EMAIL RECEIVED · 2026-05-13
Read the text transcript
Mr. ███████:
I have a doctor’s appointment at 2:00 p.m. today, so I won’t be able to respond to your two emails until tomorrow. I expected to be able to do so, but the second email came in later than anticipated. I will do my best to provide my response tomorrow.
William D. NeSmith, III | Deputy General Counsel
[cid:image001.png@01DCE2DB.C77EE690]
104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 100 | Atlanta, GA 30303
404-527-8728 | ██████████████<mailto:██████████████>
________________________________
From: ██████ ███████ <██████████████>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Bill NeSmith <██████████████>
Cc: Russ Willard <██████████████>; Christopher P. Twyman <██████████████>; Christopher P. Twyman (Bar) <██████████████>; John Shiptenko <██████████████>; Adrienne Nash <██████████████>; Leigh Burgess <██████████████>; Andreea Morrison <██████████████>; Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office <██████████████>
Subject: [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: Response to May 11 ADA Position — Appt Confirmation 11:30am EST – Request For Link For Video Call or Dial In Phone Number.
Importance: High
Sorry, this was not attached by mistake. It is an important part of the record.
Thanks,
██████
________________________________
From: ██████ ███████ <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 11:56 AM
To: William D. NeSmith III <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>
Cc: Russell D. Willard <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Christopher P. Twyman <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Christopher P. Twyman (Bar) <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; John J. Shiptenko <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Adrienne Nash <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Leigh Burgess <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Andreea N. Morrison <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; ██████ ███████ <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>
Subject: RE: [External] Re: [External] Re: Response to May 11 ADA Position — Appt Confirmation 11:30am EST – Request For Link For Video Call or Dial In Phone Number.
I am a qualified individual with a disability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(2) and 12132, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. My status is established by Social Security Administration disability determination and SSDI entitlement, ███████████ medical records documenting limited or no functional use of my dominant hand, scheduled surgery postponed due to failed preoperative clearance, and prescribed medication materially affecting stamina, focus, and the capacity to produce written communication.
Mr. NeSmith:
The last twelve hours proved exactly why a single point of contact was the focus of my requests from the beginning.
Yesterday evening, I received a communication from the Deputy General Counsel proposing an 11:30 meeting. I treated it as real, reorganized my schedule, and prepared. This morning, I was told the meeting was never for me. It was meant for a colleague and sent in error.
My acceptance reply last night stated that ███████ had a medical appointment at 8:30 AM. That acceptance was read last night. The cancellation could have been sent last night. Instead, it was sent this morning, during the window in which █████████████ were meeting with ██████████████ and learning that the lump in her breast is a recurrence of her rare blood ██████. She requires an emergency PET scan immediately. I was with her. I should not have been processing institutional correspondence at that moment.
Hours before the email below, I had received a baffling solo communication from the Deputy General Counsel cancelling the meeting and stating it was never intended for me. Then, this morning, everyone on this chain received the Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office email confirming that its office contacted the State Bar and offered guidance regarding ADA access issues involving the Bar’s programs, services, and activities. That email treated my concerns as legitimate program-access issues, not as a personal preference or a grievance-merits dispute. The contrast between the State ADA Coordinator’s response and the Deputy General Counsel’s conduct over the same twelve hours speaks for itself.
The volume of contradictions in this matter has reached a level no one can reasonably track:
– April 10: dismissal stating no rebuttal received.
– April 21: Burgess admitting two rebuttals were received and misclassified.
– May 4: Shiptenko granting written accommodations under the ADA framework.
– May 11: NeSmith denying the Bar is subject to Title II at all.
– May 12: NeSmith proposing a meeting.
– May 13: NeSmith cancelling the meeting because it was never actually intended for me.
– May 13: State ADA Coordinator’s Office confirming it had contacted the Bar and offered ADA guidance on the same institutional cc list.
The issue is not that I am difficult to communicate with.
The issue is that the Bar’s communication process has become impossible to use.
I have done nothing wrong in this matter. I filed a grievance through the Bar’s own process, complied with the Bar’s deadlines, relied on the Bar’s intake confirmations, and repeatedly attempted to stabilize communication after the Bar admitted the evidence was received and misclassified.
I am angry because this was preventable, because I warned the Bar repeatedly, and because the last twelve hours proved the exact access problem I have been identifying all along.
The no-solo-communication requirement has been placed on the institutional record five times across twenty-two days:
DEMAND — April 21, 2026 (Letter 2 to Burgess, Accommodation 2)
“The Office must designate a single named employee as the complainant’s point of contact for this grievance, with that employee’s name, title, direct email address, and direct telephone number.”
CC: Willard, NeSmith, Morrison, Burgess.
