Despite the significant headway that law schools, like legal employers, have made in advancing inclusion in recent years, legal education remains largely inaccessible for students who are neurodivergent. And while there is no blanket remedy to address this, a deeper understanding of the current shortcomings does bring solutions to light.
Avoiding Assumptions and Ableism
When it comes teaching neurodivergent law students, one general principle to keep in mind is: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t know it well enough.” The biggest part of being a teacher is meeting your students where they are at, explaining concepts in terms they can understand, and figuring out what they need to learn. So far, law schools have failed to incorporate teaching strategies that can better assist neurodivergent students. This can be problematic because it makes room for ableist tropes and explicit biases.
While neurodivergent students may learn differently, that is no reflection on their capacity to learn. One reason why legal education is inaccessible for students who are neurodivergent is because it is common for people to assume such law students are not capable of completing the required coursework. For example, once a neurodivergent law student utters the very word “dis”-“ability”, law professors may presume these students are incapable of completing the task at hand. Neurodivergent law students are capable of doing assignments, writing exams, and being great advocates and solicitors.
No One-Size-Fits-All Approach
Pan-disablism results in systems that treat all neurodivergent law students the same, despite their diverse diagnoses and medical recommendations. Consider a young, Black transwoman who has dyslexia, took four years to complete her undergraduate degree, graduating with an exceptionally high GPA, low LSAT score, but wants to go to law school. If law faculties have grade and extracurricular requirements, including a minimum LSAT score they will consider, what are the chances that this individual will receive an acceptance letter? And, even if this individual is able to receive an offer, this only leaves an opportunity for schools to present a one-size fits all approach to accommodation. At my school, this means that neurodivergent students are given extra time to complete assignments and exams. This is the same accommodation that a student is given if they have a broken arm or have different physical capabilities. Surely the steps taken to accommodate these various situations should be … different.
Yet when students advocate for themselves, too often they are met with questions rather than support. It seems like many law school administrators view accessible education and accommodation as students trying to take advantage of the system to get a leg up on their classmates. Students want accessible education because they want to be able to receive the education for which they are paying, alongside their peers, on a level playing field.
Another reason legal education is inaccessible for neurodivergent students is that law faculties and accessibility centers are having a turf war over the best needs of neurodivergent law students. Accessibility centres often provide excellent accommodations for undergraduate students. But this is not the same for law schools. Instead, law faculties overpower the needs of neurodivergent students by promoting laissez-faire policies like universal learning designs and generalized accommodations for all students, without considering their duty to accommodate the academic needs of neurodivergent individuals. This results in ableism in law schools, where neurodivergent students are expected to level up to the universal standard. The fallout is that neurodivergent students undergo extreme emotional and mental hardships.
Getting Law Faculties, Accessibility Centres and Law Societies on the Same Page
It’s our belief that law schools and accessibility centers across Canada need to be on the same page regarding the best interests of neurodivergent students. This means partnering to implement workshops that educate law professors on how to teach and adapt to neurodivergent needs, which includes, but is not limited to, providing equitable exam times determined by and with the student. For example, a student who has a 48-hour remote exam should be granted additional time to complete their assessment so long as their accessibility advisor approves, rather than their law professor. Students should also have access to practice exam examples, such as multiple-choice, long or short-answer questions, and old exams, provided by their professors. This would help them become familiar with the professors’ writing style and better understand the phrasing of questions, ultimately enhancing exam preparation and reducing confusion.
Exam centers also need to change their policies regarding the start of exams. For example, whether a neurodivergent student is in a shared or individual exam room, the exam timer begins as soon as they enter. This approach doesn't allow time for the student to assess the room for sensory issues or distractions, such as creaky chairs, frozen adaptive software, or improperly scanned text that may appear on the exam. Further, since some non-neurodivergent students are receiving accommodations without accurate documentation reflecting their need for specific extra time on exams, why not design accommodations that are tailored to the individual needs of everyone? This way, all students, including those who are neurodivergent, receive the support they need to succeed without feeling undue hardship. Before any old biases reappear, consider these recommendations not as an attempt to game the system, but instead, as a way to uphold a student’s right to an education.
Law faculties should also grant accessibility services the autonomy to develop reduced course load pathways for students without the biases of “part-time status” and other policy restrictions. Accessibility services also have a responsibility to hire access advisors who deal specifically with professional degree programs, which should be a part of the university system that is not yet accessible and where proper accommodation is lacking. This will help reduce the backlog of inquiries from undergraduate and post-graduate students.
Law societies should revise their language and ethical guidelines concerning adaptive technology and software, particularly for articling students to lawyers. This revision should clarify the distinction between the ethical use of transcription software for note-taking and the unauthorized recording of client interactions. Such updates will support individuals with diverse abilities, including those with carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis, or tendinitis, by reducing the stigma associated with using these tools and encouraging transparency about their needs. Normalizing the use of reliable and confidential transcription software can enhance the accuracy of client interactions, benefiting law firms and other agencies alike.
Too often, making legal education accessible for neurodivergent students is viewed as difficult. Law schools can become a more equitable place by implementing these suggestions. There is work that needs to be done to make space in legal education for each neurodivergent student. The result will be a legal profession that is more reflective of Canada’s population and better able to meet its needs.
About the authors
Rachel Lewis is a third-year JD law student at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. She currently resides on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinàbe Nation (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). In her spare time, Rachel enjoys watching soccer, going on hikes, and mentoring youth in her community.
Rebekah Smith JD/JID (Juris Indigenarium Doctor) obtained a dual degree in law and Indigenous legal orders from the University of Victoria in 2023. Rebekah's father is British Jamaican and her mother is Afro-Nova Scotian and Dutch. She currently lives on xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territory, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, but grew up on the lands of the Six Nations of the Grand River in Brantford, Ontario, Canada.