. The North Carolina State Bar publishes an ADA procedure covering effective communication, reasonable modifications, an ADA Coordinator contact, and no-surcharge language. The Oregon State Bar publishes both an ADA notice and a detailed ADA grievance procedure with filing, departmental review, appeal, and records-retention steps.
I am not asking Georgia to invent something unusual. I am asking for help identifying or creating the ordinary ADA access route that comparable bar systems already publish.
What I am asking your Office to help with
1. Please provide informal technical assistance or guidance to the State Bar of Georgia concerning its public-facing ADA access obligations for the attorney-grievance process, including the need for a visible ADA Coordinator or responsible employee, a published Title II grievance procedure, and public notice of Title II rights.
2. Please send me any model ADA grievance procedure, model public notice, model self-evaluation framework, or similar technical-assistance material your Office maintains for state-level regulatory or disciplinary bodies.
3. Please tell me, in writing, the proper Georgia routing or escalation path when a state-level regulatory body does not appear to provide a visible ADA route for disabled public complainants. Specifically, I am asking whether the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Georgia, your Office, or another Georgia entity is the proper technical contact for this issue.
4. Please tell me whether your Office has an existing liaison contact with the State Bar of Georgia, or whether your Office has previously fielded public program-access concerns involving the State Bar. If your Office does not maintain that information, a brief written response saying so is fine.
What I am requesting for this communication
Under Title II's effective-communication requirements, I request:
* written response only;
* no telephone call as the primary response method;
* response from a named individual with title and direct email;
* accessible electronic format, meaning plain text or accessible PDF, not scanned image-only PDF;
* response within 10 days of receipt, or a written acknowledgment with the expected response timeline.
If your Office believes it cannot provide written, accessible communication because of undue burden or fundamental alteration, please provide the written statement required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.164.
The smallest specific deliverable I am asking for
If everything else in this submission is too much, the smallest single deliverable that would still be useful is a written acknowledgment, on letterhead, identifying (a) the State Bar of Georgia's designated ADA Coordinator / responsible employee under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a), or (b) confirmation that, to this Office's knowledge or records, no such designation has been identified for public access to the State Bar grievance process, or (c) the proper Georgia recipient for that question if it is outside your Office's scope.
A pre-completed one-page response form is included immediately after the cover letter in the attached PDF (and at the same position in the USPS hardcopy). Three checkboxes, name, signature, date. It is offered as a courtesy to reduce the cognitive load of responding; your Office is not required to use it, and a written response in any other format is fine.
A note on records preservation
This Office's written response (or written non-response) to this request will be preserved as part of the record of an active and parallel Title II matter, alongside the USPS hardcopy delivery confirmation. A timely written acknowledgment preserves this Office's posture as a technical-assistance resource on the record. A non-response, if it occurs, will be documented as institutional notice under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107. I am not threatening anyone; I am stating the obvious so this Office knows what the recordkeeping looks like on my side and can respond accordingly.
Attachments and tracking
A hardcopy is being sent by USPS Priority Mail under Tracking No. ██████████████. I am providing the tracking number so your Office can match the electronic submission, physical package, and attachment manifest to the same request.
The emailed PDF and USPS hardcopy are intended to be the same controlling package. Any separately printed Tab 1 correspondence in the hardcopy is included only as source-copy duplicates of materials already inside the consolidated PDF and does not expand or alter the submission.
Respectfully,
██████ ███████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████
Attachment — one consolidated PDF containing the full package: GA_State_ADA_Coordinator_Package_FULL_ALL_IN_ONE_20260429.pdf (64 pages, 1.3 MB)
What's inside:
* Cover Letter — substantive request, expanded version of this email
* Response Form — one-page sign-and-return form (the smallest answerable version of the ask)
* Tab 1 — Bar Correspondence: Morrison April 10 dismissal, Burgess April 21 admission letter (verbatim), my April 20 letter to Morrison, 13-contradiction matrix, my April 21 four-email response
* Tab 2 — State Bar public-facing pages (gabar.org homepage + "File a Grievance")
* Tab 3 — State Bar member-facing page (Lawyer Assistance Program — included for contrast)
* Tab 4 — Office of Bar Admissions accommodation pages (B-1a, B-1b, B-1c) — comparator evidence only; OBA is a Supreme Court of Georgia administrative division, NOT the State Bar
* Tab 5 — Comparator: The Florida Bar's "Lawyer Misconduct: Complaints & Discipline" accessibility page
* Tab 6 — ada.georgia.gov contact page (intake-channel verification)
* Tab 7 — Cross-entity pattern captures (Georgia POST contact page + City of ██████████ accessibility page)
* Tab 8 — Web accessibility audit of gabar.org public pages + SHA-256 hash manifest for all 26 anonymous-fetch captures
* Tab 9 — Supplemental disability-accommodation request being sent to the State Bar today (Burgess, Morrison, Willard, NeSmith, OGC) with this Office on the CC line
* Tab 10 — Retaliation-adjacent pattern exhibit: timing table of the Bar's procedural moves after the disability-accommodation request was raised
________________________________
All prior accommodation requests, claims, and rights expressly reserved. This communication is parallel to, and does not duplicate or supersede, pending matters before the State Bar of Georgia, the Georgia Attorney General's Open Government Mediation Program, Georgia POST, or any federal agency.
