Georgia Bar’s Lawyers Called Its Own Email “purporting”. I Have It.

State Bar of Georgia · Federal court record

On May 12, 2026, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, emailed me the State Bar of Georgia’s position on my disability request and signed it. On September 28, 2026, the State Bar of Georgia’s lawyers told a federal court it was an email “purporting to be from” him. I have the original, with its headers. Proof: William D. NeSmith III’s May 12, 2026 email

The scoreboard, as of October 22, 2026

The filing and the replies. The wording counts below cover the Bar defendants’ September 28, 2026 brief, not every filing in the Mignott case.¹

What	Count
Times the brief says “an email purporting to be from State Bar employee William NeSmith”	1
Times the brief says “unauthenticated email”	3
Times the brief says “have no relevance to this matter”	1
Minutes between NeSmith’s May 12 email and Shiptenko’s to the State ADA Coordinator	23
Declarations attached to the Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief	0
Read receipts from the two lawyers listed on the brief, October 7, 2026	2
Replies from those lawyers, as of October 22, 2026	0
Declarations from William D. NeSmith III saying he did not write it	0

The last two rows concern the outside lawyers at Nall & Miller, LLP, not all State Bar of Georgia correspondence. Opened October 7; no reply from those lawyers as of October 22, 2026.³

Before the ADA request

I did not start with ADA requests. I started with their errors.

The State Bar of Georgia received my February 3 and February 20, 2026 answers and left them out of the file reviewed before my complaint was dismissed. On April 21, Assistant General Counsel Leigh Burgess admitted the misclassification, apologized and said the materials had been added.

Georgia Bar Wrote “I invite you to rebut the response,” and I Did, Twice. Then It Said My Answer Never Came.

I asked for help so the process would not fail me again. The State Bar of Georgia’s May 12 answer to that request is now something its lawyers would rather not own.

Their filed words, beside the dated facts

The words and the documents. The brief was filed September 28, 2026. The email it describes was sent May 12, 2026.

Their filed words	Where	Dated fact beside it
“an email purporting to be from State Bar employee William NeSmith”	The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3	May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, sent the email. It says: “I am responding on behalf of the State Bar of Georgia”.
“unauthenticated email”	The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 4 and 9	The September 28 brief attaches no declaration from NeSmith.
“have no relevance to this matter”	The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 6	NeSmith, May 12: “I trust this correspondence adequately explains the position of the State Bar of Georgia.”
“a member of the public asking about accommodations”	The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 6	The member of the public who received the May 12 email was me.
“purporting”	The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3	October 7, 2026, 3:36 PM: I wrote to the outside lawyers, “I hold the original with its headers.”

Filing: the Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief.¹ Email: William D. NeSmith III’s May 12 message. My October 7 letter and its delivery record.³

What did the State Bar of Georgia’s lawyers tell the court?

They wrote “purporting”. On September 28, 2026, the Bar defendants filed their opposition in the Mignott litigation.

The brief is signed /s/ Patrick N. Arndt of Nall & Miller, LLP. Arndt and Robert L. Goldstucker are listed as attorneys for the defendants.¹

They did not write allegedly. That is their word.

They did not write “Deputy General Counsel.” They wrote “State Bar employee.” His own signature says Deputy General Counsel.

A Deputy General Counsel is one of the State Bar of Georgia’s top lawyers. “Employee” is what you call someone whose email you would rather not stand behind.

The brief attaches no declaration from the man who sent it. The same filing argues that the email should not be considered with the pending motion to dismiss and would not change the defendants’ immunity argument anyway.¹

In discussing state control of the Bar, the lawyers wrote that the email’s comments:

have no relevance to this matter.

Here is the whole sentence, on page 6:

Again, comments in an email in the context of a member of the public asking about accommodations pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act have no relevance to this matter.

I am the member of the public. I asked about accommodations.¹

They call this site “a disability advocate’s website.” I am a disabled dad who likes dogs, donuts, and dad jokes. Advocate will do.¹

Those are the lawyers’ arguments. They are not a judge’s findings.

I am the person on the receiving end of this one.

