The State Bar of Georgia ADA Access Diary, January to June 2026

April 20, 2026: My First Two Emails Against the April 10 Dismissal

I sent the first two emails challenging the April 10 dismissal. A 6:39 PM filing to the General Counsel and grievance counsel requested supervisory review and correction, arguing the dismissal rested on a false “no rebuttal” premise. An 8:21 PM email addressed the signing attorney, Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison, directly.

What had to be true

For the Bar’s dismissal letter to say no rebuttal was received, the rebuttals had to be absent from the file when the signing attorney reviewed it. For me to prove the premise false, the Bar’s own intake system had to have acknowledged receipt of the submissions, which it had (Feb 3 and Feb 20 auto-acknowledgments from Response@gabar.org).

What I argued

• The dismissal’s factual premise is contradicted by the Bar’s own intake system. “The Bar Office’s own system says otherwise.”
• The Bar acknowledged delivery of both submissions; the Feb 20 auto-reply named the case at the moment of receipt.
• “You signed a letter stating that did not happen.”
• An attorney who signs a dismissal stating no rebuttal was received, when the office acknowledged it, “has made a statement that is not true.”
• The same office enforces the honesty rules against the lawyers it investigates; “the signature is the responsibility.”
• The request is narrow and procedural: “I am not asking the Office to decide the merits in this email. I am asking the Office to correct the record.”
• Specific corrections demanded: confirm receipt in writing, associate the submissions with the file, “Withdraw or supersede the April 10 dismissal,” conduct a fresh first review, and preserve all intake records and records of where my emails went.

What it cost

I described reconstructing a record the Bar’s own system had already confirmed: “I have spent my own time, my own money, and physical reserves I do not have to reconstruct a record your Office’s own system already confirmed.” He disclosed disability and active medical care while doing so.

I Asked Andreea N. Morrison to Correct the Dismissal She Signed

On April 20, 2026 I sent the first two emails challenging the April 10 dismissal. At 6:39 PM I asked the General Counsel and grievance counsel for supervisory review and correction, arguing the dismissal rested on a false “no rebuttal” premise, when the Bar’s own intake system had already confirmed receipt of both my submissions. At 8:21 PM I wrote the attorney who signed the dismissal, Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison, directly.

April 21, 2026: Leigh Burgess, State Bar of Georgia, Answered My April 20 Emails

On April 21, 2026, Leigh Burgess of the State Bar of Georgia confirmed my February emails were missing at review and said they had been added to the file.

The scoreboard, as of April 21, 2026

What the Bar said

Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, April 21, 2026. Proof of Leigh Burgess writing it: her April 21, 2026 email, every word

On April 21, 2026, Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel for the State Bar of Georgia, sent the first reply to my April 20 emails. Burgess confirmed that the State Bar of Georgia received my February 3 and February 20 emails and had not added them to the grievance file at that time.

The same day, I sent four emails splitting the case into tracks: a merits/reconsideration letter, a separate ADA Title II letter, a direct letter to the signing attorney, and an institutional-notice letter to the Bar President.

Correction, October 12, 2026: An earlier version described April 21, 2026, as the State Bar of Georgia’s first response. April 21 was the first reply to my April 20 emails. Earlier communications included the February 3 invitation to submit a rebuttal, the February 24 acknowledgment, and the April 10 dismissal letter.

The clock, April 20 and 21, 2026 (Eastern time)

What I argued

• The Bar’s April 21 response left the dismissal in place; “A forward is not a correction.”
• Demanded the Bar state whether it would “withdraw or supersede the April 10 dismissal.”
• At 6:43 PM on April 21, 2026, I wrote about “The Office’s non-response to the six enumerated ADA Title II accommodation requests in the April 20, 2026 Principal Filing” and attached an audit of the Bar’s public web pages. Earlier that day, at 11:53 AM, Leigh Burgess wrote: “At this time, your participation is not required, as the file is complete.”
• Set a deadline to fix it: “The cure window closes on May 5, 2026.”