I am asking for help with the State Bar of Georgia and its apparent lack of a Title II ADA access route for disabled members of the public who use the Bar's attorney-grievance process.
At a glance:
* Who: ██████ ███████ — SSA-determined disabled, receiving SSDI, currently in active medical treatment with surgery scheduled within the next fifteen days.
* What: Public-program-access question concerning the State Bar of Georgia's attorney-grievance process — specifically, the absence of a visible ADA route for disabled members of the public.
* When: Active matter. Time-sensitive because of personal medical timing and a finite license window on primary video evidence already obtained at significant personal cost. Bar's open reconsideration cure window closes May 5, 2026.
* Why this Office: Requesting technical assistance, routing guidance, and (where appropriate) model materials — not investigation, not adjudication, not enforcement against the Bar. I understand this Office provides technical assistance and informal guidance to public entities; that is the role I am invoking.
I am a qualified individual with a disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), SSA-determined disabled and receiving SSDI, with documented upper-extremity and cognitive/communication limitations. Telephone communication is not effective for me on this issue. Medical documentation is available upon request and should be handled confidentially.
The State Bar's acknowledged file-handling problem has shifted the burden of intake auditing, record reconstruction, mailing, printing, and escalation onto me while I am disabled and in active treatment. I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for help identifying the ADA access route so this process does not require a disabled public complainant to become the Bar's records auditor just to be heard.
What this is about
In late January 2026, I filed an attorney-discipline grievance with the State Bar of Georgia against ██████████ █████████ ███████ K. ███████. The Bar dismissed the file on April 10, 2026. Eleven days later, the Bar's own Assistant General Counsel, Leigh Burgess, wrote that my February 3 and February 20 submissions had been received but misclassified, that "no rebuttal was present" when Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison reviewed the file, and — in her words — "I apologize for the oversight." "The oversight" is the Bar's own phrase for what happened. After the Bar acknowledged the oversight, it declined to identify the reassigned reviewer when asked, routed my disability-accommodation request to outside counsel, and told me my "participation is not required, as the file is complete."
What I am asking for, in two parallel tracks
One — technical assistance from your Office to identify the correct ADA access route for disabled members of the public using the State Bar's grievance process. Specific questions are below.
Two — that the State Bar of Georgia follow its Title II requirements: designate an ADA Coordinator / responsible employee under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a), publish a public-facing Title II grievance procedure under § 35.107(b), post the § 35.106 public notice, and ensure § 35.160 effective communication for disabled members of the public who use the grievance process. I am not asking your Office to enforce that against the Bar. I am asking for the kind of technical-assistance guidance and informal encouragement that helps a state regulatory body reach Title II baseline without enforcement.
Why this is urgent
The urgency comes from three facts.
First, the underlying grievance involves video evidence. The evidence includes █████████-camera and related video evidence that I believe directly contradicts multiple statements made to the State Bar by a ██████████████ █████████.
Second, the person affected was a person facing serious, life-altering consequences. This is not a theoretical access problem.
Third, the Bar has already acknowledged the file-handling problem in writing. Assistant General Counsel Leigh Burgess confirmed that the Bar received my February 3 and February 20 submissions, but explained that they were misclassified and not added to the grievance file before Ms. Morrison reviewed it. She also wrote, "I apologize for the oversight." That admission is why this is no longer just a disputed characterization. The Bar's own record shows that received submissions were not in the file when the grievance was reviewed.
I tried the Bar first
Before coming to your Office, I made repeated direct attempts to resolve this with the State Bar. The first section of the package contains those prior attempts so your Office can see the sequence before reviewing the legal analysis. I am not asking you to take my word for what happened; I am providing the Bar's own invitations, my submissions, delivery confirmations, correction requests, and the Bar's later admission that the submissions were received but not added to the file.
I have spent thousands of dollars preserving records, obtaining and organizing video evidence, preparing exhibits, and trying to get the record heard through the process the Bar itself provided. I still cannot identify a visible ADA access route for a disabled public complainant using the State Bar grievance process.
That is exactly why I am asking for your Office's help.
I understand your Office is not an enforcement body and I am not asking it to decide the underlying grievance. My requests are tailored to what a State ADA technical-assistance office can do: identify the correct ADA route, provide model procedures or guidance, clarify the proper state contact, and assist with technical compliance if the State Bar is willing to engage.
Comparable bars already publish ADA routes
This is not my personal view of what ADA outreach should look like. Comparable bar systems already publish visible ADA access routes.
The Florida Bar expressly tells people with disabilities how to request a reasonable accommodation to file a misconduct complaint against an attorney or a UPL complaint. The State Bar of California publishes an ADA grievance procedure, identifies an ADA Coordinator, gives filing instructions, and provides reconsideration procedures. The North Carolina State Bar publishes an ADA procedure covering effective communication, reasonable modifications, an ADA Coordinator contact, and no-surcharge language. The Oregon State Bar publishes both an ADA notice and a detailed ADA grievance procedure with filing, departmental review, appeal, and records-retention steps.
