I Asked John J. Shiptenko in Writing: Are You Still My ADA Coordinator, and Where Does an Access Complaint Go?

From: the complainant
Subject: ADA Contact Designation, Complaint Routing, Insurance Notice, and Preservation Demand Concerning ████████████████
Attachments: 2 PDFs.

Mr. Shiptenko,

I am writing to ask several related routing, notice, records, and preservation questions.

This is not a merits submission. Nothing here asks the Bar to revisit any determination. This letter asks who currently holds the ADA access function, where a complaint about access goes, whether my complaints ever reached that function, what review followed the State ADA Coordinator’s involvement, whether the Bar notified its carrier of the federal complaint, and ████████████████████████.

One thing first, so there is no confusion about what this letter is.

On September 5, 2026, I sent Sandra Dixon, Director of Human Resources, a letter titled “Day 88. Where Did My June 8 Complaint Go?” A copy is attached. You were not a recipient of that communication.

The September 5 letter asked Human Resources to identify which of four things happened to my June 8 complaint:

1. It was forwarded to Human Resources at the Judicial Council of Georgia and Administrative Office of the Courts.

2. It was referred to another office or person.

3. It was retained and handled within State Bar Human Resources.

4. Nothing was done with it.

The September 5 letter also asked Human Resources to identify the State Bar ADA grievance procedure that was available to a member of the public on June 8, 2026, to confirm preservation, and to provide a written response by Friday, September 18, 2026, at 5:00 PM Eastern.

That letter remains pending with Human Resources. This letter does not replace it, withdraw it, narrow it, duplicate its requests, or change its deadline.

Ms. Dixon has been asked what Human Resources did with the complaint. You are being asked whether the complaint ever reached the ADA contact function, whether you participated in any decision about its routing or handling, what the review you announced on May 7 produced, and where a complaint about the access process itself is supposed to go. Those are related questions directed to different offices. Neither excuses the other from answering.

I. THE OBLIGATION

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of that disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

The implementing regulations are specific.

28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a) requires a public entity employing 50 or more persons to designate at least one employee to coordinate its Title II compliance efforts, and to make available to interested persons the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees so designated.

28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b) requires that same entity to adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by Title II.

28 C.F.R. § 35.106 requires the entity to make available to participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons information regarding the provisions of Title II and their applicability to that entity’s services, programs, and activities.

28 C.F.R. § 35.134 prohibits retaliation and coercion against any individual who has made a complaint or otherwise exercised rights secured by the Act.

Designation without publication does not satisfy § 35.107(a). The regulation requires both. A coordinator a disabled member of the public can identify only by sending individual emails and waiting is not a coordinator who has been made available to interested persons.

By the Bar’s own staff directory, the State Bar of Georgia employs 113 people. The threshold in § 35.107 is met by a margin of more than two to one. If the Bar contends otherwise, state that in writing.

I know the Bar’s position on coverage. On May 29, 2026, at 7:15 PM, you wrote: “To be clear, the State Bar’s position remains that it is not subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” and that any obligation “would arise under Title III rather than Title II.” I am not asking you to repeat that position and I am not arguing it here.

I am asking two things the Bar has never put in writing. Who made that determination, by name and title. And under what authority, by rule, bylaw, delegation, or vote.

The Bar’s coverage position makes the routing question more important, not less. If the State Bar says it serves as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia but is not itself subject to Title II, then a disabled member of the public is entitled to be told where within the judicial branch a disability discrimination complaint concerning that process belongs.

II. THE RECORD

I first asked the State Bar to identify its ADA route on April 30, 2026. That was 137 days ago.

On May 4, 2026, you wrote as an ADA Coordinator, granted written only communication and accessible format handling, and stated that you had notified Ms. Nash, Ms. Burgess, Mr. Willard, and Ms. Morrison that OGC must comply.

On May 7, 2026, you wrote that you are one of the designated ADA Coordinators, that the Bar has more than one ADA Coordinator depending on the program, service, or activity, and that “Since Ms. Nash is handling your reconsideration, I am serving as your ADA Coordinator.”