What had to be true

My emails on April 21, 2026, after her reply
As of April 21, 2026

The documents from this day

• I demanded ADA accommodations and an independent path to file my grievance
• I told the lawyer who signed the dismissal that it was issued on an admitted intake error
• I notified the Bar President that the dismissal rested on an admitted intake defect

April 30, 2026: ADA Accommodation Package and Conflict Screen Demand

I sent a comprehensive ADA accommodation package and a companion conflict-screen demand. ADA Coordinator John J. Shiptenko was designated as a contact around this date.

What had to be true

For a conflict-screen demand to be warranted, the office reviewing the case had to be the same office whose own staff conduct was now in question. For the accommodation package to be “comprehensive,” the prior five accommodation requests had to have gone unanswered.

What it cost

A sixth accommodation request after five unanswered ones. I was assembling a 20-page binder of documents and conflict-screen demand while in active medical care, the burden of having to formalize and document access requests the Bar had not acted on.

The documents from this day

• I demanded a written conflict screen and a conflict-free reviewer
• I sent a time-sensitive ADA accommodation request and flagged a new problem with where my emails went
• I asked the Bar for help finding an accessible way to file
• The State ADA Coordinator’s office responded
• I put the Bar on notice of its ADA Title II duties and asked it to preserve its records
• I sent the Bar copies of the day’s correspondence for its file
• I sent the Bar a complete record of everything I had filed

May 5, 2026: Burgess Answers and Confirms the Misclassification Again

What the Bar said

Burgess confirmed the Feb 3 and Feb 20 submissions and original grievance “will be thoroughly reviewed during the reconsideration process,” and explained reviewer assignment runs by “alphabetical distribution” by the accused lawyer’s last name. She added, “Please note that OGC@gabar.org is not an email address associated with our office,” flagging the unreliable address the complainant had been using.

The documents from this day

• The Bar received my time-sensitive accommodation request

May 7, 2026: Shiptenko Answers My Access Concerns Point by Point

Shiptenko sent a substantive point-by-point reply to my access concerns. This is the last substantive engagement from Shiptenko for a stretch.

What had to be true

For Shiptenko to answer “no single, designated ADA contact,” the Bar had to concede it had no single published contact and was assigning one ad hoc to this case.

What the Bar said

Shiptenko: “As the ADA Coordinator, my duty is to make sure that the State Bar does not discriminate against you due to your disability,” and “I will help ensure that you have the same rights and opportunities as non-disabled grievants.” He stated a public entity “can have numerous ADA coordinators,” that “Ms. Nash usually handles ADA requests for the grievance process,” and that he had spoken with “Ms. Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator,” and was “analyzing our ADA notices and processes to determine whether and how they can be improved.” He offered to route all grievance communication through Nash if desired.

What it cost

My listed concerns are themselves the burden record: I documented that I was receiving “answers from different people, on different days,” forcing me to track and reconcile multiple inconsistent institutional channels.

The documents from this day

• I pressed the Bar on the operational questions it kept leaving unanswered
• The Bar’s General Counsel office responded about the May 7 email

May 11, 2026: My Full Reply to Shiptenko and a Final Cure Demand

I sent two letters: a full response to Shiptenko‘s May 4 and May 7 emails, and a final institutional cure-demand to the General Counsel, both setting a single cure deadline.

What had to be true

For a “cure” demand to make sense, an uncured defect had to remain: the April 10 dismissal had to still be operative despite the admitted misclassification.

What I argued

• Requested a single coordinated written response “by May 14, 2026, 17:00 ET” so there is “one shared record going forward.”
• Asked the Bar to state the procedural status of the April 10 dismissal and whether it “may fairly be described as a complete-record merits determination.”
• Restated the load-bearing admission and asked the Bar “to correct the procedural record internally before the cure window closes.”