I am not asking Georgia to invent something unusual. I am asking for help identifying or creating the ordinary ADA access route that comparable bar systems already publish.
What I am asking your Office to help with
1. Please provide informal technical assistance or guidance to the State Bar of Georgia concerning its public-facing ADA access obligations for the attorney-grievance process, including the need for a visible ADA Coordinator or responsible employee, a published Title II grievance procedure, and public notice of Title II rights.
2. Please send me any model ADA grievance procedure, model public notice, model self-evaluation framework, or similar technical-assistance material your Office maintains for state-level regulatory or disciplinary bodies.
3. Please tell me, in writing, the proper Georgia routing or escalation path when a state-level regulatory body does not appear to provide a visible ADA route for disabled public complainants. Specifically, I am asking whether the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Georgia, your Office, or another Georgia entity is the proper technical contact for this issue.
4. Please tell me whether your Office has an existing liaison contact with the State Bar of Georgia, or whether your Office has previously fielded public program-access concerns involving the State Bar. If your Office does not maintain that information, a brief written response saying so is fine.
What I am requesting for this communication
Under Title II's effective-communication requirements, I request:
* written response only;
* no telephone call as the primary response method;
* response from a named individual with title and direct email;
* accessible electronic format, meaning plain text or accessible PDF, not scanned image-only PDF;
* response within 10 days of receipt, or a written acknowledgment with the expected response timeline.
If your Office believes it cannot provide written, accessible communication because of undue burden or fundamental alteration, please provide the written statement required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.164.
The smallest specific deliverable I am asking for
If everything else in this submission is too much, the smallest single deliverable that would still be useful is a written acknowledgment, on letterhead, identifying (a) the State Bar of Georgia's designated ADA Coordinator / responsible employee under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a), or (b) confirmation that, to this Office's knowledge or records, no such designation has been identified for public access to the State Bar grievance process, or (c) the proper Georgia recipient for that question if it is outside your Office's scope.
A pre-completed one-page response form is included immediately after the cover letter in the attached PDF (and at the same position in the USPS hardcopy). Three checkboxes, name, signature, date. It is offered as a courtesy to reduce the cognitive load of responding; your Office is not required to use it, and a written response in any other format is fine.
A note on records preservation
This Office's written response (or written non-response) to this request will be preserved as part of the record of an active and parallel Title II matter, alongside the USPS hardcopy delivery confirmation. A timely written acknowledgment preserves this Office's posture as a technical-assistance resource on the record. A non-response, if it occurs, will be documented as institutional notice under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107. I am not threatening anyone; I am stating the obvious so this Office knows what the recordkeeping looks like on my side and can respond accordingly.
Attachments and tracking
A hardcopy is being sent by USPS Priority Mail under Tracking No. ██████████████. I am providing the tracking number so your Office can match the electronic submission, physical package, and attachment manifest to the same request.
The emailed PDF and USPS hardcopy are intended to be the same controlling package. Any separately printed Tab 1 correspondence in the hardcopy is included only as source-copy duplicates of materials already inside the consolidated PDF and does not expand or alter the submission.
Respectfully,
██████ ███████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████
Attachment — one consolidated PDF containing the full package: GA_State_ADA_Coordinator_Package_FULL_ALL_IN_ONE_20260429.pdf (64 pages, 1.3 MB)
What's inside:
* Cover Letter — substantive request, expanded version of this email
* Response Form — one-page sign-and-return form (the smallest answerable version of the ask)
* Tab 1 — Bar Correspondence: Morrison April 10 dismissal, Burgess April 21 admission letter (verbatim), my April 20 letter to Morrison, 13-contradiction matrix, my April 21 four-email response
* Tab 2 — State Bar public-facing pages (gabar.org homepage + "File a Grievance")
* Tab 3 — State Bar member-facing page (Lawyer Assistance Program — included for contrast)
* Tab 4 — Office of Bar Admissions accommodation pages (B-1a, B-1b, B-1c) — comparator evidence only; OBA is a Supreme Court of Georgia administrative division, NOT the State Bar
* Tab 5 — Comparator: The Florida Bar's "Lawyer Misconduct: Complaints & Discipline" accessibility page
* Tab 6 — ada.georgia.gov contact page (intake-channel verification)
* Tab 7 — Cross-entity pattern captures (Georgia POST contact page + City of ██████████ accessibility page)
* Tab 8 — Web accessibility audit of gabar.org public pages + SHA-256 hash manifest for all 26 anonymous-fetch captures
* Tab 9 — Supplemental disability-accommodation request being sent to the State Bar today (Burgess, Morrison, Willard, NeSmith, OGC) with this Office on the CC line
* Tab 10 — Retaliation-adjacent pattern exhibit: timing table of the Bar's procedural moves after the disability-accommodation request was raised
________________________________
All prior accommodation requests, claims, and rights expressly reserved. This communication is parallel to, and does not duplicate or supersede, pending matters before the State Bar of Georgia, the Georgia Attorney General's Open Government Mediation Program, Georgia POST, or any federal agency.