What did the State Bar of Georgia say about its own ADA coverage?

Four positions in eight weeks. On May 4, 2026 it granted ADA accommodations in writing. On May 12 it wrote that it is not a public entity. On May 13 it approved an accommodation request. On May 29 it wrote it is not subject to Title II.

Which court cases apply the ADA to bar bodies?

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Bar Examiners, Clark v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and Bonnette v. D.C. Court of Appeals are collected by the Southeast ADA Center, a federally funded ADA center.

Do I have to settle the coverage question before I file a complaint?

No. The state ADA coordinator route and the U.S. Department of Justice route both accept a complaint and make their own determination. Waiting for the institution to answer means waiting on the party with the least reason to answer.

Does ADA Title II Cover the State Bar of Georgia? The Record

Q: Is a state bar a public entity under ADA Title II?

Courts have generally treated state licensing and bar bodies as Title II entities because they are empowered by state governments to provide benefits, services and programs. Whether a particular body is covered depends on the entity, the state and the circuit, and that is a question for a lawyer.

Q: Can I sue a state bar under ADA Title II?

There is a real limit. In Guttman v. Khalsa and Turner v. National Council of State Boards of Nursing, the Tenth Circuit held that states retain sovereign immunity from Title II damages claims in the professional licensing context. That limits what can be recovered. It is not a statement that the access obligation does not exist.

The short answer: the dated writings and the statute

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, wrote on May 29, 2026: “the State Bar’s position remains that it is not subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Title II covers a “public entity,” which 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) defines to include “any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.” On June 9, 2026, lawyers for the defendants, among them the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel, told a federal court that “the State, through the Georgia Supreme Court, controls the State Bar and its agents and employees.”

Sources and the State ADA Coordinator’s note

I asked the State Bar of Georgia this question in writing and asked for a one word answer. I never got one. What I got instead was three different positions in eight weeks. This page lays out what the law says, what the courts have said, and what the Bar said, so you can read all three next to each other.

The disclaimer, up front. I am not a lawyer. Nothing here is legal advice. Every legal source below is linked so you can read the original yourself, and where the courts disagree, I say so.

Part 1 of 2 · Part 2

What the statute says

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act covers public entities. The operative sentence is short:

“no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
42 U.S.C. § 12132

The implementing regulations sit at 28 C.F.R. Part 35. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, covers programs receiving federal financial assistance and runs on a parallel track.

Sources: ADA Title II Regulations, ADA.gov and ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments.

What the courts have said about licensing and bar bodies

The Southeast ADA Center, one of the federally funded ADA centers, collects the case law on Title II and professional licensing. The short version is that courts have generally treated licensing boards as Title II entities, because they are empowered by state governments to provide benefits, services and programs.

Cases that reached that result include:

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners (Second Circuit). An applicant was entitled to testing accommodations, such as extended time, where a disability substantially limits a major life activity.
Clark v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners (E.D. Va.). A mental health question asking about treatment within the previous five years violated the ADA.
Ellen S. v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners (S.D. Fla.). Questions about treatment for an emotional disorder violated Title II.
Bonnette v. D.C. Court of Appeals. Bar examination providers must provide accessible accommodations, including assistive technology such as screen reading software.

The distinction a Bar lawyer would raise first

There is a gap in that list and it is better to name it than to let someone else name it for me. Every case above is about getting admitted or getting licensed. Bar examiners, application questions, testing accommodations, a nursing board. None of them is about a bar’s disciplinary arm, which is the part of the State Bar of Georgia in this story.

So I am not going to claim those cases decide this question. They decide the threshold one. What makes a licensing body a public entity under Title II is not which program it happens to run. It is that a state empowered it to run one at all. Title II reaches the services, programs and activities of a public entity, and the statute does not draw a line between the program that admits a lawyer and the program that disciplines one. Whether a court would apply that reasoning to the State Bar of Georgia specifically, I do not know, and I am not the person to answer it.

What I can report is narrower and it does not require a court. The Bar put someone in the coordinator role, granted accommodations under it, approved a request under it, and then said the obligation does not reach it.

The other side of it, which I am not going to hide

The same source lists a case that went the other way. In Applicants v. Texas State Board of Law Examiners (W.D. Tex.), the court upheld specific mental illness questions as justified to protect the public.

There is a further counterweight and an honest page has to say so. In Guttman v. Khalsa and Turner v. National Council of State Boards of Nursing, the Tenth Circuit held that states retain sovereign immunity from Title II damages claims in the professional licensing context. That is a limit on what a person can recover in federal court. It is not a statement that the access obligation does not exist.

So the honest summary is this. The weight of the case law treats state licensing and bar bodies as covered by Title II. Whether a particular entity is covered, and what a person can actually recover, depends on the entity, the state, and the circuit. That is a question for a lawyer, and I am not one.

Source: Title II of the ADA Applied to State and Local Professional Licensing, Southeast ADA Center.

What the State Bar of Georgia said

I asked one question, in writing, and asked for a yes or a no. Here is what came back, in order.

The Bar’s stated position on ADA coverage, in its own words, by date
Date	Who	The position
May 4, 2026	ADA Coordinator	Accommodations granted in writing, including written communication and accessible electronic formats.
May 12, 2026	Deputy General Counsel	“The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency.” Also, the Bar is “not required to have a published ADA Coordinator.”
May 13, 2026	ADA Coordinator	“The State Bar has approved your accommodation request.”
May 29, 2026	State Bar	The Bar is “not subject to Title II.”

Read that column downward. On May 4 the Bar granted ADA accommodations. On May 12 it said it was not a public entity. On May 13 it approved an accommodation request. On May 29 it said it was not subject to Title II.

An institution that is not covered by Title II does not need an ADA Coordinator, does not need to grant accommodations, and does not need to approve accommodation requests. This one did all three, while saying it did not have to.

The full moving target, dated . Granted, then taken away . Read the May 12 denial

Why the answer matters more than the argument

I did not ask the Bar to concede liability. I asked a threshold question so I would know which door to use.

If Title II applies, there is supposed to be a coordinator, a published grievance procedure for disability complaints, and a route for effective communication. If it does not apply, then I needed to know that on day one so I could go somewhere else. Either answer would have been useful. Eight weeks of both answers was not.

That is the practical cost of an unanswered threshold question, and it lands entirely on the disabled person, who is the one least able to absorb it.