header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 October 2019
Issue: 7860 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Helping clients with disabilities

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Law firms can help disabled clients most by recognising their needs and requirements at an early stage, research commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has found.

Some 3,500 disabled people shared their views with YouGov researchers. More than half found accessing legal services difficult, yet only one in four remembered being proactively asked if they needed any reasonable adjustments to be made.

Firms can help by proactively asking all clients if they need any reasonable adjustments, with examples of what form these might take; making their website accessible with dedicated information for those with disabilities; adding pictures of their office on their website; and training staff in supporting vulnerable clients and promoting relevant expertise.

SRA chief executive, Paul Philip, said: ‘The insights should help firms to make the changes needed.’

Issue: 7860 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Discrimination
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES
 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll