Georgia ADA Complaint Timeline

The complainant filed a grievance with the State Bar of Georgia. On January 28, 2026, the Bar's Response mailbox transmitted the grievance to the respondent attorney with the complainant copied.

The complainant submitted his first supplemental rebuttal material (Part A) in the grievance to the Bar's Response mailbox and asked the Bar to confirm receipt. The Bar later admitted this submission was received but not added to the grievance file before the April 10 dismissal.

The complainant submitted his second rebuttal package (Supplemental Evidentiary Brief, Part B, Revised) in the grievance to the Bar's Response mailbox. The Bar later admitted this submission was received but not added to the grievance file before the April 10 dismissal.

Belinda Boscoe wrote that the numerous emails sent to the claim intake department "were mistakenly set up as new claims," that the extra numbers were voided, and that the review would be finished the following week.

Belinda Boscoe, Senior Resolution Manager

The first written accommodation request on the GIRMA track: who handles ADA accommodation requests, a call from the adjuster or a supervisor, and whether the matter was one claim or several. No response.

A one-line follow-up marked time sensitive, with GIRMA's claims mailbox in copy. No response.

An 11:28 AM email said the coverage investigation was complete and asked that the office not be copied on emails to the City. The letter dated April 1, sent April 2, described the matter as "various administrative tasks," cited policy provisions without naming any, and closed the file. Neither document mentions the two pending accommodation requests.

Belinda Boscoe, Senior Resolution Manager

A letter to Gallagher Bassett supervisor Robert Angotta asking that the file be reopened and reassigned, that the policy provisions relied on be named, and that the March 13 accommodation asks be answered. No response.

The fourth written request, to Robert Angotta with GMA's CEO Larry Hanson in copy, asked for a phone call and an ADA accommodation contact. Mr. Hanson's mailbox returned a read receipt at 4:41 PM. No one replied.

Larry Hanson, CEO and Executive Director

The State Bar dismissed the grievance. The dismissal letter stated that no rebuttal had been received, although the complainant's February 3 and February 20 submissions had been received by the Bar and were not in the grievance file when the dismissal was signed.

Andreea Morrison, Deputy General Counsel

The fifth written request asked, with a ten business day window, for the name of GIRMA's ADA coordinator, its grievance procedure, confirmation of reopening, and the identity of whoever handled the March 13 and 16 requests. No response from the supervisor.

A certified-mail and email notice to Larry Hanson, as administrator of GIRMA, listing the five unanswered requests and asking for the coordinator, the grievance procedure, the handler of the March requests, reopening, and Gallagher Bassett's designation. Ten business days. The window closed April 28.

The Bar acknowledged in writing that the February 3 and February 20 submissions had been received but were misclassified and not added to the grievance file before the April 10 dismissal. The email stated: "As a result of this misclassification, your submissions were not added to the grievance file at that time."

Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel

The complainant emailed the Georgia State ADA Coordinator's Office, with State Bar officials copied, asking for help locating a Title II ADA access route for the Bar's grievance process. The State Bar's ADA contact, John J. Shiptenko, replied the same day identifying himself as ADA Coordinator for the reconsideration.

John J. Shiptenko emailed that he was serving as the ADA Coordinator for the reconsideration of the grievance. He stated this was a matter-specific assignment, not a publicly designated ADA contact.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

The letter said GIRMA is not required to designate an ADA coordinator, that it would comply with the ADA voluntarily and reserved the ability to cease, asked what the disability is, described the emails as harassment and annoyance, and gave an opinion that a crime had been committed. The cover email was addressed to the City Attorney and copied nine people.

James R. Westbury, Jr., Outside counsel for GMA and GIRMA

Answering the April 12 and April 14 letters, Gallagher Bassett's litigation counsel wrote that it is a third party administrator, spelled the agency "GIMRA" three times, and concluded that since the policy does not cover the matter, Gallagher Bassett has no involvement. The letter does not mention accommodation.

Cameron J. Wall, Litigation Counsel

Shiptenko granted two accommodations: written-only communication and accessible electronic format documents. He also offered to postpone the reconsideration review until after surgery and recovery if requested, asking the complainant to provide a resume date if he wished to make that request.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Burgess responded to the April 30 operational questions and confirmed the misclassification a second time, writing that the February 3 and February 20 submissions and the respondent's response were now together in the file. The email also stated that an OGC email address the complainant had used was not associated with the office.

Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel

The response to the May 1 letter demanded retraction of five statements within 72 hours and seven structural items within five business days, with eighteen institutional recipients in copy.

Shiptenko wrote a point-by-point response on access. He stated the Bar has more than one ADA Coordinator depending on the program, service, or activity, that Ms. Nash usually handles ADA requests for the grievance process while he assists, and that he had spoken with the State ADA Coordinator's Office and was analyzing the Bar's ADA notices and processes.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

The reply to the Wall letter opened a parallel five business day window and corrected its premise: the claim was the writer's own, and the claims channel was Gallagher Bassett's. No response.

NeSmith wrote that the State Bar is not a public entity and is not required to have a published ADA Coordinator. In the same message he wrote that it did not appear the complainant required assistance and that the ADA invocation may be directed toward securing a substantive outcome. The email was sent to the complainant alone, with the prior distribution removed.

William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel

On the evening of May 12 NeSmith wrote "I am available at 11.30 only," which the complainant confirmed. On May 13 at 7:34 AM NeSmith wrote that the 11:30 time was meant for a colleague and was sent in error, and that there was no meeting. The colleague was not identified.

