The profession has made great progress in bridging the equality gap over gender and race, but it is struggling to do the same for people with disabilities. Anita Rice reports from last week’s employment opportunities seminar


‘Everyone is temporarily able-bodied because you never know when something might happen to you. It is important to think about that,’ says solicitor Anne Luttman-Johnson, a 44-year-old client support manager for personal injury cases at national firm Irwin Mitchell.



Having been left paralysed from the waist down after surviving a car crash aged 20, it is probably fair to assume Ms Luttman-Johnson is more aware of that than most. But given the statistics – ten million people in the UK are disabled, 80% of whom acquired their disability later in life rather than at birth – it is something employers should be thinking hard about, not least because legislation demands it.



Some 6.8 million people are officially registered as disabled in the UK, although the Labour Force Survey also estimates the true figure to be nearer 20% of the population. Approximately ten million people are defined as disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), which includes those living with HIV or cancer.



Despite initial difficulties in finding wheelchair-accessible offices, Ms Luttman-Johnson eventually secured a traineeship and has had a very successful career since. Her experience, however, very much bucks the trend. While 81% of the able-bodied population is in work, only 50% of disabled people manage to find a job.



The figures for the legal profession do not look good: 30,000 first-year undergraduates have registered as disabled, yet only 94 law students have done so. Of the 131,347 solicitors on the roll, just 453 have declared a disability.



By anyone’s reckoning, the legal profession, along with most other sectors, appears to be struggling to close the equality gap for people with disabilities. Is the profession excluding disabled but capable people or are the figures misleading?



Both, says Manjot Dhanjal, director of equality and diversity at the Law Society. ‘We have made great strides on the gender and race front but I don’t think that is mirrored with disability. Are the statistics an accurate reflection? No, I don’t think so. There is vast under-reporting of disabilities,’ she told delegates at the disability equality seminar organised last week in London by national charity Employment Opportunities, an event that was supported by the Gazette.



Sue Maynard-Campbell, chairwoman of the Group for Solicitors with Disabilities (GSD), agrees: ‘There are those who do not necessarily identify themselves as disabled but are under the DDA, for example people living with HIV or someone with a hearing problem they have learned to work around.’



But it is fear of stigmatisation and discrimination that prevents many from disclosing disabilities. Widely misunderstood conditions, including mental health problems and ‘invisible’ disabilities such as dyslexia, are woefully under-reported.



Emma Rubin is a 20-year-old law student in her final year at Exeter University who is looking forward to taking up her traineeship in the London office of US law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges. She is dyslexic and fully understands why so many people would choose to conceal hidden disabilities such as hers.



‘These students go to university with disabilities that do not show up on application forms later. I did exactly the same at first. In the legal jobs market, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about different kinds of disability. I kept my disability secret because I was scared about what the reaction would be. I was scared about what older partners might think,’ she says.



Having previously been taunted by a former colleague that she had ‘middle-class dyslexia’, so insinuating she was merely looking to excuse a lack of ability, it is little wonder Ms Rubin previously felt less than confident about declaring her disability.



But the pressure is now on all employers, including law firms, to become demonstrably diverse. The DDA requires that applicants are not excluded because of assumptions about what people can and cannot do. The disability equality duty (DED) obliges public bodies to promote disability equality within their own organisations and through procurement – including legal services. In other words, public bodies will be looking to place business with demonstrably diverse firms.



Tina Two, director of human resources, professional development and diversity in the UK at US/UK firm K&L Gates, is clear the business case for diversity is undeniable, ‘a no-brainer’, but says relying on legislation and passive, fair recruitment policies alone will not deliver diverse workforces.



‘[Our policies] were good policies and followed all the best practice guidelines and yet, when I looked around me, they didn’t seem to be working as well as I’d like them to…Fair policies leave the door open but they do not drag people in. We have to help people to come along and join us,’ she says.



To that end, K&L Gates – which hosted last week’s seminar – launched a summer intern programme for disabled law students this year. Ms Two says the quality of candidates was outstanding and the firm ended up offering placements to two interns instead of one, including Ms Rubin.



‘I think the legal profession sets standards; it is about ensuring the country in which we operate sets the highest standards. If we are not doing that within our own local firms, then we are not doing what we should be… it is not a risk to take on people who do not meet the normal pattern or the usual stereotype, providing their ability meets the requirements of the business,’ says Ms Two.



Ms Rubin says that being open about her disability meant she could find simple solutions, such as enlarging texts that allowed her to work more effectively. An unexpected bonus was that it encouraged other people to discuss their own conditions or disabilities within their families.



And it is seeing a person’s ability, rather than just their disability, that is the issue. Ms Maynard-Campbell says firms should not allow themselves to be blind to talent and to the advantages of employing disabled people, noting that the estimated 20% of the population who are disabled require legal services too.



‘Different people bring different perspectives. When I was a practitioner, I largely stayed in the office. One of the benefits was clients knew I was always there to answer their questions… I think you need to look at the positive benefits every individual brings rather than look narrowly at their legal experience. Disabled people get legal experience in different ways, for example I did through managing and organising my own care,’ she says.



Fears that employing people with disabilities is hugely expensive are dismissed as ‘myth’ by Karin Pappenheim, chief executive of Employment Opportunities, which supports people with disabilities and helps channel them into the profession of their choice. The organisation has worked with top investment banks and is now taking on more work with the legal sector.



‘There are always solutions and they do not have to be costly. There is expert advice available and a range of government-funded initiatives – such as Access to Work. There is government money to help cover costs. There is an awful lot available to help,’ she says.



In addition, most reasonable adjustments to accommodate a disabled person are low cost and no more onerous than providing a specific type of laptop or moving equipment to allow wheelchair access.



‘Around 50% of adjustments needed cost very little, probably less than £50, and they include allowing someone to work flexibly, a slightly different chair, it could be ensuring print matter is sent to someone in large print. Someone with dyslexia, for example, may find it easier to read print on a different-coloured background,’ says Ms Maynard-Campbell.



Ms Luttman-Johnson works from home rather than endure the commute to the office, which would add more hours to her day than for an able-bodied person. She believes employers confuse disability with sickness and fear disabled employees need more time off.



This is not true, she says – disability is not sickness. In her experience, disabled employees are often more reliable as they are less willing to change jobs and probably feel they have more to prove in the workplace.



Aside from all the other justifications, Ms Maynard-Campbell says that we should all just do the right thing by what is a large percentage of the population.‘I believe there is a moral obligation to employ a diverse workforce. How many people reading the Gazette actually have a disabled person in their household? It is probably every third reader,’ she says.



Ms Dhanjal frequently hears that law firms say they cannot take on a disabled person because clients will not tolerate it, or that clients appear to back diversity until it means someone working flexibly on their deal or case. ‘There is a challenge here for clients too… at the Law Society we are launching the Diversity Charter, bringing clients and law firms together, as it should be a partnership approach,’ she says. Under the charter, which was put together by the Society of Asian Lawyers and sponsored by BT and Chancery Lane, companies would be encouraged to request deal-specific diversity information from firms tendering for work.



Ideally, the charter would see both clients and firms fully committed to diversity, but Ms Dhanjal recognises that there remains a way to go. She says, with some understatement: ‘It is not an issue that will be solved overnight.’



l Following last week’s seminar, Employment Opportunities is setting up a forum aimed at improving access to the legal profession for people with disabilities. Contact Employment Opportunities for information: www.opportunities.org.uk.