On May 15, 2026, Mr. NeSmith wrote that “Requests for accommodations should continue to be directed to Mr. Shiptenko, and any additional evidence … should be directed to Ms. Nash.”

On June 2, 2026, you wrote that “correspondence to me regarding the grievance process should only be used to submit requests for accommodations under the ADA.”

I take all of that as the Bar’s designation and I am not disputing it. I am pointing out what it produces. Accommodation requests go to you. Evidence goes to Ms. Nash. A complaint that the access process itself has failed goes nowhere, because the only designated ADA channel has been limited by its own terms to accommodation requests.

On June 8, 2026, at 5:05 PM Eastern, I sent a written complaint to Sandra Dixon, Director of Human Resources, with eleven leadership and officer recipients copied. The subject line ended with the words “Immediate Preservation Required.” I requested confirmation by the close of the next business day, Tuesday, June 9, 2026. Delivery confirmations were returned for every gabar.org recipient. Nobody can say it did not arrive.

I wrote to Ms. Dixon again on June 10 and again on September 5. On June 16, I sent a submission containing 24 questions and copied Human Resources and Bar leadership. On June 17, I sent 17 outstanding ADA questions and copied Human Resources and Bar leadership. On June 26, I wrote to you about 42 days of silence, with Ms. Dixon among the recipients copied.

In 98 days, Human Resources has produced exactly one communication. It was an automatic out of office reply, generated on September 5, 2026, and it arrived within 20 seconds of my sending the email it answered. It stated that Ms. Dixon was out of the office on September 3 and September 4, that the following Monday was a holiday, and that she would respond upon her return. It gave no return date.

Nothing has followed it.

The September 5 letter was read. The Bar’s Chief Operating Officer, Sarah I. Coole, opened it on September 6, 2026, at 2:09 PM Eastern, and a read receipt was returned to me. As of today, no person at the State Bar has acknowledged it.

I want to be precise about what that means. A complaint to the Director of Human Resources has never been acknowledged. Not a receipt. Not a routing note. Not an assignment. Not a name. The only thing the State Bar of Georgia has ever sent me in response to that complaint was generated by a machine while its author was away. A disabled member of the public should not have to guess whether anything he sends to the State Bar has been received, read, assigned, or acted upon. I have been guessing since June 8.

For contrast, when I filed grievances through the Bar’s online portal, I received three automatic acknowledgments from OGC@gabar.org on May 15, 2026, each stating: “The State Bar of Georgia is in receipt of your grievance submitted via our online portal. Your grievance will be placed in line for review.”

The Bar built an acknowledgment mechanism for complaints about lawyers. It built none for complaints about access.

Section 35.107(b) requires prompt and equitable resolution. 98 days of silence is neither. That is not a close question and it is not a question of resources.

████████████████████████

I reviewed gabar.org again today, September 14, 2026. The public File a Complaint page walks a member of the public through a questionnaire and routes that person to the grievance form, the Client Assistance Program, the Fee Arbitration Program, the ReliaGuide directory, or the staff directory. It identifies no ADA Coordinator. It identifies no accessibility contact. It publishes no disability grievance procedure. The site footer carries a privacy policy, terms of use, an about page, and a staff directory. It carries no accessibility page.

So the posture is this. An ADA Coordinator exists because you told me one exists. The public cannot find that person. The designated channel accepts accommodation requests only. The Human Resources channel has not answered in 98 days. And 137 days after the question was first asked, the only way to learn who handles disability access at the State Bar of Georgia is to already be corresponding with someone at the State Bar of Georgia.

That is not delay. That is the absence of a route.

It is unfortunate that a disabled member of the public has to keep writing individual emails to determine who handles ADA access, where complaints go, whether a prior ADA contact remains in that role, and whether the Bar has adopted any public route at all. That is the condition Part 35 exists to prevent.

III. NOTICE WAS GIVEN. NOTHING PUBLIC WAS CORRECTED.

This is no longer a question about whether the State Bar initially overlooked an accessibility issue.

On May 6, 2026, the State ADA Coordinator’s Office told me that you could provide the proper procedure for filing an ADA related grievance.

On May 7, after speaking with that Office, you wrote that you were analyzing the State Bar’s ADA notices and processes to determine whether and how they could be improved.

