The same record, organized by what the conduct actually was.
Deceit
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| Apr 10 | Deputy General Counsel signed a dismissal stating “we did not receive a rebuttal.” The Bar later admitted both submissions had been received and misclassified. |
| Apr 21 | Assistant General Counsel admitted in writing: “As a result of this misclassification, your submissions were not added to the grievance file at that time.” Admitted again on May 5. The dismissal was never corrected. |
| May 12 | Deputy General Counsel wrote “not a public entity” and “an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia” in the same email. |
| May 12 | Deputy General Counsel wrote that the complainant “does not appear to require assistance.” The Bar’s own ADA Coordinator was granting accommodations for the same disability at the same time. |
| May 13 | A meeting offer was retracted, said to be “meant for a colleague” and “sent to you in error.” The colleague was never identified. |
| May 19 | An unsigned institutional email suggested the complainant “may have been misled by an internet search or an AI-generated summary.” The Bar refused to identify who wrote it. |
| May 29 | The Bar’s ADA Coordinator confirmed the Bar is “not subject to Title II” – the same official who had been running the interactive process and granting accommodations for the prior four weeks. |
Obstruction
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| Mar-Apr | Five written ADA accommodation requests over 32 days. Zero responses from the Bar. |
| May 12-15 | Seven documented instances of stripping recipients from the email chain. The State ADA Coordinator was removed from every email sent during the denial window. |
| May 15 | The Bar shut down correspondence entirely: “will not engage in further substantive correspondence… outside formal legal process.” |
| May 19 | The Bar declared all 50 pending questions would never be answered, as a matter of institutional policy. |
| May 26 | The Bar’s ADA Coordinator routed the complainant’s access questions back to the official who had denied ADA coverage and questioned the complainant’s disability. |
| Ongoing | No published ADA coordinator on the Bar’s website. No published ADA grievance procedure. No accessibility statement. No non-CAPTCHA alternative for the grievance portal. |
Retaliation
| What the complainant did | What the Bar did next |
|---|---|
| Contacted the State ADA Coordinator’s Office for help understanding the access route. | The Bar became accommodating on paper while the Coordinator was visible in the record. When the Coordinator was removed, the posture changed. |
| Filed a complaint with the Department of Justice after the Bar refused to correct its admitted filing error. | The Bar escalated to active ADA denial, motive attribution, channel shutdown, and formal reversal of its Title II position. |
| Filed Bar grievances against officials whose conduct raised access concerns. | A 790-word shutdown was delivered at 11:05 AM on the morning originally scheduled for the complainant’s hand surgery. |
| Asked 74 documented questions over four months. | The Bar answered 15, then declared the remaining 50 would never be answered as a matter of institutional policy. |
| Stated repeatedly, in writing, that he did not want litigation and had never sued anyone in a long business career. | The Bar wrote that the ADA invocation “may be directed toward securing a particular substantive outcome… or toward establishing a basis for further legal action against the State Bar.” |
The disabled complainant was the only person holding a consistent position throughout.
Source: Bar correspondence of record, April – May 2026. Quotes verbatim; personal names redacted, institutional roles preserved.
This is the record one disabled complainant built. You are not alone. Join the club.
[Español: pendiente]
Leave a Reply