The documents from this day

• I responded to the Bar’s May 7 email to its General Counsel
• I gave the Bar a final notice before the deadline I gave them to fix it

May 13: NeSmith Retracted the Meeting. Shiptenko Approved My Request

A dense single day. NeSmith (7:34 AM) retracted the meeting, saying it “was meant for a colleague of mine and was sent to you in error.” Shiptenko (12:08 PM) confirmed an approved accommodation and a reconsideration postponement to June 15. NeSmith (12:41 PM) partially restored cc but again stripped the State ADA Coordinator; NeSmith (1:29 PM) said he had a doctor’s appointment and would respond “tomorrow.” The Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office replied on the full list, treating the concerns as legitimate. I sent a detailed reply documenting the solo-email pattern.

What had to be true

For NeSmith’s denial and Shiptenko’s grant to coexist, two Bar officials had to be holding opposite institutional positions on the same day about the same person. For the “tomorrow” promise to matter, a self-imposed Bar deadline had to exist and then pass.

What I argued

• The retraction proved the need for one point of contact: “The last twelve hours proved exactly why a single point of contact was the focus of my requests.”
• Documented the solo-email pattern as escalating: “One solo email can be a mistake. Two is careless. Three is a pattern. Four is a choice. Five, after five documented requests to stop, is not confusion. It is harassment.”
• Framed the rebuild cost as a prohibited surcharge: every solo email “forces me to reconstruct the distribution,” and “That cost, imposed on me because of my disability and after written notice, is the surcharge prohibited by 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(f).”
• “Silence is not a written determination” under 28 C.F.R. Section 35.164.
• The 15 clarification questions, the 11 institutional confirmation questions, and the preservation demand “remain operative and unanswered.”

What the Bar said

NeSmith (7:34 AM): “The 11:30 time was meant for a colleague of mine and was sent to you in error… there is no meeting between you and I at 11:30.” Shiptenko (12:08 PM): “The State Bar has approved your accommodation request,” with Nash to “defer her final determination until June 15, 2026.” NeSmith (1:29 PM): “I won’t be able to respond to your two emails until tomorrow.” The Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office replied on the full list confirming the Bar’s obligations for “programs, services, and activities” and treating the case as legitimate.

The documents from this day

• The Bar replied about the meeting
• I confirmed the meeting and asked for the access and dial-in details
• I confirmed the meeting and asked for the access and dial-in details
• The Bar approved my accommodation request
• The Bar replied about the meeting
• The Bar replied about the meeting
• I documented the Bar’s own words and its silence after the deadline I gave them to fix it passed

May 14, 2026: The Deadline I Gave Them to Fix It Passed. NeSmith’s ‘Tomorrow’ Never Came

Cure-window day. I sent a morning reminder with a quote sheet of the Bar’s own words and five written questions, and an evening post-cure record documenting that nothing was cured. NeSmith‘s promised “tomorrow” response did not arrive. The deadline I gave them to fix it passed at 5:00 PM ET.

What had to be true

For “zero cured” to be true, the Bar had to leave the dismissal status unstated and the contradiction unresolved through the deadline. For “who speaks for the Bar” to be a fair question, the Bar’s own emails over ten days had to contain opposite positions.

What I argued

• Asked leadership to identify, in writing, “Whose statements reflect the official position of the State Bar of Georgia,” “The operative status of the April 10, 2026 dismissal,” the reconsideration’s “terms, scope, and completion timeline,” whether new evidence may be presented, and who must inform the accused lawyer’s counsel of the operative status.
• Documented the contradiction: Shiptenko, “The State Bar has approved your accommodation request”; NeSmith, “The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency.”
• Recorded the post-cure tally: 28 items identified, 4 violations, “Zero items have been cured.”
• Escalation notice: if the Bar will not provide a unified written response, “I will seek assistance from disability rights advocacy organizations, ADA legal clinics, and media outlets.”