On May 26, you acknowledged my concern that the State Bar’s Spanish language grievance form and its current English grievance materials did not provide the same ADA information.

The Spanish language form directs a person with a disability who needs assistance in the grievance process to contact an ADA Coordinator. The current English form and online process provide no comparable ADA Coordinator identification, disability grievance procedure, accessibility contact, or published route for complaining that the grievance process itself was discriminatory.

More than four months after the State ADA Coordinator’s Office became involved, that difference remains.

I reviewed the State Bar’s public website again on September 14. The File a Complaint page still does not identify an ADA Coordinator. It does not identify an accessibility contact. It does not publish a disability grievance procedure. The website footer contains no accessibility page. A disabled member of the public using the English grievance process still cannot determine where to complain about disability discrimination by the State Bar.

I ultimately located the January 2026 Judicial Council of Georgia and Administrative Office of the Courts ADA Grievance Procedure myself. It directs complaints concerning JC and AOC services, activities, programs, or benefits to Human Resources. It provides a 60 calendar day submission period, a meeting within 15 calendar days after receipt, a written response within 15 calendar days after the meeting, an appeal to JC and AOC General Counsel, and record retention for at least three years.

Neither you nor Mr. NeSmith gave that procedure to me, mentioned it, asked JC and AOC whether it applied, or explained what other judicial branch procedure did apply.

That omission is especially difficult to understand because both of you described the State Bar as serving as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia. By order of the Supreme Court, the President of the State Bar, or the President’s designee, holds a seat on the Judicial Council. Christopher Twyman held that seat in May 2026 and received direct notice of the access problem.

I am not asserting here that the JC and AOC procedure unquestionably governed every State Bar function. Its scope clause is real. I am asking why the State Bar’s designated ADA contact did not identify the procedure, ask the office that published it whether it applied, provide another judicial branch route, or publish a State Bar procedure of its own.

That is not a technical omission. It is the routing failure I have been asking the Bar to correct since April.

The continued absence of a route after notice is not an original oversight. It is a continuing public condition that remained after the State ADA Coordinator’s Office became involved and after you said the notices and processes were under review.

If that review produced a decision not to change the website, the English grievance form, the online portal, or the complaint routing process, identify who made that decision, when it was made, and the reason for it.

If the review produced no decision, state that directly.

Since these matters became public, several Georgia lawyers and other individuals have contacted me regarding their own experiences. I state that because the issue appears broader than one correspondence history and because preservation and accurate reporting now matter beyond my individual complaint. I do not state it as leverage or as a request for special treatment.

IV. WRITTEN ANSWERS REQUIRED

Answer each of the following in writing, by number. These questions are addressed to the ADA contact function. They are not a restatement of the questions pending with Ms. Dixon under the September 18 deadline.

1. Are you currently serving as the ADA contact or ADA Coordinator for my State Bar access issues?

2. Your June 2 statement limits correspondence to you to accommodation requests under the ADA. Where does a complaint about the access process itself go? Identify the person and the channel.

3. Is your role permanent, temporary, matter specific, or limited to accommodation requests only?

4. If your role is temporary or matter specific, identify the Bar’s current public facing ADA Coordinator or responsible employee for disabled members of the public using the attorney discipline process.

5. Is Ms. Nash still the person assigned to ADA access issues involving the grievance process?

6. If neither you nor Ms. Nash holds that function, identify the correct person by name, title, direct email address, mailing address, and scope of responsibility.

7. Identify the location on gabar.org where that person is published today. Provide the URL.

8. If no ADA contact is currently published on gabar.org, state that plainly.

9. State whether my June 8, 2026 complaint or my September 5, 2026 Human Resources inquiry was sent, forwarded, routed, assigned, summarized, or discussed with you or with any other person serving an ADA contact or ADA Coordinator function for the State Bar. If yes, identify the date, the person who transmitted or discussed it, what materials or information were provided, and what action you took. If neither communication was ever routed to you or another ADA contact, state that directly.

10. Identify, by name and title, the person who determined that the State Bar is not subject to Title II, and identify the rule, bylaw, delegation, or vote that authorized that determination.

