The documents behind the State Bar record.
This page collects the correspondence behind the State Bar of Georgia record. The main State Bar page explains the story. This page shows the documents.
Each entry tells you four things: what the document is, what it says, why it matters, and where to read it.
Do not take my word for it. Read the documents.
Part 1 of 2 · Part 2
Start here: the five documents that explain the whole issue
If you read nothing else, read these first.
1. The Bar dismissed the grievance and said no rebuttal arrived
Date: April 10, 2026
What it is: The original dismissal letter.
What it says: The Bar dismissed the grievance on the stated basis that no rebuttal had been received.
Why it matters: That statement became the starting point for everything that followed. The issue is not just the dismissal. The issue is that the Bar later admitted the submissions had been received but were not in the file before dismissal.
📄 Read it: The Bar dismissed the grievance and said no rebuttal arrived
2. The Bar admitted the submissions were received but not added to the file before dismissal
Date: April 21, 2026
What it is: The Bar’s written admission about the missing submissions.
What it says: The February 3 and February 20 submissions were received, misclassified, and not added to the grievance file at that time.
Why it matters: This is the center of the State Bar record. It is the difference between a complainant failing to respond and the Bar failing to put the response where it belonged.
📄 Read it: The Bar admitted my submissions were received but not added to the file before dismissal
3. The Bar agreed to written communication because of my disability
Date: May 4, 2026
What it is: The Bar’s disability access response.
What it says: The Bar agreed that communications with me would be in writing and that documents would be provided in accessible electronic format where possible.
Why it matters: This shows the Bar recognized a disability-related access need in the grievance process. “Accommodation grant” means nothing to normal people. This means the Bar agreed to communicate in writing because of disability.
📄 Read it: The Bar agreed to written communication because of my disability
4. The Bar later said Title II did not apply
Date: May 12 and May 29, 2026
What it is: The Bar’s ADA coverage denial.
What it says: The Bar took the position that it was not subject to Title II of the ADA.
Why it matters: The documents contain both positions. The Bar provided disability-related access in writing. Then it denied that Title II applied. Both positions are documented.
📄 Read it: The Bar said it is not a public entity and need not publish an ADA Coordinator
📄 Read it: The Bar said its position remained that Title II did not apply
5. The Bar affirmed the dismissal without correcting the April 10 record
Date: June 30, 2026
What it is: The reconsideration denial.
What it says: The Bar denied reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal.
Why it matters: The June 30 letter did not correct the April 10 no-rebuttal statement. It did not say the April 10 dismissal should not be treated as a complete-record decision.
📄 Read it: The Bar affirmed the dismissal without correcting the April 10 record
Document record by issue
Issue 1: The file was not in the file
These documents show the core file problem.
| Date | What happened | Why it matters | Read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 10, 2026 | The Bar dismissed the grievance saying no rebuttal was received. | This was the original defective premise. | Read it: State Bar of Georgia |
| April 21, 2026 | The Bar admitted the submissions were received but not added to the grievance file before dismissal. | This is the central admission. | Read it: The Bar admitted my submissions were received but not added to the file before… |
| May 5, 2026 | The Bar later confirmed the materials were added to the file. | This may fix the folder. It does not change the dismissal, which the Bar affirmed on June 30, 2026. | Read it: The Bar admitted my submissions were received but not added to the file before… |
| June 30, 2026 | The Bar affirmed dismissal. | The April 10 record still was not corrected. | Read it: State Bar of Georgia |
Issue 2: ADA access and written communication
These documents show the disability-access track.
| Date | What happened | Why it matters | Read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 20, 2026 | I asked for disability-related access and written communication. | This put the access issue in writing. | Read it: I demanded a written conflict screen and a conflict-free reviewer |
| May 4, 2026 | The Bar agreed to written communication and accessible formats because of my disability. | The Bar recognized a disability-related access need. | Read it: The Bar approved my accommodation request |
| May 7, 2026 | The Bar’s ADA contact described his role and the Bar’s ADA process. | This shows the Bar was acting through an ADA-access framework. | Read it: I responded to the Bar’s May 7 email to its General Counsel |
| May 12, 2026 | The Bar said it was not a public entity and did not need to publish an ADA Coordinator. | This conflicts with the Bar’s own access conduct. | Read it: May 12, 2026: NeSmith Writes the Bar Is “Not a Public Entity” |
| May 29, 2026 | The Bar said its position remained that Title II did not apply. | This made the contradiction final, not accidental. | Read it: The Bar answered my yes-or-no question on ADA Title II |
Issue 3: Questions the Bar did not answer
These documents show the unanswered-process problem.