What the Bar said

None on this date. NeSmith’s promised “tomorrow” response did not come.

The documents from this day

• I laid out the Bar’s own contradictory words from May 4 to 14
• I laid out the Bar’s own contradictory words from May 4 to 14

May 15, 2026: I Filed Grievances Against Morrison and NeSmith

I filed grievances against two Bar officials (Deputy General Counsel Morrison and Deputy General Counsel NeSmith) and sent notice emails. Filing required family assistance because a CAPTCHA barrier blocked independent filing. NeSmith (11:05 AM) sent a litigation-threat shutdown letter restricting further substantive correspondence.

What I argued

• The Bar shifted blame instead of fixing the file: “The Office blamed my labeling for its own routing failure.”
• “The Bar cannot simultaneously grant Title II accommodations and deny Title II coverage. One of those statements is institutionally false.”
• Structural conflict: the office “cannot screen a grievance against its own Deputy General Counsel without a structural conflict.”
• Asked the central question: “What is the institutional interest served by leaving a self-admittedly defective dismissal in place against a disabled complainant?”
• Stated I would have preferred not to escalate: “I tried to facilitate this privately but have been refused any single point of contact by the Ga Bar.”

What the Bar said

NeSmith (11:05 AM): “You have now expressly threatened litigation against the State Bar of Georgia,” and therefore “the State Bar of Georgia will not engage in further substantive correspondence with you… outside formal legal process.” He confined further contact to accommodation requests (to Shiptenko) and reconsideration evidence (to Nash).

What it cost

I could not file on my own: the CAPTCHA barrier meant “access depended on another person’s schedule, not [my] choice,” forcing all filings into a single session whenever a family helper was available. My access efforts were then recharacterized as a litigation threat and used to cut off correspondence.

The documents from this day

• The Bar treated my filings as a litigation threat and shut down communication
• I filed a grievance against Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison
• The Bar acknowledged receipt of a grievance
• I filed a grievance against Deputy General Counsel William D. NeSmith III

I Filed a Grievance Against William D. NeSmith III

I filed a grievance against Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison

May 18, 2026: My ADA Access Inquiry to Shiptenko, My Evidence to Nash

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 I argued

• This is an access request, not a merits request: “It is an ADA access and process-confirmation request.”
• Asked whether a published ADA grievance procedure exists, and for a “non-CAPTCHA filing route.”
• Requested written response “within five business days. Please do not call me or require a telephone call.”

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.

May 19, 2026: I Asked Shiptenko to Confirm Receipt and File Placement

I sent Shiptenko a stand-alone receipt-and-file-association confirmation request for the prior day’s transmission. The Bar’s Response@gabar.org sent an unsigned confirmation of the three portal grievances and laid out a restricted correspondence regime. (A Willard email about where to send things is also logged this date in the documents.)

What had to be true

For me to have to ask “whether the mail arrived,” the Bar had to have no reliable, automatic confirmation for evidence sent outside the portal.

What I argued

• Receipt confirmation is now a disability accommodation, not a courtesy: it “is now an access safeguard for me, not an optional courtesy.”
• The prior admission is the reason: “As a result of this misclassification, your submissions were not added to the grievance file at that time.”
• “This is the institutional equivalent of asking whether the mail arrived.”

What the Bar said

The unsigned Response@gabar.org email confirmed receipt of the three grievances and itemized what was received per grievance. It restricted the complainant’s correspondence: “No request for information as to status, procedures, or other matters beyond a withdrawal or request to supplement will be processed,” and suggested the complainant’s reliance on a non-office address may have come from “an AI-generated summary answer for a search query.” It reaffirmed the two granted accommodations and sent all accommodation requests to Shiptenko.

The documents from this day

• The Bar confirmed it received three of my grievances
• I asked the Bar to confirm my evidence was received and placed in the file

May 20, 2026: Shiptenko Calls My Evidence a “Courtesy Copy”

Shiptenko told me he had received the prior transmission only “as a courtesy copy” and to contact Nash directly. I emailed Nash directly to ask whether his submission was received.

