State Bar of Georgia: Not Government to Me, Arm of the Court

State Bar of Georgia · Federal court record

THE SCOREBOARD, as of October 22, 2026

May 12, 2026 documents in this story	2
Of those, sent by or filed for the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel	2
Yes or no answers to my May 27, 2026 Title II question	0
Days since May 12, 2026 (as of October 22, 2026)	163
Corrections or withdrawals of either document	0
Rulings on the May 12 motion	0 known to this site as of October 12, 2026, the last docket check
Pages of this website now filed in federal court	1

THE ONE LINE TO REMEMBER

The email came from the Office of the General Counsel. The brief was
filed for the Office of the General Counsel.

The email says the State Bar is “not a department or agency of
the State of Georgia.”

The brief relies on a 1992 ruling, Cohran, which described
the claims against the defendants in that case as “in reality,
claims against the state.”

Status

As of October 22, 2026, neither May 12, 2026 document has been corrected or withdrawn. No ruling on the May 12 motion is known to this site as of October 12, 2026, the last docket check.

Why it matters

Title II reaches a “public entity.” The Eleventh Amendment protects
an “arm of the state.” Those are two different legal tests. This page
does not treat them as one.

On May 12, 2026, the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel put
those facts in writing twice. Once through its lawyers, in a brief filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. Once through its Deputy General Counsel, in an email to a
disabled member of the public at 2:12 that afternoon.

Timeline

April 23, 2023. Marsha W. Mignott files a civil
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, assigned to Judge Eleanor L.
Ross.
December 27, 2023. The district court dismisses
her civil case without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
July 30, 2025. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacates that dismissal and remands, in
a published opinion, No. 24-10327. The panel expressly does not decide
whether any defendant has immunity, leaving that to the district
court.
August 28, 2025. The Eleventh Circuit’s mandate
issues and the case returns to the district court.
April 30, 2026. I send the State Bar’s Office of
the General Counsel a time sensitive ADA Title II accommodation request,
copied to the General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel, the ADA
contact, the President, and the State ADA Coordinator’s Office.
May 6, 2026. The district court directs the
defendants to file a motion to dismiss within seven days.
May 12, 2026. The defendants, the State Bar of
Georgia Foundation, Inc., the State Bar of Georgia Office of the General
Counsel, and an assistant general counsel, file their Renewed Motion to
Dismiss, twenty six pages, signed “this 12th day of May,
2026.” The first argument, Section II.A, is headed “Mignott’s Action Is
Barred By 11th Amendment Immunity.”
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM. William D. NeSmith III,
Deputy General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, emails me about the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The thread had carried General Counsel
Russell D. Willard, President Christopher P. Twyman, Senior Assistant
General Counsel John J. Shiptenko, Grievance Counsel Adrienne D. Nash,
Assistant General Counsel Leigh Burgess, Deputy General Counsel Andreea
Morrison, and the State ADA Coordinator’s Office. His reply went to me
alone.
May 27, 2026, 9:23 AM Eastern. I send the ADA
contact, John J. Shiptenko, one question: “Does Title II Apply, Yes or
No.”
June 23, 2026. The motion is submitted to the
judge.
September 14, 2026. Marsha W. Mignott files a
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Defendants’ Renewed
Motion to Dismiss. Attachment 2 is titled “Exhibit B – May
2026 Email.” Page two of it is this website’s published copy of the
May 12 email, with this website’s redaction bars and this website’s
footer.
September 19, 2026, 7:08 AM Eastern. The docket
shows no ruling on the Bar’s motion to dismiss and no ruling on Mignott’s motion for leave.

Open questions

Question	First asked	Asked to	Answer
Does Title II of the ADA apply to the State Bar of Georgia, yes or no?	May 27, 2026	John J. Shiptenko, ADA contact	No yes or no received, as of September 19, 2026

Item 1. The brief,
filed May 12, 2026

Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support Thereto,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, filed May 12, 2026, for the
State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc., the State Bar of Georgia Office
of the General Counsel, and an assistant general counsel. Twenty six
pages. Signed by Nall & Miller, LLP, Robert L. Goldstucker and
Patrick N. Arndt.

The brief’s own sentence, page 19, under qualified immunity:

In Section II.A, the brief introduces the next words as what “the
11th Circuit held” and cites Cohran v. State Bar of Georgia,
790 F. Supp. 1568, 1575 (N.D. Ga. 1992):

“[t]he Georgia Supreme Court is an arm of the State of Georgia.
The State Bar is an arm of the Georgia Supreme Court. The complaint
alleges that actions taken by the individual defendants were in their
official capacities. Therefore, the claims for compensatory damages
against all defendants are, in reality, claims against the state and are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”

“The Eleventh Amendment also ‘bars suits for injunctive or
other equitable relief against the state or its agencies and
instrumentalities.’”

