The Bar Record
The Bar Moved the Goalpost
Every time I asked for access, accommodation, or help, the answer changed.
- First there was no visible ADA route.
- Then an ADA contact appeared.
- Then accommodations were granted.
- Then the Bar said it was reviewing its ADA notices and processes.
- Then the Bar said Title II did not apply.
- Then it questioned whether I needed help.
- Then it treated my private workaround as the accommodation.
The goal was access.
The goalpost was the Bar.
Florida published the door.
Georgia moved the football.
See the Florida comparator: what I expected, what I got →
What the Bar Did Besides “Help”
The Bar can point to a few things that sound helpful. Here is the rest of the record.
1 Dismissed the grievance on a file that did not contain the rebuttal materials
The April 10 dismissal said no rebuttal had been received. The Bar later admitted, in writing, that my February 3 and February 20 submissions were received, misclassified, and not added to the grievance file when the dismissal was reviewed.
📄 Read it: the Bar admitted the submissions were received but not added to the file
The system received the response. The file did not.
2 Admitted the file problem, but did not correct the dismissal
The Assistant General Counsel admitted the submissions were received and, in her own words, “not added to the grievance file at that time.” The dismissal that issued on their absence was not withdrawn, superseded, or corrected.
The admission solved the mystery. It did not fix the record.
3 Turned a correction request into reconsideration
I did not ask the Bar to change its mind. I asked it to correct a record that had issued before timely materials were placed in the file. The Bar moved the problem into reconsideration instead of fixing it.
I asked them to correct the record. They moved it into reconsideration.
4 Declared the file complete, without answering “complete for what?”
The Bar stated the file was considered complete and that my participation was not required. A complete file is not a cure if the defective dismissal still does the work of a complete-record decision.
They gave me a filing cabinet. They did not say whether anyone planned to open it.
5 Failed to publish a visible ADA route in the grievance process
The public complaint pathway and the grievance landing page carried no ADA Coordinator mention, no disability-accommodation offer, no alternative-format option, and no public notice. The only ADA Coordinator reference sat on a legacy PDF, phone-only to contact, mail-only to file.
The door existed only if you already knew where to look.
6 Made the accommodation route conditional
The Bar’s ADA contact identified himself as the coordinator for my matter, but also said the office did not need further information from me at that stage, and that accommodation requests should come to him only if the office later contacted me.
Access was treated as something I could ask for only if they later decided they needed me.
7 Denied Title II coverage after performing ADA functions
One Deputy General Counsel wrote that the State Bar was not a public entity and was not required to have a published ADA Coordinator. The same record shows the Bar’s own ADA contact saying the Bar had more than one ADA Coordinator, that he was one of them, and that the Bar engaged in the interactive process.
📄 Read it: the written Title II coverage denial
One lawyer said the door did not exist. Another was standing in it.
8 Questioned my disability while refusing the paperwork that would answer the question
The Bar wrote that it did not appear I required assistance, even though I had already offered documentation and a limited authorization so the Bar could verify my disability and functional limitations. It did not request the records. It did not review them. It did not use the verification process I offered. It kept the doubt instead.
They questioned the disability and refused the paperwork that would answer the question.
9 Made the access problem so bad I had to contact the State ADA Office, then still did not identify a public fix
The access problem did not stay inside the Bar. It became unclear and unanswered enough that I had to put the Georgia State ADA Coordinator’s Office on the written record.
After that, the tone changed. The Bar granted accommodations, spoke in ADA language, and said it was reviewing its ADA notices and processes. Then it denied Title II coverage anyway, questioned whether I needed assistance, and removed the State ADA Coordinator from later communications. As of this record, no public-facing ADA route for the Bar’s own grievance process has been identified.
The Bar reviewed its ADA notices. The public still could not find the door.
The question is no longer whether the Bar knew.
The question is what changed after it knew.