The Documents Behind the State Bar Record

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 record contains 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

Adrienne D. Nash, Grievance Counsel — the reconsideration denied, dismissal affirmed

Reconsideration denied; dismissal affirmed June 30, 2026. Signed Adrienne D. Nash, Grievance Counsel.

April 10: dismissed, stating no rebuttal was received. April 21: the Bar acknowledged in writing that my February 3 and February 20 submissions had been received and misclassified before the file was reviewed. June 30: the Bar affirmed the April 10 dismissal, confirming it had reviewed the supplemental documentation.

Dismissed for sending nothing. Admitted they had it. Affirmed after reviewing it.

I sent two rebuttal submissions. The Bar admits it received them and lost them. The April 10 letter cannot be true if the June 30 letter is. The Bar signed both. The office responsible for lawyer discipline in Georgia has a written finding in its own file that is not true, and has left it there.

📄 Read it

Adrienne D. Nash, Grievance Counsel — Westbury grievance dismissed

Dismissed June 30, 2026. Signed Adrienne D. Nash, Grievance Counsel. The respondent was copied on his own dismissal.

James R. Westbury, Jr. is a former two-term member of the State Bar of Georgia Board of Governors. By dismissing this grievance, the Bar treated it as permissible for a lawyer to accuse an unrepresented person of the unauthorized practice of law without stating the factual basis, raise the possibility of criminal liability to gain advantage in a civil matter, send that accusation to more than one recipient, decline to say whose interests the lawyer represents, and decline to retract after the factual basis was challenged.

A former Bar official took the April 10 dismissal, which the Bar admits was issued on an incomplete file, and used it outside the Bar to characterize my disability-related activity as harassment. The Bar left that dismissal uncorrected the entire time.

The Bar found none of it rose to a violation. Then it copied the respondent on his own clearance.

📄 Read it

Andreea N. Morrison, Deputy General Counsel — grievance dismissed

Dismissed June 30, 2026 in a single paragraph. Signed Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Chair, State Disciplinary Board.

The Bar reviewed a six-page grievance against the lawyer who signed the April 10 dismissal, and dismissed it in a single paragraph. By dismissing it, the Bar treated it as permissible to sign a disciplinary dismissal on an incomplete file, to state that no rebuttal was received when the office’s own records later showed the materials had been received, to decline to correct the dismissal after the Bar acknowledged that in writing, and to let an admitted filing failure stand as the operative official record.

I paid to rebuild a record I should never have had to rebuild, with limited use of both hands. The file may be complete now. The dismissal still says no rebuttal was received.

📄 Read it

William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel — grievance dismissed

Dismissed June 30, 2026 in a single paragraph. Seven-page grievance, twenty-four pages of exhibits. Signed Jeffrey W. DeLoach.

By dismissing this grievance, the Bar treated it as permissible to treat a disability-access request as a possible tactic to obtain a substantive outcome, to question whether a disabled complainant needs assistance after he had already requested accommodations, to schedule a call and then withdraw it, and to narrow the communication channel after protected access activity.

During that same period an unsigned message from the Bar commented on the assistive technology I use to communicate. To this day the Bar has not said who wrote it, who approved it, or who sent it.

Every other office in this matter answered me directly. Only the Bar narrowed the room each time I asked about access.

📄 Read it

John J. Shiptenko, Office of the General Counsel — grievance dismissed

Dismissed June 30, 2026 in a single paragraph. Eight-page grievance, seven pages of exhibits. Signed Jeffrey W. DeLoach.

The respondent is the Bar’s own ADA contact. By dismissing this grievance, the Bar treated it as permissible for the person designated to handle disability access to answer a request for an accessible filing route by re-sending the same grievance form the complainant had already identified as the barrier, to point a person with limited use of both hands to a form that requires printing, handwriting, and scanning, and to serve as ADA contact for a process whose English form names no ADA Coordinator while the Spanish form tells a disabled person to contact the ADA Coordinator for help.

There was also a routing problem the Bar never resolved. The grievance was against Mr. Shiptenko. The only receipt confirmation I received before it was dismissed came from Mr. Shiptenko himself — a one-word “Received” sent to me alone, with no one else copied. Before dismissal, no conflict-free reviewer, State Disciplinary Board member, or Bar official outside Mr. Shiptenko was shown to have received, screened, or accepted the grievance against him.

The respondent was visible. The independent review path was not.

The Bar’s answer to a person who cannot use the portal, cannot clear the CAPTCHA, and cannot use the phone was to send him the form. The form was the barrier he had already reported.

📄 Read it