Whose words these are. The page 19 sentence is the
brief’s own. The words in the second and third quotations are a 1992
federal court’s words, reproduced by defense counsel as authority for
the defendants’ argument. They appear here exactly as the brief prints
them.

Item 2. The email,
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM

“The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a
federal, state or local government department or agency. The State Bar
receives no federal, state, or local governmental funding. Its assets
are owned by the State Bar of Georgia itself and not by the State of
Georgia. Although the State Bar serves as an administrative arm of the
Supreme Court of Georgia pursuant to the Court’s authority over the
regulation of the legal profession, it nevertheless remains a private,
member-funded, and member-governed organization. The State Bar of
Georgia is not a department or agency of the State of Georgia, therefore
we are not required to have a published ADA Coordinator.”

“the ADA does not require a public entity — even assuming that
characterization applied — to guarantee any particular substantive
outcome in a grievance proceeding or to alter the merits-based
evaluation of a complaint.”

The two documents, side by
side

The brief filed for the Office of the General Counsel and Foundation, May 12, 2026	The email from the Office of the General Counsel to me, May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM
The brief’s own sentence, page 19: “As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”	“Although the State Bar serves as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia … it nevertheless remains a private, member-funded, and member-governed organization.”
Quoting Cohran: “The State Bar is an arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.”	“The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency.”
Quoting Cohran, about the defendants in that 1992 case: claims against them “are, in reality, claims against the state and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”	“Its assets are owned by the State Bar of Georgia itself and not by the State of Georgia.”
Quoting authority: the Eleventh Amendment “bars suits for injunctive or other equitable relief against the state or its agencies and instrumentalities.”	“The State Bar of Georgia is not a department or agency of the State of Georgia, therefore we are not required to have a published ADA Coordinator.”

Left column source: Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, filed
May 12, 2026. Right column source: email of May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM.
Quotations of Cohran v. State Bar of Georgia, 790 F. Supp. 1568
(N.D. Ga. 1992) appear as the brief reproduced them. The ellipsis in the
first right column cell marks words omitted from the full sentence
quoted above.

Item 3. The
filing, September 14, 2026

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Defendants’ Renewed
Motion to Dismiss, by Marsha W. Mignott, filed September
14, 2026. Attachment 2, “Exhibit B – May 2026 Email,” is two pages. Page
two is this website’s published copy of Item 2. It carries this
website’s redaction bars and this website’s footer, which reads:

“ADA MATTERS — Evidence Exhibit. Reproduced from the email as
written; black bars are redactions (complainant identity, email
addresses, file number, private details) applied per a fixed redaction
list. Full transcript accompanies this image on the page.”

What this story does not
show

It does not show that the two legal tests are the same test. Title II
reaches a “public entity.” The Eleventh Amendment protects an “arm of
the state.” Courts apply different standards to each, and a body can
fail one and satisfy the other.

It does not show a ruling on the motion. As of September 19, 2026, at
7:08 AM Eastern, the court has not ruled on the Bar’s motion to dismiss or on Mignott’s motion for leave.

Current outcome

No ruling on the Bar’s motion to dismiss, as of September 19, 2026.
No ruling on Mignott’s motion for leave, as of September 19, 2026.
Neither May 12, 2026 document has been corrected or withdrawn, as of October 22, 2026.
My May 27, 2026 Title II question: no yes or no received, as of October 22, 2026. The May 29, 2026 answer, in John J. Shiptenko’s words: the State Bar of Georgia’s position is that it is “not subject to Title II.”

The story, in my words

On April 30, 2026, I asked the State Bar of Georgia for ADA Title II
accommodations.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 2:12 in the afternoon, I got a paragraph
back. Not a public entity. No government money. Owns its own assets. Not
a department or agency of the State of Georgia. Therefore, no published
ADA Coordinator required.

What I did not know is that a brief was filed that same day in
federal court in Atlanta, for the Bar’s own Office of the General
Counsel and its Foundation, arguing that the Eleventh Amendment barred
the suit against them. Its first argument. Its page 19 calls the
defendants “the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.”

My email calls the Bar the administrative arm of the Supreme Court of
Georgia too. Then it says “nevertheless.”

Same office. Same Tuesday. Two audiences. One of them gets “private.”
The other gets “claims against the state.” Read both and decide for
yourself what you are looking at.

What happened next. On September 22, 2026, I wrote to General Counsel Russell D. Willard asking which account the Bar stands behind, with an answer requested by September 25, 2026. Read the letter summary, or the dated comparison behind it.

Read the emails and letters: what the State Bar of Georgia called itself to five audiences, the full State Bar of Georgia story, the Timeline and the Receipts.

Georgia Bar Says It’s Not Government. Tell That to Its Court Filing.

THE SCOREBOARD, as of October 22, 2026

Status

Why it matters

Timeline

Open questions

Item 1. The brief, filed May 12, 2026

Item 2. The email, May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM

The two documents, side by side

Item 3. The filing, September 14, 2026

What this story does not show