VIOLATION — May 5, 2026 (Burgess)
Solo email to me. TO: ██████ ███████. CC: None. Subject: RE: Time-Sensitive ADA Title II Accommodation Request. This occurred after the April 21 demand for a designated point of contact.
CORRECTION — May 6-7, 2026 (Letter 4 to Burgess/Morrison)
I restored the full institutional cc on my next communication. TO: Burgess, Morrison. CC: Willard, NeSmith, Shiptenko, OGC, Twyman. Twelve operational questions were sent by email and FedEx overnight.
REQUEST 1 — May 12, 2026, 3:41 PM ET (Section 1 of my institutional response)
“Please do not treat your one-recipient response as narrowing the institutional notice record, limiting preservation obligations, or removing any official, ADA, supervisory, reconsideration, or State ADA recipient from notice of this matter. This is an institutional ADA/access, preservation, and record-integrity issue, not a private exchange between you and me.”
VIOLATION — May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM ET (NeSmith)
Solo email proposing an 11:30 meeting. One recipient. CC list stripped. Sent approximately three hours after Request 1.
REQUEST 2 — May 12, 2026, approximately 8:54 PM ET (meeting acceptance reply)
I restored the full institutional cc and stated in writing: “Please do not transmit further correspondence in this matter to me alone.”
VIOLATION — May 13, 2026, approximately 10:00 AM ET (NeSmith)
Solo email cancelling the meeting. One recipient. CC list stripped. The apology for the misdirected email was itself sent in violation of the instruction it was apologizing for.
REQUEST 3 — May 13, 2026 (this email)
Full institutional cc restored again.
One solo email can be a mistake.
Two is careless.
Three is a pattern.
Four is a choice.
Five, after five documented requests to stop, is not confusion. It is harassment.
Under federal law, this pattern implicates 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3), § 35.130(f), and § 35.134. This is not just an email-management problem. It is a disability-access burden, an interference problem, and a method-of-administration problem.
Every solo email forces me to reconstruct the distribution, forward to every stripped recipient, and redraft on the restored list. I pay for the assistive technology that lets me do this. Every reply has a price tag, a stamina cost, and hours attached to it. I sometimes exceed my monthly software budget because the Bar’s mistakes require additional correspondence. The Bar’s mistakes become my expenses. I am paying to fix institutional errors I did not create.
That cost, imposed on me because of my disability and after written notice, is the surcharge prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(f).
My surgery was postponed because I failed preoperative clearance. My medical calendar runs nearly daily through early June.
These are not normal conditions.
I filed a grievance. The Bar received the evidence, misclassified it, reviewed an incomplete file, and dismissed the grievance on an incomplete record. The Bar admitted the evidence was received and misclassified. And then, instead of correcting it, the Bar spent two weeks denying ADA coverage, stripping my cc list, misdirecting communications, cancelling phantom meetings, and asking for more time.
I want everyone on this email to ask one question: if an attorney the Bar was investigating had lost submissions, dismissed a matter on an incomplete file, admitted the evidence was received and misclassified, failed to correct the dismissal, communicated through multiple officials with no stable lead contact, sent repeated solo emails after repeated written requests to stop, and cancelled a meeting during the complainant’s spouse’s ██████-recurrence appointment, would the Bar tolerate it?
The Bar would not. And the Bar cannot perform this conduct against a disabled complainant who came to it for help.
I am spending the rest of today with my family.
The following remain operative and unanswered:
– The 15 clarification questions in the May 12 response.
– The 11 institutional confirmation questions in the Twyman forward.
– The insurance disclosure demand from Section 7 of the May 12 response, including carrier identity, E&O coverage, notification status, reservation-of-rights correspondence, and preservation acknowledgment.
– Preservation of all records concerning the May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM transmission and cancellation, including intended recipient, calendar entry, attachments, headers, and any related internal or external communications.
The May 14, 2026, 5:00 PM ET cure window remains operative for all outstanding ADA-access, communication, preservation, and insurance-disclosure issues identified above and in the v4 correspondence. Any reliance by the Bar on undue burden or fundamental alteration must be issued in the written determination required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.164. Silence is not a written determination.
No further one-recipient correspondence should be sent to me in this matter.
Respectfully,
██████ ███████
Qualified Individual With a Disability
42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 | 29 U.S.C. § 794 | 28 C.F.R. Part 35
██████████████, ██████████████
██████████████ | ██████████████<mailto:██████████████>
Accessibility notice: Due to my documented disability, including limited or no functional use of my dominant hand, I use assistive technology and voice-to-text tools to produce written communications. I appreciate your understanding of this accommodation. If any portion of this correspondence contains a typographical error or is unclear as a result, please ask and I will clarify.
