'Disclosure feels risky. Adjustments are inconsistent. Equality on paper rarely matches practice.' Such experiences are common among neurodivergent legal professionals, whose realities often fall between policy, culture and lived practice. Without testimony, these insights remain hidden, leaving reform shaped by assumption rather than evidence. National data highlight the scale of neurodivergence in the UK, underscoring why practice-based insight is vital to understanding how equality truly operates.
The UK’s framework looks robust — the Equality Act 2010, Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance, and Law Society recommendations — yet none captures the informal norms and pressures that define daily legal work. Billing targets, seat rotations, courtroom pacing and assumptions about communication all shape how equality is experienced. Without solicitor voices, these dynamics remain invisible, and the profession risks filling the gap with conjecture instead of lived reality.
The evidence gap in practice
On paper, equality looks embedded. In practice, it often diverges. Workplace culture privileges certain communication styles; informal power dynamics shape supervision and progression. Operational pressures — deadlines, billing units, adversarial pacing — can undermine inclusion even in committed firms. Courtrooms remain cognitively demanding, where sensory intensity and rapid shifts disadvantage those who process differently. These realities are rarely recorded yet profoundly shape access to justice.
These gaps are not driven by bad intent but by a lack of operational evidence about what works in real settings. Research grounded in the experiences of solicitors, trainees, HMCTS staff, barristers and educators is essential. Without participation, the deficit only deepens.
Why solicitor participation matters
Solicitors understand law not just in principle but in practice — in client meetings, hearings, supervision, team discussions and high-pressure environments. Their insights cannot be reconstructed from policy documents. Participation in research reveals how education prepares (or fails to prepare) future lawyers for cognitive diversity, how adjustments are embedded, how Equality Act duties interact with workloads, and how accessibility is shaped by courtroom pacing and environment.
Practitioner testimony has already driven reforms in legal aid, standards and racial disparity. Neurodiversity deserves the same evidence-based scrutiny. Participation is not personal disclosure; it is a professional contribution to the collective evidence base on which fairness, inclusion and justice depend.
Barriers to participation — and practical solutions
Why do solicitors hesitate? Often it is the perceived burden: research is assumed to involve lengthy interviews or heavy paperwork. In reality, participation is deliberately light-touch — a 15–20 minute questionnaire, a 45–60 minute interview, or a one-hour online focus group. All options are optional, remote, and arranged around workloads, with interviews adapted to suit participants.
Confidentiality is another concern. Practitioners fear reflections may be identifiable, especially in close-knit areas. Ethics safeguards address this: participation is voluntary, data anonymised, identifiers removed, personal and research data kept separate, and secure storage applied. Nothing is attributable to any individual, firm or chamber.
Structural pressures also deter. Billing targets, regulation and client demands leave little space for reflection. Yet these pressures make practice-based evidence essential — without it, the gap between aspiration and reality stays hidden.
Finally, some worry participation implies self-disclosure. It does not. Valuable insight comes from supervisors, educators, trainees, HMCTS colleagues and others who have observed or supported neurodivergent individuals. Personal identification is not required.
These barriers are understandable — and solvable. What they need is engagement, not avoidance.
Case studies and illustrations
Across the profession, common dynamics reveal why testimony matters:
A trainee solicitor stays silent about her neurodivergence during seat rotations, fearing inconsistent adjustments. Clear, confidential pathways tied to objective criteria would give her confidence to seek support.
A litigant-in-person finds the courtroom overwhelming — bright lights, rapid directions, unpredictable pacing. Though adjustments exist, he fears they will affect judicial perception. Written directions, calmer waiting spaces and paced hearings would improve accessibility without singling anyone out.
A defence solicitor, under constant pressure, struggles to apply adjustments consistently for neurodivergent clients. Communication-preference templates and brief check-ins would make support routine rather than discretionary.
A law lecturer aims for inclusive teaching but works within assessment norms assuming a single style. Multimodal materials and flexible design would enhance accessibility without compromising standards.
These experiences are widespread yet rarely documented — making practitioner perspectives essential evidence.
Professional benefits of participation
Solicitor participation strengthens the profession in direct, tangible ways:
- Influencing regulation — Practice evidence helps regulators like the SRA align duties with real workloads, reducing friction.
- Shaping training — Testimony informs law schools and CPD providers, preparing future lawyers more effectively.
- Improving client outcomes — Better adjustments mean clearer communication, fewer misunderstandings and smoother case progression.
- Strengthening identity — Engagement signals commitment to accessible justice, enhancing reputation, recruitment and retention.
Participation is not charity. It is risk management, professional development and a direct investment in the future of practice.
Risks of silence — and a forward-looking vision
The real risk is not participation, but silence. When solicitors withhold their voices, assumptions fill evidential gaps, policies drift from lived practice, equality becomes rhetorical, adjustments remain ad hoc, regulators are left to guess at practitioner experience, and affected voices go unheard. Silence breeds inconsistency, grievances, attrition and reputational harm.
By contrast, imagine a profession where neurodivergence is understood rather than pathologised, disclosure is routine and without fear, adjustments are embedded rather than exceptional, and evidence guides policy instead of assumption. In such an environment, clients, colleagues and students thrive within cognitively diverse settings.
This future is achievable. It requires only modest commitments: standardised disclosure pathways, adjustment menus, supervisor training and courtroom accessibility guidance. Practitioner evidence is the bridge from aspiration to practice — and solicitor voices are the pillars that hold it up.
Call to action
Participation in this research is voluntary, confidential and fully ethics-approved. To express interest or learn more, contact: tbrook06@student.bbk.ac.uk.
Judges, barristers, solicitors, CILEX professionals, trainees, litigants in person, educators and HMCTS colleagues are warmly invited. Observational and experiential insights are invaluable — testimony here is professional expertise, not personal disclosure.
This is not merely a research request — it is a professional opportunity to shape future regulation and practice.
Taz Brookes is a PhD Researcher at Birkbeck, University of London
No comments yet