Five things that belong beside “purporting”

1. The May 12 email names its author. William D. NeSmith III sent the message at 2:12 PM and signed it as Deputy General Counsel. Read his May 12 email.

2. The email says whose position he is explaining. Near the start, NeSmith wrote:

I am responding on behalf of the State Bar of Georgia

Near the end:

I trust this correspondence adequately explains the position of the State Bar of Georgia.

I did not supply that institutional label. It came in his email. William D. NeSmith III’s May 12 email.

3. Another Bar lawyer sent the same status statements to the State ADA Coordinator. At 2:35 PM that day, John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel, wrote to Stacey Peace, State ADA Coordinator.

Twenty three minutes apart. Two Bar lawyers. Two recipients. The same words. Read the produced thread.

4. I put my answer to the authorship question in writing. On October 7, 2026, at 3:36 PM, I wrote to the Bar’s outside lawyers at Nall & Miller, LLP. I told them:

I hold the original with its headers.

I wrote that letter. NeSmith wrote the May 12 email.³

What came back, as of October 22, 2026. The firm’s mail server confirmed delivery at 3:38 PM on October 7. Both lawyers listed on the brief returned read receipts that afternoon.³

October 7, 2026	What the mailbox records	Time, Eastern
Nall & Miller, LLP	Two delivery notices	3:38 PM
Patrick N. Arndt	Read receipt	3:39 PM
Robert L. Goldstucker, displayed on the receipt as Bob L. Goldstucker	Read receipt	3:50 PM

No reply from those lawyers is in the mailbox as of October 22, 2026. John J. Shiptenko sent an October 8 reply about accommodations. I am not counting that State Bar reply as a reply from the outside law firm.³

5. The plaintiff made her own argument to the court. In her October 9, 2026 reply, Marsha W. Mignott wrote:

They do not deny that the State Bar’s own Deputy General Counsel wrote it.

In the authentication section she wrote:

They do not deny that he sent it, and they submit no declaration to that effect, though that fact lies uniquely within their knowledge.

Those are Mignott’s filed arguments, quoted as hers. They are not a ruling, and I am not speaking for her.²

Read the text transcript

From: Bill NeSmith
To: [my name removed]
Sent: May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM ET
Subject: ADA response

Mr. [my name removed]:

I write in response to your email and attached correspondence directed to Mr. John Shiptenko. I am responding on behalf of the State Bar of Georgia concerning the issues you characterize as relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). As I understand your position, you contend that: (1) there is no published timeline for written responses; (2) there is no single designated ADA contact person because Mr. Shiptenko self-identified but is not publicly identified as the Bar’s institutional ADA Coordinator; (3) there is no consistent email address or telephone number; (4) different individuals have responded to your inquiries on different occasions; and (5) although Mr. Shiptenko acknowledged receipt of your April 30 submission and provided follow-up communications on May 1 and May 4, no written determination has issued regarding requests you characterize as deferred or denied.

At the outset, it is important to clarify the institutional status of the State Bar of Georgia. The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency. The State Bar receives no federal, state, or local governmental funding. Its assets are owned by the State Bar of Georgia itself and not by the State of Georgia. Although the State Bar serves as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia pursuant to the Court’s authority over the regulation of the legal profession, it nevertheless remains a private, member-funded, and member-governed organization. The State Bar of Georgia is not a department or agency of the State of Georgia, therefore we are not required to have a published ADA Coordinator.

With respect to ADA-related communications, Mr. John Shiptenko has been designated by the State Bar to address such matters and has served in that capacity for several years. Accordingly, he is the appropriate point of contact for any requests for assistance relating to accessibility or accommodation.

Your remaining concerns do not appear to implicate ADA compliance issues. The State Bar maintains consistent telephone and electronic contact information, and your correspondence demonstrates that you have successfully communicated with the relevant personnel. Likewise, the fact that different employees may respond to inquiries at different times does not constitute an ADA violation or otherwise implicate accessibility concerns. Regardless of which employee may respond to a particular communication, Mr. Shiptenko remains the designated contact for ADA-related assistance.