I have a doctor’s appointment at 2:00 p.m. today, so I won’t be able to respond to your two emails until tomorrow. I expected to be able to do so, but the second email came in later than anticipated. I will do my best to provide my response tomorrow.
William D. NeSmith, III | Deputy General Counsel
[cid:image001.png@01DCE2DB.C77EE690]
104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 100 | Atlanta, GA 30303
404-527-8728 | ██████████████<mailto:██████████████>
________________________________
From: ██████ ███████ <██████████████>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Bill NeSmith <██████████████>
Cc: Russ Willard <██████████████>; Christopher P. Twyman <██████████████>; Christopher P. Twyman (Bar) <██████████████>; John Shiptenko <██████████████>; Adrienne Nash <██████████████>; Leigh Burgess <██████████████>; Andreea Morrison <██████████████>; Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office <██████████████>
Subject: [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: Response to May 11 ADA Position — Appt Confirmation 11:30am EST – Request For Link For Video Call or Dial In Phone Number.
Importance: High
Sorry, this was not attached by mistake. It is an important part of the record.
Thanks,
██████
________________________________
From: ██████ ███████ <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 11:56 AM
To: William D. NeSmith III <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>
Cc: Russell D. Willard <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Christopher P. Twyman <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Christopher P. Twyman (Bar) <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; John J. Shiptenko <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Adrienne Nash <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Leigh Burgess <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Andreea N. Morrison <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>; ██████ ███████ <██████████████<mailto:██████████████>>
Subject: RE: [External] Re: [External] Re: Response to May 11 ADA Position — Appt Confirmation 11:30am EST – Request For Link For Video Call or Dial In Phone Number.
I am a qualified individual with a disability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(2) and 12132, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. My status is established by Social Security Administration disability determination and SSDI entitlement, ███████████ medical records documenting limited or no functional use of my dominant hand, scheduled surgery postponed due to failed preoperative clearance, and prescribed medication materially affecting stamina, focus, and the capacity to produce written communication.
Mr. NeSmith:
The last twelve hours proved exactly why a single point of contact was the focus of my requests from the beginning.
Yesterday evening, I received a communication from the Deputy General Counsel proposing an 11:30 meeting. I treated it as real, reorganized my schedule, and prepared. This morning, I was told the meeting was never for me. It was meant for a colleague and sent in error.
My acceptance reply last night stated that ███████ had a medical appointment at 8:30 AM. That acceptance was read last night. The cancellation could have been sent last night. Instead, it was sent this morning, during the window in which █████████████ were meeting with ██████████████ and learning that the lump in her breast is a recurrence of her rare blood ██████. She requires an emergency PET scan immediately. I was with her. I should not have been processing institutional correspondence at that moment.
Hours before the email below, I had received a baffling solo communication from the Deputy General Counsel cancelling the meeting and stating it was never intended for me. Then, this morning, everyone on this chain received the Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office email confirming that its office contacted the State Bar and offered guidance regarding ADA access issues involving the Bar’s programs, services, and activities. That email treated my concerns as legitimate program-access issues, not as a personal preference or a grievance-merits dispute. The contrast between the State ADA Coordinator’s response and the Deputy General Counsel’s conduct over the same twelve hours speaks for itself.
The volume of contradictions in this matter has reached a level no one can reasonably track:
– April 10: dismissal stating no rebuttal received.
– April 21: Burgess admitting two rebuttals were received and misclassified.
– May 4: Shiptenko granting written accommodations under the ADA framework.
– May 11: NeSmith denying the Bar is subject to Title II at all.
– May 12: NeSmith proposing a meeting.
– May 13: NeSmith cancelling the meeting because it was never actually intended for me.
– May 13: State ADA Coordinator’s Office confirming it had contacted the Bar and offered ADA guidance on the same institutional cc list.
The issue is not that I am difficult to communicate with.
The issue is that the Bar’s communication process has become impossible to use.
I have done nothing wrong in this matter. I filed a grievance through the Bar’s own process, complied with the Bar’s deadlines, relied on the Bar’s intake confirmations, and repeatedly attempted to stabilize communication after the Bar admitted the evidence was received and misclassified.
I am angry because this was preventable, because I warned the Bar repeatedly, and because the last twelve hours proved the exact access problem I have been identifying all along.
The no-solo-communication requirement has been placed on the institutional record five times across twenty-two days:
DEMAND — April 21, 2026 (Letter 2 to Burgess, Accommodation 2)
“The Office must designate a single named employee as the complainant’s point of contact for this grievance, with that employee’s name, title, direct email address, and direct telephone number.”
CC: Willard, NeSmith, Morrison, Burgess.