| Date | What happened | Why it matters | Read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 30, 2026 | I asked for a reliable process, a named contact, preservation, and confirmation that filings reached the right file. | These were process questions, not outcome demands. | Read it: I demanded a written conflict screen and a conflict-free reviewer |
| May 12, 2026 | The Bar treated my ADA and process questions as potentially outcome-driven. | The outcome already existed. I was asking about access and correction. | Read it: May 12, 2026: NeSmith Writes the Bar Is “Not a Public Entity” |
| May 26, 2026 | The Bar narrowed which questions it would engage after the access dispute was on record. | The channel narrowed after the access dispute was already documented. | Read it: I followed up on ADA access and the status of my grievances |
| June 30, 2026 | The Bar denied reconsideration without answering the core process questions. | The same open questions survived the final letter. | Read it: State Bar of Georgia |
Part 1 of 2 · Part 2
The complete record
The document cards above are the documents that matter. If you want every message in full, the complete correspondence (all 70, as written, with redactions) is in the archive.
Open the full archive, all 70 messages →
Prefer it day by day? Read the ADA Access Diary — 25 days, first challenge to final dismissal →
Every Dated Entry (28)
Moved word for word from the State Bar of Georgia hub on October 19, 2026.
- State Bar of Georgia Response mailbox: the grievance goes in January 23. The Bar sends it on five days later.
- State Bar dismisses the grievance stating no rebuttal was received
- State Bar admits the February 3 and February 20 submissions were received, misclassified, and not added to the file
- The complainant sends an access-route request to the State ADA Coordinator’s Office with the State Bar copied
- State Bar grants written-only communication and accessible electronic format
- Leigh Burgess, State Bar of Georgia: The February Submissions Will Be Reviewed in the Reconsideration
- State Bar confirms accommodation approval and postpones the reconsideration decision to June 15
- After litigation was mentioned, the State Bar states it will engage only through counsel
- State Bar notes the CAPTCHA barrier and the Spanish and English form discrepancy
- State Bar routes most of the ledger questions back to the Deputy General Counsel
- State Bar states it is not subject to Title II, suggests Title III, and routes the question to the Deputy General Counsel
- State Bar confirms a new grievance receipt and narrows the ADA channel to accommodation requests only
- State Bar restates the June 15 postponement and references recovery from surgery
- State Bar returns the grievance form and cites the May 13 granted accommodation
- State Bar responds by pointing to the complainant’s own voice-to-text tool
- Sandra Dixon, State Bar of Georgia: HR Deadline Passed
- Sandra Dixon, State Bar of Georgia: Day 102 Letter Sent
- To Christopher P. Twyman, State Bar of Georgia: the President is told the dismissal is still standing on a file the Bar just admitted was wrong
- To Russell D. Willard, State Bar of Georgia: put the conflict screen in writing
- John J. Shiptenko, State Bar of Georgia: three receipts in five minutes, not one decision
- To Russell D. Willard, State Bar of Georgia: a May 14 clock on a correction the Bar had not made
- William D. NeSmith III, State Bar of Georgia: not today, tomorrow. Tomorrow was the deadline.
- Adrienne D. Nash, State Bar of Georgia: the only reply from the reviewer’s desk is the automatic one
- To Sandra Dixon, State Bar of Georgia: a disability complaint reaches Human Resources with leadership copied
- Sarah I. Coole, State Bar of Georgia: the Chief Operating Officer opens it at 7:22 AM, no reply on the record
- Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator’s Office: six days after the ask, her office calls the State Bar itself
- Russell D. Willard, State Bar of Georgia: Asked Which Account the Bar Stands Behind
- Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator, to the State Bar of Georgia: “State Bars have been held to be Title II entities”