A disability access request went to the State Bar of Georgia. Here is what the Bar's second highest…read morelawyer put in writing.
I am a disabled dad who likes dogs, donuts, and dad jokes. I asked the State Bar of Georgia for a basic disability accommodation so I could take part in its own complaint process, since their website is not ADA compliant and neither is their system for submitting complaints.
On May 12, 2026, at 2:12 PM, on Bar letterhead, the Deputy General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia wrote to me:
"The State Bar is not a public entity subject to the ADA."
"it does not appear that you require assistance in preparing written submissions."
"your invocation of the ADA process may be directed less toward obtaining accommodation... and more toward securing a particular substantive outcome."
Read the second one again. The lawyer who helps run the office that disciplines other lawyers looked at a documented disability request and decided it did not appear I required assistance.
Now the part he left out. Eight days earlier, on May 4, 2026, a Senior Assistant General Counsel of the same Bar had already granted my accommodations in writing: written only communication and accessible electronic format. The very next day after the denial, on May 13, 2026, at 12:08 PM, the Bar confirmed it again:
"The State Bar has approved your accommodation request."
So one Bar lawyer was granting the accommodation while another Bar lawyer was writing to me that it did not appear I needed one, and suggesting I was working the disability process for an angle. Same office. Same week. Same file.
THE TIMELINE
May 4, 2026: A Senior Assistant General Counsel grants the accommodations in writing.
May 12, 2026, 2:12 PM: The Deputy General Counsel writes that it does not appear I require assistance, and questions whether I am using the ADA process for a substantive outcome.
May 13, 2026, 12:08 PM: The Bar confirms in writing that the accommodation is approved.
WHY IT MATTERS. This is not a story about one rude letter. It is a public office, funded to hold lawyers to a standard, telling a disabled member of the public that his access request did not look real, on a day its own colleague was approving that same request.
THE EVIDENCE. Every line above is a verbatim quote from Bar correspondence, with the date and time it was sent. Nothing here is paraphrased.
CURRENT OUTCOME. The complaint about this conduct was dismissed by the same office that watched it occur and did nothing.
CORRECTIONS. If any official named here by role believes a quote, date, or time on this page is inaccurate, identify the specific item and it will be corrected in writing. Otherwise all the the exact copies can be found on https://www.adamatters.com/