NeSmith, State Bar of Georgia: 10 Offers of Proof, Still Doubted

His own office had already granted it. I do need it. And he used how well my letters read against me.

The short answer

On May 12, 2026, at 2:12 PM, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, wrote to a disabled dad, and to him alone, that “it does not appear that you require assistance” and that his ADA requests “may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation.” The dad had offered proof of his disability 10 times by then. The State Bar of Georgia had granted his accommodations eight days earlier.

Scoreboard, as of October 23, 2026

Days between the State Bar of Georgia granting my accommodations (May 4) and NeSmith’s email (May 12)	8
Times I had offered proof of my disability before his email (April 20 to May 7)	10
Times NeSmith asked for the proof of disability I had offered	0
People copied on his May 12, 2:12 PM email	0
Meetings he offered me that evening, and then withdrew the next morning	1
Days from that email to his letter ending substantive correspondence (May 15)	3
Pages of this website now filed in federal court: the page holding his May 12 email	1

What happened

I am a disabled dad. I like dogs, donuts and dad jokes. On April 20, 2026, I told the State Bar of Georgia in writing: “Medical documentation is available to the Office upon request.” On May 4, 2026, the State Bar of Georgia granted my accommodations. Written communication. Accessible electronic format.

Eight days later, William D. NeSmith III, the Deputy General Counsel, sent me an email with the subject line “ADA response.” He sent it to me and nobody else.

In one paragraph he wrote that the State Bar of Georgia “is not a public entity,” and in the next sentence that it “serves as an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia,” and then that “it nevertheless remains a private, member-funded, and member-governed organization.” So it is an arm of the Supreme Court. But private. And because it is not a department of the State, “therefore we are not required to have a published ADA Coordinator.”

The same day, a brief filed in federal court for the State Bar of Georgia’s Office of the General Counsel said: “As the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” Arm of the court when it helps. Private when a disabled man asks for an ADA door.

Then he got personal. “Based upon your communications, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process.” He never asked for the proof I had offered. He read my emails and decided. He also wrote that “your correspondence demonstrates that you have successfully communicated with the relevant personnel.” In my opinion, he used how well my letters read against me. I write to the State Bar of Georgia by voice, one sentence at a time. I offered proof 10 times. He asked for it zero times.

And then my motive: “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.”

He closed with: “You remain free to submit any additional documentation or correspondence you deem appropriate.” Free to submit. Never asked.

That evening, at 6:37 PM, he wrote: “I am available at 11.30 only.” The next morning, at 7:34 AM: “The 11:30 time was meant for a colleague of mine and was sent to you in error.” And: “So, to be clear, there is no meeting between you and I at 11:30.”

Three days later, on May 15, writing “as counsel for the State Bar of Georgia,” he wrote that “the State Bar of Georgia will not engage in further substantive correspondence with you concerning your threatened claims.” Eleven days after the State Bar of Georgia granted me written communication as an accommodation.

Is this how he would treat his own sister if she were disabled?

What he wrote

May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: “The State Bar of Georgia is not a public entity, such as a federal, state or local government department or agency.”
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: “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.”
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: “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.”
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: “Based upon your communications, it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions or otherwise accessing the grievance or reconsideration process.”
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: “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.”
May 12, 2026, 6:37 PM: “I am available at 11.30 only.”
May 13, 2026, 7:34 AM: “The 11:30 time was meant for a colleague of mine and was sent to you in error.”
May 15, 2026: “the State Bar of Georgia will not engage in further substantive correspondence with you concerning your threatened claims”

What I allege

I allege that on April 20, 2026, I told the State Bar of Georgia that medical documentation was available on request, and that on May 4, 2026, the State Bar of Georgia granted my accommodations.
I allege that on May 12, 2026, William D. NeSmith III wrote to me alone that “it does not appear that you require assistance,” without asking for the documentation I had offered.
On the face of the document, the same email calls the State Bar of Georgia “not a public entity” and an “administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia.”
That is hard to square with a brief filed the same day for the State Bar of Georgia’s Office of the General Counsel, which relied on being “the administrative arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.”
It appears to me that questioning why a disabled person asks for access was meant to make the request look like a tactic. If that is not the reason, he is welcome to tell me what is.
I allege that he offered me a meeting at 6:37 PM on May 12 and withdrew it at 7:34 AM on May 13, writing that the time “was meant for a colleague of mine.”
I allege that on May 15, 2026, he wrote that the State Bar of Georgia “will not engage in further substantive correspondence” with me, eleven days after written communication was granted as my accommodation.
In my opinion, questioning a federally protected claimant’s disability and motive, then cutting off the communication he was granted, is not okay. Federal law, 42 U.S.C. 12203(b), makes it unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of … any right granted or protected by this chapter.”
I allege that on October 21, 2026, he was copied on the email from Russell D. Willard, General Counsel, that called my disability “asserted.”
I am left to wonder whether William D. NeSmith III has ever asked a disabled person in his own family to prove it by writing worse.

Why I keep going

His May 12 email is now part of a federal case. The page on this site that holds it was filed as an exhibit in Mignott v. State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, on September 14, 2026. I am not a party to that case, and I filed nothing in it.

So what about Georgia? What about Georgia, yeah?

Is this how he would treat a friend from church if she were disabled?

The documents

Corrections

I have invited the State Bar of Georgia to identify any inaccuracy on this page. As of October 23, 2026, it has identified none.

I Offered Proof of My Disability 10 Times. A Georgia Bar Lawyer Still Said I Didn’t Need Help.