Georgia ADA Complaint Timeline

The State Bar of Georgia's Combined Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2025, posted on gabar.org, states in Note 1: "The State Bar was established as an instrumentality of the state of Georgia". The independent auditor, Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC, dated its report December 9, 2025.

The grievance was filed with the State Bar of Georgia on January 23, 2026. On January 28, 2026, the Bar's Response mailbox transmitted it to the lawyer the grievance was about with the complainant copied.

On January 23, 2026, at 12:40 PM Eastern, City Attorney Jeremy T. Berry wrote: “I serve as the City Attorney. If you are represented by counsel, please have that person contact me.” He asked again on February 9, 2026, at 2:27 PM. The City record counts three such questions, from January 23 to February 9, 2026.

Jeremy T. Berry, City Attorney

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. That afternoon at 3:42 PM the Bar's Response mailbox transmitted the accused lawyer attorney's written response and opened the rebuttal window this submission answered.

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.

City Manager Christian Sigman wrote that Lillian Young was "no longer with the City of Brookhaven as HR Director." The City's published Title II page continued naming Young as its ADA Coordinator through at least March 10, 2026.

Christian Sigman, City Manager

On March 2, 2026, the City of Brookhaven priced one open records request at “950 hours at $51.98 per hour, total cost: $49,385.” As of March 5, 2026, the City’s 31 fee demands totaled $58,603.85. It closed 36 of the complainant’s requests on March 6 and March 9, 2026, for “lack of approval of provided estimate.”

City of Brookhaven records process

Between 1:01:34 PM and 1:07:12 PM Eastern on March 9, 2026, twenty unique open records requests each received a Request Marked Complete notice from the City. Every notice states that the request "has been marked complete due to lack of approval of provided estimate." and is signed "Office of the City Clerk, City of Brookhaven".

Unsigned (Office of the City Clerk)

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 case 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 case 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." The day before the admission, the complainant had asked General Counsel Russell D. Willard and grievance counsel for supervisory review of the April 10 dismissal.

Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel

At 6:48 PM the complainant sent President Christopher P. Twyman an institutional notification about the admitted intake problem and the still operative April 10 dismissal. General Counsel and other Bar officials were copied.

The complainant sent Georgia POST a written disability access request asking for an accessible written route and a written decision. POST's own administrative log later recorded the message as received that evening.

POST replied that the April 23 correspondence had gone to counsel, without identifying the lawyer to the complainant. POST's later produced records identify Paul Jay Pontrelli, Assistant Attorney General, as that lawyer and give April 24 and April 27 as two different dates for the referral.

Unsigned (Georgia POST)

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 case-specific assignment, not a publicly designated ADA contact.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

At 3:17 PM the complainant asked General Counsel Russell D. Willard for a written conflict screen, a capacity disclosure, preservation, and conflict free review. Other Bar officials and the State ADA Coordinator's Office were copied.

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 case, Gallagher Bassett has no involvement. The letter does not mention accommodation.

Cameron J. Wall, Litigation Counsel

Between 8:28 AM and 8:33 AM John J. Shiptenko sent three separate acknowledgments to the three April 30 transmissions. Each one confirmed receipt and decided nothing.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General 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. The written accommodation demand was sent at 6:43 PM on April 21, hours after the Bar admitted the file error and thirteen days before this reply.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

On May 5, 2026, Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel, wrote: “As stated previously, your February 3 and February 20 submissions as well as your original grievance will be thoroughly reviewed during the reconsideration process.” The same email stated: “Please note that OGC@gabar.org is not an email address associated with our office.”

Leigh Burgess, Assistant General Counsel

On May 6, 2026, I sent James R. Westbury, Jr. a written retraction demand with two windows: 72 hours and five business days.

After receiving the complainant's April 30 request for technical assistance, the State ADA Coordinator's Office contacted the State Bar of Georgia directly. The office offered assistance and model materials.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

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. At 8:52 AM that same morning the complainant had asked Leigh Burgess and Andreea N. Morrison for the operational cause, the safeguards, and the corrective steps behind the admitted misclassification.

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.

At 8:17 PM the complainant sent General Counsel Russell D. Willard a final notice asking for written procedural status, institutional correction, and preservation. The notice set May 14, 2026 at 5:00 PM Eastern as the response window.

