John J. Shiptenko Answered the Grievance on Shiptenko: “Received.”

As of October 17, 2026. Times are Eastern.

One word. That was the whole reply.

At 7:19 PM on June 17, 2026, I filed a grievance against John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia. I sent it to Shiptenko and to Adrienne D. Nash, with fifteen more copied: the General Counsel, two Deputy General Counsel, the Executive Director, the Chief Operating Officer, the Director of Human Resources, the President and others.

At 8:05 AM on June 18, 2026, the answer came. From Shiptenko. The respondent. It read, in full: “Received.”

It went to me. Nobody else saw it. Sixteen people had the grievance (a seventeenth copy bounced). The one who answered was the one it was about, and the answer went to an audience of one. Before the June 30 dismissal, I hold no other acknowledgment of that grievance from anyone at the Bar, apart from the one line from the out of office backup described below.

Then the slow walk. At 8:39 AM on June 26, 2026, I wrote to Shiptenko again and put the recipients back. Shiptenko’s mailbox answered at 8:39 AM: “I am away from work and will have limited access to email messages. If you need immediate attention, please contact Nariah Dancy at nariahd@gabar.org. I will do my best to respond to your email message on June 29, 2026.”

The Bar’s own staff directory lists Nariah Dancy as its Pro Hac Vice Administrator. That is the person who handles out of state lawyers asking to appear in a Georgia case. Not ADA. Not grievances. I wrote to her anyway at 9:09 AM. At 12:54 PM she answered: “Received, I will forward this information.”

June 29 came. In the emails I hold, nothing came from Shiptenko on June 29, or in July or August. Shiptenko’s next email to me, apart from an automatic reply on September 19, is dated September 22, 2026. That is 96 days after “Received.”

It happened again on September 19, 2026, at 4:18 PM: same out of office, same backup, Nariah Dancy, with a promise of September 22. To be fair, that promise was kept. Shiptenko wrote on September 22.

What I Allege:

1. The one word. I allege that at 8:05 AM on June 18, 2026, John J. Shiptenko, the person the June 17 grievance was about, answered it with one word: “Received.”
2. An audience of one. I allege that the grievance was addressed to two people, with fifteen more copied, and that Shiptenko’s reply copied none of them.
3. A broken promise. I allege that at 8:39 AM on June 26, 2026, Shiptenko’s mailbox wrote, “I will do my best to respond to your email message on June 29, 2026,” and that no email from Shiptenko dated June 29 is in my mailbox or my native record, as of 2026-10-17.
4. The wrong backup. I allege that the same auto reply sent me to Nariah Dancy, whom the Bar’s staff directory lists as Pro Hac Vice Administrator, and that she answered, “Received, I will forward this information.”
5. The silent treatment. I allege that from June 18 to September 22, 2026, 96 days, I received no email from Shiptenko other than two automatic replies, as of the 18 emails from Shiptenko I hold as of 2026-10-17.
6. Again. I allege that on September 19, 2026, at 4:18 PM, Shiptenko’s mailbox again named Nariah Dancy as the contact for “immediate attention.”
7. It appears to me that a grievance against a lawyer in the Bar’s own Office of the General Counsel was received by that lawyer, acknowledged by that lawyer, and by no one else.

What It Did to Me:

I wrote it to Shiptenko on June 26: “Every one of these letters is written with voice software because I cannot use my hand. Today, after all of that, the Bar found one word.” I spend hours on a letter. The Bar spent one word.

Is this how they would treat their own family or friends that were disabled?

Back to John J. Shiptenko · What Is ADA Title II?

ADA Matters welcomes documented corrections. Write to info@adamatters.com with the correct fact and its source.