State Bar of Georgia · ADA Access Diary · Day 12 of 25
I sent Shiptenko a comprehensive ADA-access and receipt-confirmation inquiry about the portal grievances, and a separate supplemental-evidence transmission to Nash requesting receipt confirmation. The Bar's directory also failed on the same day (an internal address bounced).
What had to be true
For receipt confirmation to be framed as an access safeguard, the prior file-loss had to have already happened, so I could no longer assume a submission reached the file.
What I argued
- This is an access request, not a merits request: "It is an ADA access and process-confirmation request."
- The generic autoresponder is inadequate: no tracking number, no attachment confirmation, no conflict acknowledgment.
- Asked whether a published ADA grievance procedure exists, and for a "non-CAPTCHA filing route."
- Flagged the form discrepancy: the Spanish complaint form lists an ADA Coordinator contact the English form omits.
- Requested written response "within five business days. Please do not call me or require a telephone call."
What the Bar said
None on this date.
What it cost
I had to itemize, point by point, every access failure (CAPTCHA, autoresponder, unreliable address, form discrepancy) because the Bar had given him no reliable confirmation route, repetition forced by the absence of a built-in confirmation system. For the Nash transmission he had to disclose that prior submissions "were acknowledged as misclassified and not placed in the grievance file" to justify asking for confirmation at all.
The documents from this day
Read the full story on the State Bar page. See the record in the document room.