On May 12, 2026, in the Northern District of Georgia, counsel for the defendants, who include the State Bar of Georgia Office of General Counsel, filed a brief stating: “As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” The brief also quotes an earlier decision: “The State Bar is an arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.”

Counsel for the defendants, Attorneys for the State Bar of Georgia defendants

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

At 3:09 PM Eastern, Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator, answered John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, who had written at 2:35 PM that the State Bar is not a public entity. She wrote that she was not sure the 11th Circuit had been asked to rule on the State Bar of Georgia, and that there are instances where state bars have been held to be Title II entities because they serve as administrative arms of state supreme courts or state governments. She sent three sources. The complainant was not copied; the thread was produced to him on September 22, 2026.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

Shiptenko wrote that the State Bar had approved the accommodation request and that Ms. Nash would defer her final determination 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.

At 1:29 PM Deputy General Counsel William D. NeSmith III wrote that he would not be able to respond that day and expected to respond the next day. The next day was the response window the complainant's May 11 notice had already set.

William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel

The State ADA Coordinator's Office wrote: "The proper routing path for your ADA-related grievances as they relate to the programs, services and activities of the State Bar of Georgia would be to file a grievance with John J. Shiptenko."

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

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.

The complainant sent a thank you email on May 14, and the State ADA Coordinator's Office replied nineteen minutes later. The office wrote: "The State ADA Coordinator's Office team strives to provide excellent customer service, technical guidance, and support to each individual and entity that contacts our office for assistance."

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

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. The written response window the complainant's May 11 notice set had closed the previous afternoon at 5:00 PM with no answer on procedural status or correction.

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 topics 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. The three grievances submitted on May 15 involved Deputy General Counsel Andreea N. Morrison, Deputy General Counsel William D. NeSmith III, and one lawyer outside the Office of the General Counsel.

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. The supplemental material had been sent to her at 1:13 PM on May 18, three days earlier.

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 cases, 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 documents does not show the CAPTCHA barrier or the form discrepancy being corrected. The May 18 inquiry it answered eight days later had also asked for human receipt confirmation, who handles conflicts for the grievances filed May 15, and how an accessible filing would be confirmed when the portal could not be used.

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 cases and must be directed to NeSmith. This is eleven of the fifteen ledger questions sent to the Deputy General Counsel. The fifteen question ledger reached him at 1:07 PM the same day, and he answered twice that afternoon.

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

On June 1 Grievance Counsel Adrienne D. Nash's mailbox returned an automatic out of office message covering June 1 through June 5. The open receipt question was answered separately by John J. Shiptenko on June 2.

Adrienne D. Nash, Grievance 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. The grievance had been filed at 7:14 PM on May 29 by direct written transmittal, the alternate route the Bar offered outside its public portal. Receipt was acknowledged on June 2, four days after the filing, after the complainant asked for it twice on June 1, at 7:07 PM and again at 7:42 PM.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

At 5:05 PM the complainant emailed a Human Resources complaint to Director Sandra Dixon, with Bar leadership and Board officials copied. The public record states that Human Resources did not acknowledge the filing before the September follow up.

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. The consolidated reply it answered had been resent at 8:11 AM after a delivery problem and carried twenty four written questions, including who would read and answer it.

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. The reply came 34 minutes after the seventeen questions were sent.

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. The grievance had been filed by email at about 7:21 PM the evening before, through the written route Shiptenko had described that same afternoon.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

A read receipt shows Chief Operating Officer Sarah I. Coole opened the June 17 grievance concerning John J. Shiptenko at 7:22 AM on June 18. The supplied record identifies no response from Coole to that filing.

Sarah I. Coole, Chief Operating Officer

The complainant replied to the June 18 one-word "Received" acknowledgment of his grievance against the ADA Coordinator, restored the leadership recipients he had dropped, and asked for a written status on each of seven open cases 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.

Between 4:23 and 4:35 PM Eastern the Bar emailed six decisions from a no reply address. Grievance Counsel Adrienne D. Nash decided the two cases involving lawyers outside the Office of the General Counsel and stated a standard and reasons. Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Chair of the State Disciplinary Board, signed the four involving lawyers employed in that Office; each found "no basis" to forward the case and stated no standard. The June 8 complaint to Human Resources was not answered.

Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Chair, State Disciplinary Board

At 11:48 AM POST ADA Coordinator Meghan Fail wrote to the State ADA Coordinator's Office: "I have never received training or gained any real knowledge of ADA." She also wrote that she needed help interacting with members of the public who questioned POST's procedures.