What I argued

• Direct, narrow ask to Nash: “Did you receive my May 18 supplemental evidence submission and its five attachments?”

What the Bar said

Shiptenko (8:31 AM): “I received it as a courtesy copy. You can contact Ms. Nash directly to verify her receipt. Thank you.”

The documents from this day

• The Bar responded on whether my evidence was received and filed
• I asked the Bar to confirm it received my filing

May 20, 2026: I Asked Nash Whether My May 18 Evidence Arrived

John J. Shiptenko Said He Got My Evidence “as a courtesy copy”

May 21, 2026: I sent a “THIRD REQUEST” for receipt confirmation

I sent a “THIRD REQUEST” for receipt confirmation. Nash (5:25 PM) confirmed receipt but reported one attachment could not be opened. I resent the file in accessible format.

What had to be true

For me to label it a “third request,” I had to have asked twice already without a substantive confirmation.

What I argued

• The repetition itself is the point: the subject line escalates to “THIRD REQUEST.”
• Cooperative on the inaccessible file: resent it in alternate format so it “can be opened without any problems.”

What the Bar said

Nash (5:25 PM): “I have received the additional information you requested to be included in your grievance,” noting all attachments were accessible except one, which “could not be opened,” and inviting a resend. The accessible ones “have been added to your file for review.”

May 22: Adrienne D. Nash Confirms My Attachments Reached the File

Nash confirmed the resent attachments were accessible and added to the file. I sent a brief thank-you.

What I argued

• Courtesy close: “Great, thank you so much! I hope you enjoy your long weekend.”

What the Bar said

Nash (11:44 AM): “I received both of your recent attachments, and I was able to access them. They will also be added to the file for review.”

The documents from this day

• The Bar confirmed receipt of my supplemental evidence
• I submitted supplemental evidence for the grievance

May 26, 2026: I Sent Shiptenko 15 Open Questions in One Ledger

I sent Shiptenko a consolidated follow-up with fifteen open process and ADA-access questions in one ledger. Shiptenko replied twice: acknowledging receipt, and then sorting the questions out of my lane.

What had to be true

For the questions to be “sorted” away, the Bar had to treat most of my process questions as outside the ADA channel, leaving no single official answering them.

What I argued

• Consolidated fifteen open questions “into one document for your convenience,” to make them easy to answer in one place.

What the Bar said

Shiptenko (2:01 PM): “I have noted your complaint regarding the non-Captcha route for disabled users,” “I have also noted your concerns regarding the differences in the Spanish and English forms,” and “I hope to respond this week.” Shiptenko (3:42 PM): “Questions 1 through 5 and 10 through 15 are not related to addressing discriminatory treatment of you,” so they “must direct those questions to [NeSmith‘s] attention,” pointing back to NeSmith’s May 12 and May 15 emails for the rest.

The documents from this day

• I followed up on ADA access and the status of my grievances
• The Bar responded to my receipt-confirmation request
• The Bar responded on ADA access and status

May 27, 2026: I Asked Shiptenko One Yes or No Question by Friday

I reduced the coverage question to one word and sent Shiptenko a threshold yes/no request with a Friday deadline.

What I argued

• The single threshold question: “Does the State Bar of Georgia agree that Title II of the ADA applies to access to its attorney-grievance process, yes or no?”
• Distinguished ordinary correspondence costs from “institutional correction work shifted onto” I by the Bar’s file-placement failure.
• Requested a written yes/no “by Friday, May 29, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern.”

What the Bar said

None on this date (the deadline pointed to May 29).

What it cost

I recorded “the health, family, money, software, and limited-capacity burden caused by the Bar’s admitted file-placement failure,” and the work of compiling eighteen contradictory positions just to pin down one yes/no answer.