VIOLATION — May 5, 2026 (Burgess)
Solo email to me. TO: ██████ ███████. CC: None. Subject: RE: Time-Sensitive ADA Title II Accommodation Request. This occurred after the April 21 demand for a designated point of contact.
CORRECTION — May 6-7, 2026 (Letter 4 to Burgess/Morrison)
I restored the full institutional cc on my next communication. TO: Burgess, Morrison. CC: Willard, NeSmith, Shiptenko, OGC, Twyman. Twelve operational questions were sent by email and FedEx overnight.
REQUEST 1 — May 12, 2026, 3:41 PM ET (Section 1 of my institutional response)
“Please do not treat your one-recipient response as narrowing the institutional notice record, limiting preservation obligations, or removing any official, ADA, supervisory, reconsideration, or State ADA recipient from notice of this matter. This is an institutional ADA/access, preservation, and record-integrity issue, not a private exchange between you and me.”
VIOLATION — May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM ET (NeSmith)
Solo email proposing an 11:30 meeting. One recipient. CC list stripped. Sent approximately three hours after Request 1.
REQUEST 2 — May 12, 2026, approximately 8:54 PM ET (meeting acceptance reply)
I restored the full institutional cc and stated in writing: “Please do not transmit further correspondence in this matter to me alone.”
VIOLATION — May 13, 2026, approximately 10:00 AM ET (NeSmith)
Solo email cancelling the meeting. One recipient. CC list stripped. The apology for the misdirected email was itself sent in violation of the instruction it was apologizing for.
REQUEST 3 — May 13, 2026 (this email)
Full institutional cc restored again.
One solo email can be a mistake.
Two is careless.
Three is a pattern.
Four is a choice.
Five, after five documented requests to stop, is not confusion. It is harassment.
Under federal law, this pattern implicates 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3), § 35.130(f), and § 35.134. This is not just an email-management problem. It is a disability-access burden, an interference problem, and a method-of-administration problem.
Every solo email forces me to reconstruct the distribution, forward to every stripped recipient, and redraft on the restored list. I pay for the assistive technology that lets me do this. Every reply has a price tag, a stamina cost, and hours attached to it. I sometimes exceed my monthly software budget because the Bar’s mistakes require additional correspondence. The Bar’s mistakes become my expenses. I am paying to fix institutional errors I did not create.
That cost, imposed on me because of my disability and after written notice, is the surcharge prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(f).
My surgery was postponed because I failed preoperative clearance. My medical calendar runs nearly daily through early June.
These are not normal conditions.
I filed a grievance. The Bar received the evidence, misclassified it, reviewed an incomplete file, and dismissed the grievance on an incomplete record. The Bar admitted the evidence was received and misclassified. And then, instead of correcting it, the Bar spent two weeks denying ADA coverage, stripping my cc list, misdirecting communications, cancelling phantom meetings, and asking for more time.
I want everyone on this email to ask one question: if an attorney the Bar was investigating had lost submissions, dismissed a matter on an incomplete file, admitted the evidence was received and misclassified, failed to correct the dismissal, communicated through multiple officials with no stable lead contact, sent repeated solo emails after repeated written requests to stop, and cancelled a meeting during the complainant’s spouse’s ██████-recurrence appointment, would the Bar tolerate it?
The Bar would not. And the Bar cannot perform this conduct against a disabled complainant who came to it for help.
I am spending the rest of today with my family.
The following remain operative and unanswered:
– The 15 clarification questions in the May 12 response.
– The 11 institutional confirmation questions in the Twyman forward.
– The insurance disclosure demand from Section 7 of the May 12 response, including carrier identity, E&O coverage, notification status, reservation-of-rights correspondence, and preservation acknowledgment.
– Preservation of all records concerning the May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM transmission and cancellation, including intended recipient, calendar entry, attachments, headers, and any related internal or external communications.
The May 14, 2026, 5:00 PM ET cure window remains operative for all outstanding ADA-access, communication, preservation, and insurance-disclosure issues identified above and in the v4 correspondence. Any reliance by the Bar on undue burden or fundamental alteration must be issued in the written determination required by 28 C.F.R. § 35.164. Silence is not a written determination.
No further one-recipient correspondence should be sent to me in this matter.
Respectfully,
██████ ███████
Qualified Individual With a Disability
42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 | 29 U.S.C. § 794 | 28 C.F.R. Part 35
██████████████, ██████████████
██████████████ | ██████████████<mailto:██████████████>
Accessibility notice: Due to my documented disability, including limited or no functional use of my dominant hand, I use assistive technology and voice-to-text tools to produce written communications. I appreciate your understanding of this accommodation. If any portion of this correspondence contains a typographical error or is unclear as a result, please ask and I will clarify.