Meghan Fail, ADA Coordinator

POST told the complainant in writing that the requested ADA information would be forwarded. The email blind copied Assistant Attorney General Paul Jay Pontrelli, who replied internally twenty seven minutes later, and POST did not send the promised information to the complainant.

Paul Jay Pontrelli, Assistant Attorney General

The State ADA Coordinator's Office replied to Georgia POST's ADA Coordinator that her request had been forwarded. The office wrote that the person assigned was out of the office and would respond the following week.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

At 12:13 PM the State ADA Coordinator's Office answered Georgia POST's coordinator with a written plan. It wrote that her existing Title I role now included Title II duties and directed her to begin reviewing the requirements for an ADA Public Notice and an ADA Grievance Procedure.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

Annette Arnold signed a letter dated July 29 stating that the complainant was "not a directly involved party" and requesting written authorization or Power of Attorney documents before the office would provide information. The office's September 11 email states that the attached response was emailed to the complainant on July 29, 2026 at 2:41 P.M., and the supplied record documents the complainant first receiving the letter on September 11.

Annette Arnold, Complaints Analyst

After the State ADA Coordinator's Office asked POST to identify its Title II contact and grievance procedure, Meghan Fail forwarded the inquiry to Executive Director Chris Harvey and wrote: "See below. I am not sure how to respond to this."

Meghan Fail, ADA Coordinator

The complainant contacted the State ADA Coordinator's Office on August 5. The next day the office asked Georgia POST to identify its Title II contact and its grievance procedure.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

Georgia POST's Title II notice, grievance procedure, and public complaint form appeared on the POST website on August 7. The State ADA Coordinator's Office sent those links to the complainant that afternoon.

Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator

Assistant Attorney General Paul Jay Pontrelli signed Georgia POST's written determination six days after the August 21 grievance was filed. It accepted the existing submission without requiring duplication, granted written communication, removed the meeting requirement, and otherwise denied the grievance.

Paul Jay Pontrelli, Assistant Attorney General

At 8:07 AM the complainant wrote to Sandra Dixon, Director of Human Resources, with ten recipients copied, under the subject "Day 88. Where Did My June 8 Complaint Go?" It asked whether the complaint was forwarded, referred, handled inside Human Resources, or left alone, and for the State Bar's own ADA grievance procedure. The Chief Operating Officer read it on September 6. The only other reply was an automatic out of office message.

On September 9 the complainant wrote to Annette Arnold and the office's shared response mailbox, renewed the written accommodation request, and asked for a written response by September 23. The last communication the complainant had received from the office was the June 16 exchange, eighty five days earlier.

At 8:24 PM the complainant sent Georgia POST a preservation notice. At 8:25 PM POST's Open Records office replied under the subject "Acknowledgement of ORR" and wrote, "We have received your open records request."

Jill Dalon, Open Records

At 8:28 AM the complainant wrote to POST's Open Records office stating that the September 9 preservation notice was not an open records request and asking that the two processes be kept separate. At 8:35 AM he sent a separate open records request, and narrowed it in a clarification that evening.

At 3:00 PM the complainant sent Georgia POST a written response to the August 27 determination, asking POST "to withdraw and reissue it through a reviewer who did not participate in the matters under review." The correspondence requested a written response by October 1, 2026.

At 2:23 PM Annette Arnold emailed the July 29 letter to the complainant and wrote that the case "does not involve an insurance policy" and was therefore not appropriate for the office. The letter attached to that same email stated a different ground: that the complainant was "not a directly involved party" and had to produce authorization documents.

Annette Arnold, Complaints Analyst

At 5:10 PM the complainant replied to Annette Arnold and the shared response mailbox asking the office to identify which of its two written grounds is its position, and renewed the accommodation request. The reply asked for a written response by September 23.

On September 11 the complainant filed an Open Records Act request through the office's records portal seeking the records behind the office's handling of the case. The portal acknowledged receipt at 5:06 PM, and the acknowledgment calculates the three business day response date as September 16.

Unsigned (Office of Commissioner of Insurance records portal)

At 8:07 PM the complainant wrote to Russell D. Willard, General Counsel, and Damon E. Elmore, Executive Director, copying the President and the Director of Human Resources. It asked for the current ADA route, the status of the June 8 complaint, the standards used on June 30, whether a conflict screen preceded the grievance involving a former Board of Governors member, and what written rule governs routing grievances against lawyers employed in the Office of the General Counsel, or to say plainly that none exists.

