A visually impaired person requires legal services but finds the type on your firm's letters too small to read; your advert for 'free telephone advice' precludes deaf clients, as you have no alternative method of communicating; and no partner's car-parking space has been left empty for the client with a wheelchair.If this sounds like your firm, you risk falling foul of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) if you have not addressed the issues by October 2004.A survey last month by City law firm Penningtons found that only 20% of 300 small to medium-sized businesses questioned were 'very aware' of the DDA; more than half were not sure of it, or had no understanding of its implications.But as Catriona Smith, head of property at Penningtons, says: 'Structural changes take time, and many businesses may embark on their implementation at too late a stage for the compliance deadline.'Penningtons' survey may have looked at business in general, but law firms must comply just as much as any other business.Discrimination specialists warn that if you are not prepared to get ready, there will be potential claims.

Adaptations and cost implications need not be as dramatic as firms might at first think, and the evidence suggests that while many firms -- both large and small -- are making headway in introducing adjustments, numerous other firms are not.Andrew Fleming, who chairs the Group for Solicitors with Disabilities, says: 'The cost should not be onerous to firms.

It is in the firm's own interests to make their services more accessible to clients.'He adds that the average cost of adjusting properties is £700 to make them more accessible.

The more financially challenged firms should note that government assistance is available, although this is not widely publicised.Perhaps proving more onerous than the cost, as firms strive to make the necessary adjustments, is the wide definition of the term 'disabled'.Th e Law Society definition is 'any physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term [12-months plus] adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'.Tribunals have included conditions such as bulimia, ME, stress and anxiety, epilepsy and agoraphobia within the meaning of 'disability'.

Claimants have succeeded at tribunals where they have not been registered disabled but have been disabled within the meaning of the DDA.Solicitors will be obliged by 2004 under section 21 to remove or alter any physical feature of premises, which renders them 'impossible or unreasonably difficult' for a disabled person to make use of their services, or to provide a reasonable means of avoiding the feature.Firms that may wish to rely on a justification defence, such as expense or impracticality, may be hard-pressed to succeed.

A tribunal will look at the resources available to a firm before deciding what level of expenditure would be deemed reasonable to make the necessary adjustments.

This would include looking at turnover and profitability.Mr Fleming warns: 'The Act specifically says that if there is a covenant in your lease forbidding adjustments, you can make a written application to the landlord -- and he can't refuse reasonable adjustments without reasonable grounds.' Refusal will, he says, give tenant law firms the grounds to take landlords to court.City-based Eversheds, which has 11 offices throughout the country, has adopted a reasoned approach in complying with the DDA.

Peter Gore, director of administration, says: 'We discussed the issues at an executive committee meeting and established how we would approach our response to the DDA, and since then we have recently undertaken a series of inspections of our offices.

We have been investing quite a lot of money in new offices and these are broadly okay.

In our existing offices we have been paying particular attention to our reception areas, toilets, meeting rooms, car-parking and signage.'He says Eversheds has had to focus on certain issues because of the wide definition of 'disability'.Mr Gore adds: 'Some people think of wheelchair-users when they think of disabled people, but the definition is very wide.

It does mean that everyone does need to look at the services they are providing when considering the DDA.'We have found that, as our offices are modern, by placing the emphasis on training people and drawing up appropriate policies and procedures, the cost involved is relatively low.

Something else we are doing is improving our access maps on our Web sites.

The next phase is training "front-of-house" staff.'This training will include various aspects of etiquette concerning disabled visitors.

For example, 'never making assumptions about what people want', he explains.'Finally,' adds Mr Gore, 'we have a draft policy which will be put in place shortly, and which will be continually kept under review.'He advises other firms: 'Appoint someone at the highest level to be responsible for compliance.

Consider the services you provide, inspect your offices, paying attention to the detail, and train your staff.'Practitioners as service providers should pay particular attention to the codes of practice which are continually updated, says Robin Lewis, employment law specialist at London civil liberties firm Bindman & Partners.

He says: 'The DDA is not legislation about requiring the impossible.

It is legislation which is intended to enable a group of people who traditionally have been marginalised to play their full part in society.

T hat in turn requires all of us, as service providers -- and for that matter employers -- to recognise that we play an important part in the lives of people around us.'He assures practitioners that nobody will be required to go through the ritual of making adjustments which simply will not work.

He adds: 'What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances, which will include the nature and scale of the service provision, and the effectiveness of the means of avoiding the problem.'It would be prudent to think ahead, and there is no shortage of expert advisers on disability issues.

There may well be costs implications, but the legislation makes allowance for there being a heavier burden on 100-partner firms than on sole practitioners, having regard to issues of resource.'Firms should note there is no 'small firm' exemption from the DDA, so far as their service provisions to disabled people are concerned.Mr Lewis adds: 'The test of justification is not too slack, and should not be a soft way out of the law for service providers, who have not given sufficient thought to the regulations.'Paul Daniels, a partner in the London office of Russell Jones & Walker, and a leading figure in bringing disability discrimination cases, says there is a real need to raise awareness of the DDA.

He says: 'In my view, while many firms are aware of their obligations to staff, very few firms properly understand the obligation on them to accommodate disabled clients, particularly those with communication-related disabilities, such as deaf/blind people.

Perhaps a high-profile case is needed to focus minds.'In his experience, many adjustments to accommodate staff and clients are often cheap and easy to make.

'Inflexibility and ignorance are the main barriers to change, not money,' he maintains.Mr Daniels says the Disability Rights Commission, whose duty it is to eliminate discrimination against disabled people by the promotion of good practice and equal opportunities, is 'increasingly effective, both in changing culture and supporting deserving cases'.He adds: 'However, it is possibly hamstrung by lack of funds and the unequal playing field between applicants and respondents.

Unfortunately, many law firms have the money and inclination to defend claims brought against them very aggressively, even when they have clearly discriminated.'Mr Daniels says that while most firms will have decent disability discrimination policies, the vast majority pays nothing more than lip-service to the issue.

'Very few firms properly monitor, implement or enforce their policies at all seriously,' he says.

'In fact, many firms seem to have very poor records on dealing with equal opportunities in practice, especially in dealing with their clients.'This may serve as a warning to complacent law firms that time is slowly running out.

But by taking compliance action, some practitioners may soon find that their client base expands to include a substantial minority that was previously excluded from receiving its legal services.