The documents from this day

• I asked the Bar one question: does ADA Title II apply, yes or no

June 1, 2026: My Grievance Against a Bar Official Got No Receipt

I sent a follow-up reporting that a grievance I had filed against a Bar official produced no confirmation at all, because I could not use the portal and the alternate route generated no receipt.

What had to be true

For there to be “no confirmation,” the only automatic-confirmation route (the portal) had to be incompatible with my assistive technology, leaving me dependent on a third party who was unavailable.

What I argued

• The intake system has now failed on the same access issue more than once. The on-disk draft states: “This is the second time the Bar’s intake system has failed me on the same access issue.” (The Question Ledger renders the sent line as “This is the third time in four months I have had to chase confirmation that the Bar received what I sent.”)
• “I could not use the portal. The portal is not compatible with the assistive technology I use to file.”
• Three written demands: confirmation of receipt with date and time; “An accessible way to file and to receive confirmation of receipt that does not require me to depend on a third party”; and the Bar’s record of receipt.
• The principle: “A disabled person should be able to file a complaint and know it arrived. I should not have to ask twice.”

What the Bar said

Addressed in the June 2 reply (below).

What it cost

I had to prove delivery of my own complaint a second time, and document that I depends on a third party to file at all: “I have relied on a third party to help me complete portal submissions. That person was not available when I needed to file.” The repetition (“I should not have to ask twice”) is the burden in my own words.

June 2, 2026: Shiptenko Confirms the Grievance, Limits His Role

Shiptenko replied confirming receipt of the grievance against a Bar official, narrowed my own role to accommodation requests only, and announced I would be out of office.

What the Bar said

Shiptenko: “correspondence to me regarding the grievance process should only be used to submit requests for accommodations under the ADA. I do not read anything in either of your emails as containing a request for additional accommodations.” He confirmed receipt of the two PDF submissions, said the grievance “will be reviewed by a member of the State Disciplinary Board,” and pointed to the response@gabar.org withdrawal/supplement convention.

What it cost

Not applicable for this date (no outbound). Note: the access failure raised on June 1 was met by narrowing the contact’s role rather than fixing the intake route.

The documents from this day

• I gave the State ADA Coordinator a one-month update on the Bar’s access failures
• I documented the Bar granting, then denying, my ADA accommodations
• The Bar acknowledged the grievance against Assistant General Counsel Leigh Burgess

June 8, 2026: My Complaint to Bar HR, Copied to 11 Officers

On June 8, 2026, I filed a complaint with the State Bar of Georgia’s Director of Human Resources by email, copied to eleven leadership and Board officers, with a preservation demand.

What I argued

• The Bar treated an access request as pretext: “I asked for help. The State Bar treated that request as pretext, in its own words.”
• Quoted NeSmith’s recharacterization back at the institution: “it does not appear that you require assistance,” and the request “may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation or access assistance and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome regarding the underlying grievance matter.”
• Constructive-notice line to leadership: “You are not learning of this for the first time. On June 2, I put the Executive Director, the Chief Operating Officer, you… on the same written record.”
• Demanded confirmation/preservation/conflict-screen by close of the next business day (June 9).

What the Bar said

No substantive response by the June 9 deadline. Read receipts surfaced from Chief Operating Officer Sarah I. Coole (June 8, 5:40 PM ET) and Immediate Past President Ivy N. Cadle (June 9), confirming executive-level reading.

What it cost

I had to assemble a 14-page formal HR complaint and escalate to a dozen officials to be heard, after the line-level channels had recharacterized my access requests. I disclosed the personal toll: “In April 2026 alone, I had two surgeries and two hospitalizations while dealing with this matter.”

I escalated to Human Resources

On June 8, 2026 I escalated to Human Resources. I sent a misconduct, harassment, and retaliation ADA complaint to the Director of Human Resources, copying eleven leadership and Board officers, with an immediate preservation demand.