Further, the purpose of any ADA accommodation process is to ensure meaningful access to Bar-related procedures and communications. It is not intended to alter, expand, or supersede the substantive grievance process itself, nor does it create an entitlement to procedural disclosures beyond those ordinarily provided to members of the public. Mr. Shiptenko’s role is to assist individuals who require accommodation in accessing or utilizing available Bar processes. Based upon your communications, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process.

To the extent you seek information concerning internal grievance procedures, investigative timelines, or deliberative processes, those matters are governed independently of any ADA-related accommodation request. The State Bar is not required to disclose internal procedural details or investigative timelines to complainants or members of the public. Accordingly, you are being afforded the same procedural treatment as any other individual submitting a grievance or request for reconsideration.

Moreover, if grievance counsel initially mischaracterized or misfiled a submission, subsequently acknowledged the error, and corrected the matter administratively, there is no further remedial action required. From the substance of your correspondence, it appears that your invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation or access assistance and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome regarding the underlying grievance matter. The ADA does not function as a mechanism to compel a desired investigative or disciplinary result, nor does it alter the standards governing the Bar’s grievance procedures.

I trust this correspondence adequately explains the position of the State Bar of Georgia. I fully appreciate that you may disagree with that position, and you are certainly entitled to do so. You remain free to submit any additional documentation or correspondence you deem appropriate. However, the State Bar’s position remains as set forth herein.

With best regards,

William D. NeSmith, III | Deputy General Counsel

104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 100 | Atlanta, GA 30303

404-527-8728 |
billn@gabar.org

Typed from the native message. Names, my contact details and file numbers are removed and marked in brackets. Nothing else is changed.

William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM ET, subject “ADA response”.

Typed from the native message. It is not a screenshot. Read William D. NeSmith III’s May 12 email and its text transcript.

Purporting. I hold the original.

That is my answer to the word. What weight a court gives the email is a different question.

What I allege

1. I allege that the State Bar of Georgia’s lawyers put the word “purporting” between an email and the Deputy General Counsel whose name and title are on it. The Bar’s September 28, 2026 brief, page 3.

2. I allege that the same brief attaches no declaration from William D. NeSmith III saying he did not write it, and that the plaintiff pointed this out in her October 9, 2026 reply: “They do not deny that he sent it, and they submit no declaration to that effect, though that fact lies uniquely within their knowledge.” Her words, her filing.

3. I allege that the same brief relies on the email’s contents when that helps: “The emails’ comments about the ownership of the assets does not change this analysis.” Page 7, grammar as filed. Purporting on page 3. Useful by page 7.

4. I allege that the State Bar of Georgia’s lawyers described me, a disabled man asking about accommodations, as “a member of the public asking about accommodations” whose comments “have no relevance to this matter.” Page 6.

5. I allege that I told those lawyers in writing on October 7, 2026, “I hold the original with its headers,” that both returned read receipts within fourteen minutes, and that as of October 22, 2026 neither has replied.

6. “Purporting” on page 3. Relied on by page 7. What does an institution call an email it doubts on one page and uses four pages later? Not doubtful. Inconvenient. The State Bar of Georgia called its own Deputy General Counsel an “employee” and his signed email “purporting” in a federal court file. I am the disabled man he wrote it to.

7. “No relevance.” That is the State Bar of Georgia’s position on a disabled person asking it for access, written by its own lawyers in a public court file. Not my words. Theirs, page 6.

Is this how they would treat their own family or friends that were disabled

I am wondering out loud

I am not a lawyer and not a party. I received the email a federal court is now being told to doubt. I keep wondering whether the person who got the email is supposed to say something to the court, and whether I need a lawyer to do it. Those are questions, not an announcement.

Read the documents

I am not asking you to take my word for any of it. I am asking you to read theirs.

William D. NeSmith III’s May 12, 2026 email

The State ADA office’s produced May 12, 2026 thread

The Bar defendants’ September 28, 2026 brief.¹

Marsha W. Mignott’s October 9, 2026 reply.²

My October 7, 2026 letter and the firm’s delivery and read receipts.³

Marsha W. Mignott and her case filings

The Receipts

Corrections

ADA Matters welcomes documented corrections. Identify this page, the sentence and the supporting document so it can be reviewed.