What the published rules say
Rule 4-202(e) lets the Office of the General Counsel dismiss cases that “do not present sufficient merit to proceed.”
Rule 4-203(2) lets the State Disciplinary Board dismiss cases that seem “unjustified, frivolous, or patently unfounded.” The same provision lets the Board “require additional information from a complainant, where appropriate”.
Rule 4-203(4) lets the Board delegate duties to its Chair, “subject to review and approval by the full State Disciplinary Board.”
Rule 4-204.1 says a Notice of Investigation must give the lawyer the grievance is about “the name and address of the State Disciplinary Board member assigned to investigate the grievance”.
Internal Rule 11 says “A respondent lawyer shall have the right to challenge the competency, qualifications or objectivity of any member of the State Disciplinary Board.”
What the published rules do not say
On September 14, 2026 I saved the State Bar’s published handbook and read all 4,092 entries in it. The Bar Rules. The State Disciplinary Board Internal Rules. The Review Board Internal Rules. The Standing Board Policies.
The conflict rules that do exist point elsewhere. Internal Rule 19 covers a Board member whose firm represents an accused lawyer. Standing Board Policy 600 covers gifts, kickbacks, and hiring. Internal Rule 11 gives the right to the lawyer the grievance is about.
On September 14 I put it to Russell D. Willard, General Counsel, and Damon E. Elmore, Executive Director: “What written rule governs routing of grievances against lawyers employed in the Office of the General Counsel?” And then, so there would be no place to stand: “If no written rule exists, please state that plainly.”
On September 15 I wrote Chair DeLoach directly and asked fourteen questions about the four dismissals he signed. Which standard. What he received. Whether anyone asked the accused lawyers for anything. Who drafted the letters. Whether the full Board reviewed and approved the dismissals, as Rule 4-203(4) provides. And whether any written rule governed any of it, or none did.
Both answers are due Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 5:00 PM Eastern.
What this cost to ask
On May 4, 2026 the Office of the General Counsel granted me written only communication as a disability accommodation, so that I could take part in the process. That was the Bar’s own framing.
Then the writing narrowed. On May 19 an unsigned message from the Bar’s Response mailbox told me that “No request for information as to status, procedures, or other matters beyond a withdrawal or request to supplement will be processed”. On June 2 the ADA contact told me that “correspondence to me regarding the grievance process should only be used to submit requests for accommodations under the ADA.”
I first asked the State Bar to identify its ADA route on April 30, 2026. That is 139 days ago as of September 16, 2026. On June 8 I sent a written disability discrimination complaint to the Director of Human Resources with eleven people copied. That is 100 days ago as of September 16, 2026. Human Resources has sent me one thing since. It was an automatic out of office reply, and it arrived within twenty seconds of my email.
For me, on June 30, it had a paragraph.
September 18. September 24.
Sources: the six June 30, 2026 decisions; my September 5, 2026 letter to Human Resources and its acknowledgment log; my September 14, 2026 letters to the General Counsel and Executive Director and to the ADA contact; my September 15, 2026 letter to the Chair of the State Disciplinary Board and its receipt log; the State Bar handbook as saved September 14, 2026. Day counts are as of September 16, 2026.
I have invited the State Bar of Georgia to identify any inaccuracy on this page. As of September 19, 2026, it has identified none.
Back to Part 1: Jeffrey W. DeLoach Cleared 4 of the Georgia Bar's Own Lawyers