At 8:07 PM the complainant wrote to John J. Shiptenko, the ADA contact the Bar identified, copying the Deputy General Counsel, the Director of Human Resources, and the General Counsel. It asked whether he still holds the role, where a complaint about the access process goes, where the Bar publishes its ADA contact, and who decided the Bar is not subject to Title II. The Deputy General Counsel read it 23 minutes after it was sent.

Automatic read receipts show the office's shared response mailbox displayed the complainant's September 11 reply at 8:21 AM and Annette Arnold's mailbox displayed it at 10:44 AM. Both receipts identify the September 11 message that asked which of the two written grounds is the office's position.

Annette Arnold, Complaints Analyst

The complainant sent an open records request, addressed to the Open Records Custodian, to the office's group mailbox at 5:59:33 PM Eastern. Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator, is named as a records custodian. Ten categories of records. Fees authorized up to $250. Delivery confirmed at 6:00:20 PM.

At 3:37 PM the complainant wrote to Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Chair of the State Disciplinary Board, with nineteen recipients copied. It asked which standard he applied, what he received, whether the full Board reviewed and approved each dismissal as Rule 4-203(4) provides, who drafted and transmitted the letters, and whether any written rule governed grievances against the Bar's own lawyers. It requested reconsideration under Internal Rule 16. The Executive Director read it two minutes after it was sent.

The brief compares the two June 30 processes side by side, quotes the Bar's published rules, and reports that a search of all 4,092 entries in the Bar's published handbook, saved September 14, found no rule for grievances against lawyers employed in the Office of the General Counsel.

The deadline in the complainant's September 5 letter to Sandra Dixon, Director of Human Resources, passed at 5:00 PM Eastern. A 5:02 PM mailbox check found no answer. Nine questions unanswered. The only Human Resources reply since June 8 is one automatic reply.

At 6:23 PM Eastern the complainant sent Sandra Dixon, Director of Human Resources, the Day 102 letter, asking again where the June 8 complaint went. The letter set no deadline. At 8:31 PM, Sarah I. Coole, Chief Operating Officer, opened it.

The response deadline for the September 14 request passed on September 17 with no response. On September 18 at 4:59:31 PM Eastern, the complainant sent a follow up; delivery confirmed at 4:59:43 PM. No response as of September 19, 2026.

At 10:55 AM Eastern the complainant wrote to General Counsel Russell D. Willard, copying Executive Director Damon E. Elmore, Deputy General Counsel William D. NeSmith III, and Senior Assistant General Counsel John J. Shiptenko, asking which account the State Bar stands behind: its written statements to him that it is not a public entity and not subject to Title II, or its court filings that the State controls the Bar and its agents and employees. Delivery to all four was confirmed at 10:55:20 AM Eastern. An answer was requested by September 25, 2026.

At 8:07 AM Eastern on September 22, 2026, John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, answered the complainant’s September 19 question whether he was still the complainant’s ADA Coordinator. He wrote: “I am the State Bar’s ADA Coordinator, and you may continue to send your accommodation requests to me.” William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, was copied.

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

On October 7, 2026, at 3:35 PM Eastern, the complainant filed two ADA complaints concerning the State Bar of Georgia with Human Resources at the Judicial Council of Georgia and Administrative Office of the Courts, under that office’s published ADA Grievance Procedure. One concerned the State Bar’s Human Resources Director and one its Office of the General Counsel. Delivery was reported at 3:37 PM and 3:38 PM.

On October 7, 2026, the complainant asked John J. Shiptenko to confirm in writing that the State Bar received a letter and to tell the complainant who would answer it. On October 8, 2026, at 5:33 PM Eastern, Shiptenko wrote: “I am closing this matter, as you have made no request that can properly be classified as a request for an accommodation.”

John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel

On October 16, 2026, at 12:08 PM Eastern, Jessica Farah, General Counsel of the Judicial Council of Georgia and Administrative Office of the Courts, wrote: “The JC/AOC does not have the authority to investigate discrimination claims against local courts or the State Bar of Georgia.” The message followed the complainant’s third request to confirm receipt of the October 7 complaints.

Jessica Farah, General Counsel