EMAIL SENT · 2026-05-12
Read the text transcript
[ADA status paragraph.]
Christopher P. Twyman, President, State Bar of Georgia:
I am forwarding Deputy General Counsel William NeSmith's May 11 response so there is no uncertainty about the institutional record. Mr. NeSmith responded on behalf of the State Bar, but removed the broader institutional notice list. I am restoring that notice list here.
I need to know whether Mr. NeSmith's letter states the official policy and position of the State Bar of Georgia.
Mr. NeSmith's letter states, among other things:
1. "The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency."
2. "The State Bar receives no federal, state, or local governmental funding."
3. "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."
4. "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."
5. "Based upon your communications, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process."
6. "Moreover, if grievance counsel initially mischaracterized or misfiled a submission, subsequently acknowledged the error, and corrected the matter administratively, there is no further remedial action required."
7. "From the substance of your correspondence, it appears that your invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation or access assistance and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome regarding the underlying grievance matter."
That last statement is especially troubling. I did not invoke ADA access to force a disciplinary outcome. I invoked ADA access because the Bar had already received, acknowledged, misclassified, and excluded material submissions from the grievance file before issuing a dismissal stating that no rebuttal had been received.
I did not lose the evidence. I did not misclassify the evidence. I did not issue a dismissal on an incomplete file. The Bar did.
Please confirm, in writing:
1. whether Mr. NeSmith's letter is the official position of the State Bar of Georgia;
2. whether the Bar President agrees that the State Bar is not a Title II public entity for purposes of its attorney-grievance process;
3. whether the Bar President agrees that the Bar has no obligation to publish an ADA Coordinator or disability-access procedure for grievance participants;
4. whether the Bar President agrees that a disabled complainant's ability to send repeated written communications after an admitted file-loss problem means he does not need ADA access protection;
5. whether the Bar President agrees that adding misclassified submissions to the file after an incomplete-record dismissal eliminates any need for a correction, status order, respondent notice, preservation confirmation, or explanation of what failed;
6. whether the Bar President agrees with Mr. NeSmith's characterization that my ADA invocation appears directed toward obtaining a substantive outcome rather than preventing another received-but-not-filed evidence failure;
7. whether the Bar will continue honoring the written-only and accessible-format accommodations Mr. Shiptenko already granted;
8. whether the Bar will state whether the April 10 dismissal is operative, vacated, superseded, or under reconsideration;
9. whether the Bar will state whether the April 10 dismissal may fairly be described by anyone as a complete-record merits determination;
10. whether the Bar will preserve all communications, drafts, routing records, ADA-access records, internal communications, and insurance/tender records concerning Mr. NeSmith's response; and
11. whether the State Bar has provided notice to any applicable liability, E&O, D&O, civil-rights, professional-liability, risk-management, self-insurance, umbrella, excess, or other carrier/administrator regarding Grievance No. ██████-█████, the April 10 dismissal, the pending reconsideration, the ADA accommodation correspondence, or Mr. NeSmith's May 11 response.
I am requesting institutional confirmation in writing on or before May 14, 2026, at 17:00 ET.
[Signature block and accessibility notice.]
Christopher P. Twyman, President, State Bar of Georgia:
I am forwarding Deputy General Counsel William NeSmith's May 11 response so there is no uncertainty about the institutional record. Mr. NeSmith responded on behalf of the State Bar, but removed the broader institutional notice list. I am restoring that notice list here.
I need to know whether Mr. NeSmith's letter states the official policy and position of the State Bar of Georgia.
Mr. NeSmith's letter states, among other things:
1. "The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency."
2. "The State Bar receives no federal, state, or local governmental funding."
3. "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."
4. "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."
5. "Based upon your communications, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process."
6. "Moreover, if grievance counsel initially mischaracterized or misfiled a submission, subsequently acknowledged the error, and corrected the matter administratively, there is no further remedial action required."
7. "From the substance of your correspondence, it appears that your invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation or access assistance and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome regarding the underlying grievance matter."
That last statement is especially troubling. I did not invoke ADA access to force a disciplinary outcome. I invoked ADA access because the Bar had already received, acknowledged, misclassified, and excluded material submissions from the grievance file before issuing a dismissal stating that no rebuttal had been received.
I did not lose the evidence. I did not misclassify the evidence. I did not issue a dismissal on an incomplete file. The Bar did.
Please confirm, in writing:
1. whether Mr. NeSmith's letter is the official position of the State Bar of Georgia;
2. whether the Bar President agrees that the State Bar is not a Title II public entity for purposes of its attorney-grievance process;
3. whether the Bar President agrees that the Bar has no obligation to publish an ADA Coordinator or disability-access procedure for grievance participants;
4. whether the Bar President agrees that a disabled complainant's ability to send repeated written communications after an admitted file-loss problem means he does not need ADA access protection;
5. whether the Bar President agrees that adding misclassified submissions to the file after an incomplete-record dismissal eliminates any need for a correction, status order, respondent notice, preservation confirmation, or explanation of what failed;
6. whether the Bar President agrees with Mr. NeSmith's characterization that my ADA invocation appears directed toward obtaining a substantive outcome rather than preventing another received-but-not-filed evidence failure;
7. whether the Bar will continue honoring the written-only and accessible-format accommodations Mr. Shiptenko already granted;
8. whether the Bar will state whether the April 10 dismissal is operative, vacated, superseded, or under reconsideration;
9. whether the Bar will state whether the April 10 dismissal may fairly be described by anyone as a complete-record merits determination;
10. whether the Bar will preserve all communications, drafts, routing records, ADA-access records, internal communications, and insurance/tender records concerning Mr. NeSmith's response; and
11. whether the State Bar has provided notice to any applicable liability, E&O, D&O, civil-rights, professional-liability, risk-management, self-insurance, umbrella, excess, or other carrier/administrator regarding Grievance No. ██████-█████, the April 10 dismissal, the pending reconsideration, the ADA accommodation correspondence, or Mr. NeSmith's May 11 response.
I am requesting institutional confirmation in writing on or before May 14, 2026, at 17:00 ET.
[Signature block and accessibility notice.]