STATE BAR OF GEORGIA · FIVE AUDIENCES · ALL THE DOCUMENTS
Questions this page answers
- What did the State Bar of Georgia call itself to different audiences?
- What did the State Bar tell a disabled complainant and the State ADA Coordinator’s Office?
- How do the court filings and the Bar’s audited financials describe it?
Answer
The State Bar of Georgia used several written descriptions of its status in 2026. To me it wrote “not a public entity”. In a federal case, counsel for the defendants wrote that “the State, through the Georgia Supreme Court, controls the State Bar”. In its audited financial statements the Bar says it “was established as an instrumentality of the state of Georgia”. Each is quoted below with its date.
| Audiences in this story | 5 |
| Dated entries in the table below | 10 |
| Federal court filings using “arm of the State” or “administrative arm” | 2 |
| Audited financial reports using “instrumentality of the state of Georgia” | 1 |
| Court rulings cited in this story on whether the State Bar of Georgia is a Title II public entity | 0 |
What did the State Bar of Georgia call itself to different audiences?
The State Bar of Georgia described itself in writing to five audiences: a disabled complainant, the State ADA Coordinator’s Office, a federal court, the public using its grievance forms, and the IRS and the readers of its audited financial statements. The exact words and dates are below.
| Date | Audience | Who | What the documents say |
|---|---|---|---|
| January 8, 2026 (report posted); auditor’s report dated December 9, 2025 | The IRS, Bar members and the public, through the Bar’s audited financial report | State Bar of Georgia | Note 1 of the Combined Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2025 (independent auditor’s report by Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC, dated December 9, 2025; printed page 11) states: “The State Bar was established as an instrumentality of the state of Georgia,” and that its income is exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 115 “per the Internal Revenue Service determination letter dated May 11, 1965.” |
| April 30, 2026, 2:37 PM Eastern | A disabled complainant | John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel | “I am serving as the ADA Coordinator for the reconsideration of your grievance” |
| May 7, 2026, 10:01 AM Eastern | A disabled complainant, with Russell D. Willard and William D. NeSmith III copied | John J. Shiptenko | “A public entity can have numerous ADA coordinators.” He also wrote that the Bar has more than one and that he is “one of the designated ADA Coordinators”. |
| May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM Eastern | A disabled complainant | William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel | “The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity”. In the same passage he wrote that the Bar “serves as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia” and “remains a private, member-funded, and member-governed organization.” |
| May 12, 2026, 2:35 PM Eastern | The State ADA Coordinator’s Office | John J. Shiptenko | “we are in the process of adding ADA information to our website and various forms.” He wrote that he had “failed to clarify the institutional status of the State Bar of Georgia”, then that it is “not a public entity” and “an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia”. Read the May 12, 2026 email. |
| May 12, 2026 (filed) | A federal court | Counsel for the defendants, who include the State Bar of Georgia Office of General Counsel | The brief states: “As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” It also quotes an earlier decision: “The State Bar is an arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.” |
| May 29, 2026 | A disabled complainant | John J. Shiptenko | “the State Bar’s position remains that it is not subject to Title II”. The same email says any obligation “would arise under Title III rather than Title II.” |
| June 9, 2026 (filed) | A federal court | Counsel for the defendants | The reply brief states that “the State Bar is an arm of the State”, that “the State, through the Georgia Supreme Court, controls the State Bar and its agents and employees”, and that “the State Bar clearly satisfies all four factors”. |
| June 2026 onward | The public | State Bar of Georgia | Grievance forms marked Revised 06/2026 route accommodation requests to ADACoordinator@gabar.org. An older English form still served at its older path on September 28, 2026 carries no ADA notice. |
| September 22, 2026, 8:07 AM Eastern | A disabled complainant | John J. Shiptenko | “I am the State Bar’s ADA Coordinator, and you may continue to send your accommodation requests to me.” |
Where each audience’s story lives
- To me, a disabled complainant
May 12, 2026: “not a public entity.” May 29, 2026: “not subject to Title II.” Written by William D. NeSmith III and John J. Shiptenko of the State Bar of Georgia. - The May 12, 2026 email itself, every word
William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, typed from the native message with a full text transcript. - To the State ADA Coordinator’s Office, 23 minutes later
John J. Shiptenko sent Stacey Peace the same status passage at 2:35 PM. Her reply the same afternoon, produced under the Georgia Open Records Act. - To a federal court, the same day
“As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” The May 12 brief beside the May 12 email. - To a federal court, September 28, 2026: its own email was “purporting”
The State Bar of Georgia’s lawyers called William D. NeSmith III’s signed email “purporting” and him a “State Bar employee.” I have the original. - My question to its General Counsel, September 22, 2026
I asked Russell D. Willard which account is the State Bar of Georgia’s: private bar, or arm of the state. His October 21, 2026 answer did not choose. - To the IRS and its members: “an instrumentality of the state of Georgia”
The State Bar of Georgia’s audited financial report, posted January 8, 2026, and why that word does not decide Title II by itself.
What this story does not decide
- This page does not decide whether the State Bar of Georgia is a Title II public entity.
- This page does not decide whether Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.
- This page does not say Internal Revenue Code Section 115 and Title II use the same test.
- This page does not say the auditor’s nonprofit label conflicts with the Bar’s instrumentality statement.
- This page does not quote the 1965 IRS determination letter, because the letter is not in the documents.
- This page does not state motive.
It reports what was written, by whom, to whom, and on what date.
The story, in my words
I started keeping these emails because I needed to search them.
Then the descriptions started stacking up.
On January 8, 2026, the Bar’s own audited report said “instrumentality of the state of Georgia”.
On May 12, 2026, William D. NeSmith III told me “not a public entity”.
Twenty three minutes later, John J. Shiptenko told the State ADA Coordinator’s Office that the Bar is “not a public entity” and “an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia”.
The same day, in a federal case, counsel for the defendants wrote: “As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”
On June 9, 2026, the same counsel wrote that the State “controls the State Bar and its agents and employees.”
I do not have to improve those sentences. I only have to keep them together.
A disabled man asked what law and what process applied. These are the written descriptions that came back.
Related
- Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator: the May 12, 2026 reply to John J. Shiptenko
- William D. NeSmith III, State Bar of Georgia: the May 12, 2026 email to me
- The federal court file: William D. NeSmith III’s email as evidence in federal court
- The federal court file: one Tuesday, two stories, the May 12 email beside the brief
- State Bar of Georgia Combined Financial Report, posted January 8, 2026 (the Bar’s own file)
Corrections
I have invited the State Bar of Georgia to identify any inaccuracy on this page. As of October 22, 2026, it has identified none.