11. I previously filed a grievance concerning your own conduct. State whether the Bar screened that fact before continuing to route my disability access matters through you, and identify who performed that screen.

12. On May 6, 2026, the State ADA Coordinator’s Office stated that you could provide the proper procedure for filing an ADA related grievance. What procedure did you understand that statement to refer to?

13. What specific review of the State Bar’s ADA notices and processes did you conduct after your May 7 statement? Identify the dates, participants, documents reviewed, conclusions reached, and corrective actions proposed.

14. When did you first become aware of the JC and AOC ADA Grievance Procedure? If you knew about it while my complaints were pending, why was it not provided to me? If you did not know about it, what inquiry did you make to identify the judicial branch route?

15. Why does the Spanish language grievance form identify an ADA Coordinator while the current English grievance form and online process do not provide comparable ADA information?

16. Identify every change to the website, grievance forms, ADA notices, accessibility information, or complaint routing that was proposed, approved, rejected, deferred, or implemented after May 6.

17. If the present absence of a published ADA Coordinator and disability grievance procedure is intentional, identify the person who made that decision, the date, and the authority relied upon.

18. Did you report the results of your review back to the State ADA Coordinator’s Office? If so, identify the date and substance of that communication. If not, state that directly.

I also have a complaint to route now, and I may have additional complaints based on information that has recently become public. This letter is not that complaint. It is the routing request that has to come first, because I still cannot determine where a disability access complaint goes or who is responsible for receiving it.

V. INSURANCE NOTICE AND FEDERAL COMPLAINT

My September 5 letter documented seven written requests for the State Bar’s insurance and liability coverage information between May 7 and September 5, 2026. None has been answered.

On May 15, Mr. NeSmith expressly cited my request for insurance and liability information when stating that the State Bar would no longer engage in substantive correspondence outside formal legal process.

This is my eighth written request.

A federal ADA Title II complaint concerning access to the State Bar’s grievance process was mailed to the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, on May 19, 2026, by USPS Priority Mail, Tracking No. ██████████████.

19. State whether the State Bar has given notice of that federal complaint, the related claims, or the related preservation demands to any liability carrier, risk pool, excess carrier, claims administrator, or coverage counsel.

20. If notice has been given, identify the recipient, the date, the method of notice, and any claim or reference number assigned.

21. If notice has not been given, identify the State Bar’s carrier, risk pool, claims administrator, or coverage contact, and provide the proper written notice address so that I may provide notice directly.

████████████████████████

I have demanded preservation from the State Bar before. I demanded it on May 15, 2026, in the subject line of the grievances I filed. I demanded it again on June 8, 2026. I demanded it again on September 5, 2026. I renew that demand here, and I do so because the clock is running. Rule 4-224(a)(1) provides that matters closed by the Office of the General Counsel after screening pursuant to Rule 4-202(e) shall be expunged after one year. No record subject to a preservation demand should be destroyed because a routine expungement date arrives.

████████████████████████

VII. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

Respond in writing. Do not telephone me. Do not direct me to a telephone number as the primary route. Written only communication was granted as an accommodation on May 4, 2026, and it remains in effect.

Provide your written response on or before Thursday, September 24, 2026. That date applies to this letter only. It does not affect the September 18, 2026 deadline in my September 5 letter to Ms. Dixon, which stands as written.

If the Bar contends it cannot answer any item because of confidentiality, internal process, privilege, lack of authority, or any other ground, state three things in writing: the specific ground, the specific rule or statute relied on, and the name and title of the person who made that determination. A general assertion of confidentiality is not an answer.

Where a public entity claims that compliance would work a fundamental alteration or an undue burden, 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 requires that the decision be made by the head of the entity or a designee, be made in writing, and state the reasons. I am asking for no less here.

All prior accommodation requests, objections, claims, and rights are expressly reserved.

Respectfully,

██████ ███████

I am a person with a disability. I request written communication by email in an accessible electronic format as a reasonable modification and for effective communication under 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7) and 35.160. I use assistive technology to prepare written communications, so please allow for occasional typographical errors and identify any portion that requires clarification.