A question mark is hanging over the issue of who should pay for extra time and money spent on interviews with disabled clients, conference delegates heard.

The issue arose because the DDA specifies that businesses should not be able to pass on the additional costs associated with making reasonable adjustments to their services - for example, through the use of an interpreter or extra time taken at an interview - to the client.

Douglas Silas, head of education and disability law at the London office of Alexander Harris, insisted that it should be reasonable to claim the costs from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) - or the defendant, in appropriate circumstances - as long as it is justified and properly recorded on the file.

'If the LSC refuses to pay the cost of that interpreter, like they would pay for a language interpreter, they are leaving themselves open to not just a DDA claim, but a Human Rights Act claim under article 6,' he argued.

However, the Law Society said it was a grey area as the indemnity principle meant that solicitors could not claim greater costs from third parties than they could from the clients themselves.

A Society spokeswoman said it would be meeting with the LSC as soon as possible to discuss the matter.

'The Society will, in due course, produce and issue guidance to the profession on this issue,' she added.

A spokeswoman for the LSC said: 'We are aware of this issue and share the concerns of deaf people and their representatives.

We are working with the Supreme Court Costs Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs to resolve the issue.'

Paula Rohan