It named three Office of the General Counsel lawyers: William D. NeSmith III, Andreea N. Morrison, and Leigh Burgess. When the process inside the office broke, I went over it.

June 10, 2026: Shiptenko Says the Postponement Runs to June 15

Shiptenko sent a proactive substantive status update on the reconsideration, stating the postponement ran to June 15 and expressing a hope about my surgery.

What had to be true

For the status update to be “proactive,” the Bar had to be willing to engage on substance when it served the Bar, days after telling I it read nothing in my emails as an accommodation request.

What the Bar said

Shiptenko: “the State Bar approved your accommodation request, and Ms. Nash… has postponed issuing a final decision until June 15, 2026, at which point she will resume her review of that matter,” and “I hope you have recovered well from your surgery.”

What it cost

Not applicable for this date (no outbound). Note: the “recovered well from your surgery” line is factually off; I had told the Bar on May 14, with the ADA Coordinator copied, that the surgery was postponed because I could not clear preoperative requirements.

John J. Shiptenko Told Me the Postponement Runs to June 15

June 16, 2026: I Put 24 Questions to State Bar of Georgia Leaders

I sent a consolidated reconsideration reply with twenty-four written questions and attachments to Shiptenko and the full leadership group, after waiting until past the June 15 date the Bar had given. Shiptenko replied the same day, answering none of the questions, sending them to Nash, and stripping the leadership cc.

What I argued

• Asked the Bar “to confirm receipt and identify who will read and answer the response.”
• Asked that “if any portion will not be processed because the Bar considers it outside an assigned role, the Bar identify that portion and the person responsible.”

What the Bar said

Shiptenko (1:44 PM): “Ms. Nash can answer your questions regarding the reconsideration,” noted Nash “has resumed her review,” and attached a blank grievance form with three CAPTCHA-free filing options. He answered none of the twenty-four questions and identified no declined portion.

What it cost

I timed my send to respect the Bar’s own June 15 date, then compiled twenty-four questions and attachments, only to have the entire set sent to a different person, the consolidation work again returned without substantive answers.

The documents from this day

• I asked the Bar to reconsider the dismissal
• The Bar responded on the reconsideration

State Bar of Georgia Left My Questions Open. Other Agencies Answered

I sent a final hybrid reply listing the outstanding ADA-compliance issues and unanswered questions, contrasting the Spanish and English grievance forms and the Bar’s silence against other agencies’ timeliness. Shiptenko replied 34 minutes later addressing only the grievance-form point and again stripping the leadership cc.

What had to be true

For the form to be the only thing answered, the Bar had to keep treating the access mechanics as the issue while leaving the substantive questions (the uncorrected dismissal, who is reviewing, the unsigned May 19 author) unanswered.

What I argued

• Pressed the core unanswered items: who is reviewing the correction, by what standard, in what timeframe; the unsigned May 19 author; the withdrawn meeting; the non-correction of the dismissal.
• The closing line ties it back to Day 1: “The April 10 dismissal still says no rebuttal was received. I sent two.”

What the Bar said

Shiptenko (4:22 PM): “You don’t have to use the grievance form to file a grievance. You appear to have the ability to use your voice-to-text tool to create a PDF,” and “we are happy to accommodate you by accepting a grievance document generated with your existing voice-to-text tool… We just request that you do your best to include the information requested on the grievance form.” It addressed one point and ignored the rest.

What it cost

I had to compile a final outstanding-issues letter (seventeen-plus questions) to show the substantive record was still unanswered, and received a 34-minute reply that handled only the form while the substantive questions continued to draw weeks or silence. The reply also commented on my disability again (“You appear to have the ability to use your voice-to-text tool”), shifting the burden of recreating the form onto me.

The documents from this day

• I laid out the Bar’s outstanding ADA compliance issues and unanswered questions
• The Bar received my summary of its outstanding ADA compliance issues
• I filed a grievance against the Bar’s ADA contact, John J. Shiptenko