EMAIL SENT · 2026-05-29
Read the text transcript
Mr. Shiptenko
I am filing a grievance against Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel. Filing PDF and exhibits PDF attached.
The State Bar’s grievance system is not functional for a disabled complainant operating under a written-only ADA accommodation. Five plain failures inside your Office make that point for me.
1. On April 10 your Office dismissed Grievance No. ██████-█████ stating "we did not receive a rebuttal." Counsel Burgess admitted on April 21 the rebuttal materials were received. The dismissal remains uncorrected.
2. On May 19 your Office sent an unsigned institutional email from ██████████████ a mailbox Counsel Burgess admitted supervising that addressed accommodations and suggested a disabled complainant may have been misled by "an AI-generated summary answer for a search query."
3. The same May 19 message instructed that the Bar need not respond to non-accommodation inquiries and that non-response should not be read as confirming or denying any fact. That is an institutional notice that the disciplinary process may simply not answer a disabled complainant.
4. On May 27 I asked who wrote the unsigned May 19 message. On May 29 the Bar produced no records, named no author, and corrected no inference despite holding every record needed to resolve the question.
5. The respondent is an Assistant General Counsel in the Office that would ordinarily screen this filing. The Office cannot screen itself.
I am sending this by direct email because the portal and intake channel are administered by the Office under review. I am asking for two things:
a. Written acknowledgment that this filing was received, logged, and assigned an investigation case number.
b. Identification of the conflict-free reviewer outside the Office of the General Counsel chain.
Filed on the record from the date of this transmittal. Per the Bar’s own May 19 instruction, non-response will not be read as confirming or denying any fact.
I hope everyone has a great weekend and upcoming convention.
Respectfully,
██████ ███████
██████████████
██████████████, █████████████
██████████████
██████████████
—
I am a qualified individual with a disability. I am SSA-determined disabled and receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. I have documented upper-extremity and cognitive limitations. Supporting documentation is available upon written request and execution of a properly limited HIPAA-compliant authorization.
Accessibility notice: I rely on assistive technology and voice-to-text tools to produce written communications. If any portion of this correspondence contains a typographical error or requires clarification, please identify the specific portion at issue and I will clarify in writing.
I am filing a grievance against Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel. Filing PDF and exhibits PDF attached.
The State Bar’s grievance system is not functional for a disabled complainant operating under a written-only ADA accommodation. Five plain failures inside your Office make that point for me.
1. On April 10 your Office dismissed Grievance No. ██████-█████ stating "we did not receive a rebuttal." Counsel Burgess admitted on April 21 the rebuttal materials were received. The dismissal remains uncorrected.
2. On May 19 your Office sent an unsigned institutional email from ██████████████ a mailbox Counsel Burgess admitted supervising that addressed accommodations and suggested a disabled complainant may have been misled by "an AI-generated summary answer for a search query."
3. The same May 19 message instructed that the Bar need not respond to non-accommodation inquiries and that non-response should not be read as confirming or denying any fact. That is an institutional notice that the disciplinary process may simply not answer a disabled complainant.
4. On May 27 I asked who wrote the unsigned May 19 message. On May 29 the Bar produced no records, named no author, and corrected no inference despite holding every record needed to resolve the question.
5. The respondent is an Assistant General Counsel in the Office that would ordinarily screen this filing. The Office cannot screen itself.
I am sending this by direct email because the portal and intake channel are administered by the Office under review. I am asking for two things:
a. Written acknowledgment that this filing was received, logged, and assigned an investigation case number.
b. Identification of the conflict-free reviewer outside the Office of the General Counsel chain.
Filed on the record from the date of this transmittal. Per the Bar’s own May 19 instruction, non-response will not be read as confirming or denying any fact.
I hope everyone has a great weekend and upcoming convention.
Respectfully,
██████ ███████
██████████████
██████████████, █████████████
██████████████
██████████████
—
I am a qualified individual with a disability. I am SSA-determined disabled and receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. I have documented upper-extremity and cognitive limitations. Supporting documentation is available upon written request and execution of a properly limited HIPAA-compliant authorization.
Accessibility notice: I rely on assistive technology and voice-to-text tools to produce written communications. If any portion of this correspondence contains a typographical error or requires clarification, please identify the specific portion at issue and I will clarify in writing.