PUBLIC FILINGFederal court filing
Federal court filing · State Bar of Georgia
On September 28, 2026, lawyers for the State Bar of Georgia defendants filed a brief in federal court opposing Marsha W. Mignott’s request to put before the judge the May 12, 2026 email that William D. NeSmith III, a State Bar Deputy General Counsel, sent me about the Bar’s ADA coordinator. The brief calls it “an unauthenticated email” and says it came from “a disability advocate’s website.” Below are the brief’s own words, page by page.
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia |
| Court filing | Docket number 54, filed September 28, 2026, 11 pages |
| Filed by | The defendants, through Nall & Miller, LLP. Signed /s/ Patrick N. Arndt (page 10). Robert L. Goldstucker and Patrick N. Arndt are listed as attorneys for the defendants. |
| Responds to | The plaintiff’s September 14, 2026 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response |
| Attachments | None. The filing is the brief, the signature block and a certificate of service. |
Where the brief mentions the email
| Where | The brief’s words |
|---|---|
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 1 | Mignott’s purported new evidence |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3 | an email purporting to be from State Bar employee William NeSmith that she obtained from a disability advocate’s website |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3 | Plaintiff alleges that NeSmith was responding to a non-lawyer’s questions regarding the State Bar’s Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator. |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3 | In response, the email states that the State Bar is an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia. |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3 | Defendants’ 11th Amendment defense does not depend on affidavits, depositions, correspondence, or anything other than Plaintiff’s own words in her Complaint. |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 4 | let alone an unauthenticated email |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 5 | The definition provided by state law is what is important, not what is said in an email. |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 6 | Again, comments in an email in the context of a member of the public asking about accommodations pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act have no relevance to this matter. |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 7 | The emails’ comments about the ownership of the assets does not change this analysis. |
| The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 9 | An unauthenticated email outside of the pleadings |
The brief does not name ADA Matters. It describes the source as “a disability advocate’s website” (page 3).
These are statements in court filings. They are arguments by the party that filed them, not findings by a judge.
Case 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. This page quotes the filing and adds no opinion.