Sarah Rimmington and Catherine Casserley examine the legislation that calls on solicitors to meet the needs and legal obligations of deaf and visually impaired clients.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) imposes duties on, among others, service providers not to discriminate against disabled people.

Service providers is defined widely (section19(2)), so that it covers anyone concerned with the provision in the UK of services to the public or a section of the public.

It is clear that solicitors will be covered by these parts of the DDA.

Broadly speaking, solicitors must not discriminate against a disabled person by refusing service or by providing a service on different terms, or of a different standard or manner.

Discrimination is defined in section 20 as either treating a disabled person less favourably for a reason relating to their disability, or failing to make a reasonable adjustment (as defined in section 21), as a result of which a disabled person finds it impossible or unreasonably difficult to use a service.

Effect on practice

There are many ways in which law firms conduct their practices that may create barriers for disabled people.

For example, can clients contact firms by textphone or the Typetalk service from the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNID)? When a lawyer takes instructions, does he continue talking while taking notes? Clients who rely on lipreading are likely to miss much of what that solicitor says, but might not be confident enough to raise the point.

If a client's first language is British Sign Language (BSL), he might have difficulties understanding written English.

Do law firms know how to explain the law as simply as possible, and have they considered using video interpreting to clarify particular issues?

If a client needs communication support, for example, a note taker or lip speaker, does the firm know where to book one, and does the firm always try to use qualified people? One client told the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) how her mother, who had only limited knowledge of BSL, was regularly expected to act as interpreter during interviews.

It is unlikely that the solicitor in this case took full instructions or that the client understood the advice she was given.

People who are hard of hearing might benefit from induction loops, infra-red systems or portable devices such as conversors.

Once a law firm has this equipment, staff as well as clients can benefit from it, but remember to check regularly that it works.

If it is not possible to book communication support in time, discuss with clients alternative means of communication.

Do law firms provide correspondence for visually impaired clients in their preferred medium, which might be tape, large print or Braille? Much of the contact the RNIB has from clients regarding their solicitors indicates that they are not able to access information adequately.

Do solicitors use clearprint guidelines (arial or other sans serif typeface, at least 14 point size) to ensure that general promotional materials are accessible? It is surprising how many people who are not registered or certified as blind or partially sighted benefit from information being presented in this way.

Who pays for communication support and equipment? The DDA obligation to make 'reason-able adjustments' applies whether an organisation provides the service for a fee, or at no charge.

This means that even if a law firm is offering an initial free consultation, it will be subject to the duty to make adjustments.

Several factors are taken into account when considering what is reasonable, and resources is one of them.

However, it is clear from part 3 of the Code of Practice (Rights of Access Goods Facilities Services and Premises) - a statutory code published by the Disability Rights Commission - that the resources of a firm as a whole will be considered in deciding what is reasonable.

It is helpful for both a practice and disabled clients to ensure that a law firm has a disability policy which addresses the issue of reasonable adjustments and their provision.

It is also important to remember that section 20(5) of the Act means that service providers cannot charge a disabled person themselves for any reasonable adjustment made.

This includes extra charges for time taken in communicating with a disabled client.

The Law Society has produced guidance (The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - an essential guide for solicitors - second edition) which might prove helpful in drafting policies.

Courts and tribunals

The RNIB has had instances where solicitors have arranged directly to provide an interpreter at court and clients have had to pay for this, sometimes through the statutory charge.

However, courts and tribunals are, in most of their functions, providing a service within the meaning of section19(2) of the DDA.

As with solicitors, courts and tribunals must ensure that they are not discriminating against individual disabled people by treating them less favourably, and they must make 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that disabled people can use their services.

This might involve the provision of communication support and information in alternative formats - tape, Braille, large print and BSL videos.

The Council of Tribunals has published guidance - Making Tribunals Accessible to Disabled People.

Paragraph 2.17 lists the services that are subject to the legislation, including the provision of advice and information and setting up a hearing at an appropriate venue.

What is believed to be the first DDA case involving the Court Service was settled recently.

The case, Alistair Appleby v The Lord Chancellor's Department (claim number CL253312), was brought by the RNID.

Mr Appleby had brought a DDA case against the Department for Work and Pensions (which he subsequently won) at the Lambeth County Court.

He stated on the allocation questionnaire that he required a palantypist, and attached the business card of a qualified palantypist to his form.

When Mr Appleby arrived at court for his hearing, he found that the court had supplied only a BSL interpreter.

The unsuit-ability of this adjustment was compounded by the fact that the claimant is from New Zealand, a country that uses a different sign language.

The case was therefore adjourned.

The LCD admitted failing to make a reasonable adjustment, and the case settled on terms including payment of just under 2,000 in compensation.

While the provision of adjustments may seem somewhat daunting, it really comes down to good customer service.

Assistance is also available, either from the RNIB and the RNID or from other organisations, such as the Disability Rights Commission.

Sarah Rimmington is a legal officer at the RNID and Catherine Casserley the senior legal officer at the RNIB