For those solicitors who believe their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 extend only so far as building a long-overdue wheelchair ramp, a recent Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID) mailshot came as a timely warning.

It reminded more than 1,000 firms that there are now statutory obligations on the business community to accommodate the needs of the deaf and hard of hearing.The issue of the rights of the deaf and the law hit the headlines in the recent case of Jeff McWhinney, chairman of the British Deaf Association (BDA) who was discharged from jury service last November.

The case caused a furore with campaigners and reinforced a belief that the interests of the deaf are being overlooked by the legal system.The presiding judge, Judge Shirley Anwyl QC, had no problem with the profoundly deaf Mr McWhinney being a juror in principle.

The issue was whether to allow a thirteenth person -- the interpreter -- into the jury room.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) calls upon providers of public services, including courts and tribunals, to make 'reasonable adjustments' so as not to discriminate against disabled people by treating them less favourably for a reason relating to their disability.

However, Judge Anwyl held that jury service did not fall under the act's ambit because it was not a service to the public.Shenaz Hayatoolah is the chief executive of the UK Council on Deafness, an umbrella organisation of 37 deaf charities which debated equal rights under the law for the deaf at its annual general meeting last November.

She says that the McWhinney case was indicative of wider discrimination.

'It served to demonstrate that even within the legal system -- where you do expect justice -- there are people not allowed to take an active role.' Jury service is a right, she argues, comparing the denial of a deaf person access to an interpreter with a blind person being expected to leave his or her guide dog outside the courts.Juries might not fall within the ambit of the DDA, but the obligations for solicitors' firms to comply is clear.

Despite this, Ms Hayatoolah reports that the council has not had any contact with the profession about how it can prepare for the Act.Mr McWhinney's solicitor Douglas Silas says his client and the BDA are planning to apply for a judicial review of Judge Anwyl's decision.

Despite the result, he believes that there were positive outcomes from her decision, not least its affirmation that that there is no blanket ban on the disabled acting as jurors.

He also took hope from Judge Anwyl's concluding words that she was 'interested and indeed pleased' that the Lord Chancellor is actively considering a change in the law to help deaf jurors.There is plenty of well-documented evidence of prejudice against the deaf in the justice system.

Two years ago, the Deaf Studies Research Unit at the University of Durham called for 'urgent action' by the government to protect the rights of the deaf.

In particular, it recommended that trained sign language interpreters be available at every step of the legal process; at least two interpreters be at court at any one time; and that all police interviews involving deaf people be videotaped.Mr Silas, who has worked with the deaf for ten years and is a trained sign language interpreter, explains that there are 'cultural differences' between the deaf and hearing communities.

'They say they are not deaf as in disabled, but deaf as in a linguistic minority,' he explains, adding that if such differences are not understood it is easy for serious misunderstandings to arise.

A deaf person using an interpreter will nod to acknowledge that he or she has understood what was communicated; the nod does not necessarily signify agreement.

As Mr Silas points out, that could be confusing if that person is, for example, a witness under cross-e xamination in a rape case.

'The judge could say to himself, "Hang on a minute; how could he be nodding all this time, and then suddenly say no?"' says Mr Silas.Under the DDA, solicitors' obligations are two-fold.

There is a requirement on employers not to treat the hard of hearing or deaf 'less favourably' than others, and a duty on a provider of services to 'take such steps as it is reasonable' where disabled persons cannot use their service.

The RNID has put together a specially tailored package for firms to comply with the provisions.

It includes equipment such as induction loops and text phones, and deaf awareness training.Bedford law firm Park Woodfine arranged for deaf awareness training for 16 members of its staff two years ago, and since then has held two further training courses for new staff.

The firm has induction loops, mini-com connections and one staff member who is a trained British Sign Language interpreter.

Partner Rae Levene says that the cost of both equipment and training was under £1,000 in total.Solicitor Helen Hayward of Hampshire firm Burley & Geach says there have always been other calls on the firm's money, but adds: 'Now there's an obligation [under the DDA] to do something, so we will.' Unlike someone confined to a wheelchair, the deaf person has an 'invisible' disability, but there is need for real investment to make practices DDA-compliant.Firms can, for example, provide access for the wheelchair-bound by visiting them in their homes, but deaf clients need equipment, she adds.

Ms Hayward's interest in helping deaf clients came, not through her obligations under the DDA, but from a deaf awareness training course.

'I had no idea how difficult it was for deaf people,' she says.

The temptation when dealing with deaf clients she says is to shout at them, 'which doesn't help', she says -- instead you must speak slowly and clearly.RNID PACKAGE FOR SOLICITORS-- Info Loop -- induction loop that goes around desk, avoiding sound spill-over and ensuring client confidentiality.

Cost: around £400).-- Optional reception loop -- for larger practices to encourage easy reception (around £400)-- Textphone (around £240)-- Training -- half day costs £300 plus VAT