William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel

Shiptenko wrote that the State Bar had approved the accommodation request and that Ms. Nash would hold off on issuing a decision on the reconsideration until June 15, 2026, citing the scheduled May 15 hand surgery and recovery. The complainant states he did not request the pause or provide a resume date.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

The office answered each of seven asks in writing the day after receiving them, with GMA, GIRMA's counsel, and Gallagher Bassett in copy: it is not an enforcement agency, it named a contact, and it identified the Department of Justice as the Title II enforcement agency.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

On the day the five business day window closed, a scorecard to GIRMA's counsel with GMA and Gallagher Bassett in copy: twelve items, twelve uncured.

On May 14, 2026, the complainant wrote to the Bar, with John Shiptenko copied, stating: "My surgery has been postponed because I was unable to clear preop requirements." The cure window set in his May 11 letter closed that day at 5:00 PM ET.

NeSmith wrote that the State Bar disputed the complainant's assertions and would not engage in further substantive correspondence concerning his threatened claims outside formal legal process, and that further substantive communications should be directed through his attorney. The message stated accommodations would continue and should be directed to Mr. Shiptenko.

William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel

An unsigned message from Response@gabar.org confirmed receipt of three grievances submitted May 15, 2026, and stated that requests for status, procedures, or other matters beyond a withdrawal or supplement would not be processed. It also stated that the complainant's earlier use of an OGC email address may have come from an internet search engine, possibly an AI-generated summary answer.

Unsigned (Office mailbox)

Responding to a request to confirm that May 18 supplemental evidence had reached the grievance file, Shiptenko wrote: "I received it as a courtesy copy. You can contact Ms. Nash directly to verify her receipt."

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

The consumer complaint filed May 12 about Gallagher Bassett's handling of the claim was assigned to an analyst. Licensees have fifteen business days to respond from the date the office forwards the complaint, a date the office has not stated. A June 16 check-in drew a restatement of the rule.

Annette Arnold, Complaints Analyst

After three direct requests, Nash confirmed she had received the additional information for the grievance and had reviewed the attachments. She stated all attachments were accessible except one file, which could not be opened.

Adrienne Nash, Grievance Counsel / Assistant General Counsel

Answering eight questions about who represented whom, GMA's General Counsel confirmed that Mr. Westbury represents GMA and GIRMA regarding these matters, asked that correspondence go through him, and said the issues are being handled through the appropriate claims and legal processes.

Rusi C. Patel, General Counsel

Nash wrote that she received both recent attachments, was able to access them, and that they would be added to the file for review.

Adrienne Nash, Grievance Counsel / Assistant General Counsel

Responding to the May 18 ADA access inquiry, Shiptenko addressed the complainant's points about the absence of a non-CAPTCHA filing route and differences between the Spanish and English grievance forms, and described an interactive process for disabled persons who need help with the grievance form. The record does not show the CAPTCHA barrier or the form discrepancy being corrected.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

In a second May 26 email, Shiptenko reviewed the consolidated question ledger and wrote that questions 1 through 5 and 10 through 15 were not accommodation matters and must be directed to NeSmith. This is eleven of the fifteen ledger questions routed to the Deputy General Counsel.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

The complainant sent an email whose subject line was the question: "One Question: Does Title II Apply, Yes or No." It asked the Bar to state, in one word, whether Title II of the ADA applies to its grievance process.

Shiptenko wrote that the State Bar's position remained that it is not subject to Title II and that any obligation would arise under Title III rather than Title II. He wrote that the Bar would not engage in litigation-oriented questioning and that the question should be directed to Deputy General Counsel Bill NeSmith.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Shiptenko acknowledged the May 29 and June 1 correspondence regarding the grievance against Leigh Burgess and wrote that correspondence to him regarding the grievance process should only be used to submit requests for accommodations under the ADA. The email did not provide a complaint number or name the reviewer.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Shiptenko wrote that the State Bar had approved the accommodation request and that Ms. Nash had postponed the final decision on the reconsideration until June 15. The email closed by hoping the complainant had recovered well from surgery. The complainant had reported on May 14 that the surgery was postponed.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Responding to the complainant's June 16 questions, Shiptenko wrote that his May 13 email had granted an accommodation and that the pause ran from May 13 to June 15. He attached a blank grievance form and offered alternative submission methods routing to Ms. Nash or the Grievance Department, while not answering the operational questions asked.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Replying to a letter with seventeen questions sent at 3:48 PM, Shiptenko answered one point and wrote that the complainant did not have to use the grievance form and could create a document using his existing voice-to-text tool, asking that he include the information the form requests. This established that the grievance form is not required.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

At 8:05 AM Shiptenko acknowledged receipt of the June 17 grievance against him with a one-word email: "Received." It was sent to the complainant alone, with no Bar official copied, and identified no complaint number, reviewer, or conflict-screened process.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

The complainant replied to the June 18 one-word "Received" acknowledgment of his grievance against the ADA Coordinator, restored the leadership recipients the respondent had dropped, and asked for a written status on each of seven open matters or a statement that none had issued. The June 15 reconsideration deadline had passed with no ruling.

The complainant sent leadership an email titled '42 Days of Silence' documenting that a grievance against a Bar insider had sat 42 days with no case number, reviewer, or response, while a grievance against an outside lawyer received a number and a written decision. Read receipts show the Deputy General Counsel, the President, and the Chief Operating Officer opened it within 45 minutes; none replied. The ADA Coordinator posted an out-of-office reply naming the Pro Hac Vice Administrator as the contact.