Some of the world’s leading law firms could be losing employees because of an inability to accommodate neurodiversity. That is the big warning in a new report from the UK Legal Neurodiversity Network (LNN), which is aiming to help firms attract and retain key talent.
Launched in summer 2022, the LNN came about when a group of like-minded advocates aimed to improve neuro-inclusion within the legal services sector. Backed by the law societies of England and Wales and Scotland, and the magic circle, the group published a new guide earlier this month to help firms create more neuro-inclusive working environments.
“The recommendations in our report stem from an observation made at one of our earliest events that there is generally much less focus on helping neurodivergent colleagues already inside legal services organisations thrive and progress than there is on recruiting them in the first place,” Rachel Boyle, LNN co-founder and co-chair and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner emerging talent manager, tells IEL.
“We agreed and organised an event hosted by Linklaters in June last year to discuss what ‘good’ looks like in the legal sector. The report we released on 20 May summarises everything we’ve heard and learned from opening that conversation with many stakeholders, comprising both individuals with lived experience and HR, D&I, and early careers professionals.”
So, what are the main factors holding the sector’s employers back? According to the LNN, the primary issue is a simple lack of awareness of neurodiverse conditions, how many people they affect, and the ease of which inexpensive improvements can be made to accommodate them in the workplace. There are, however, some more systemic issues within the legal services sector.
“The law is a buyers’ market, with a massive surplus of talent looking for entry-level roles. That can mitigate against motivation to remodel recruitment,” offers James Smither, global head of risk management at Freshfields and LNN co-founder.
“There’s also very established frameworks for key HR processes – not only recruitment, but performance measurement and career progression – that have not traditionally incorporated a neurodiversity lens,” he adds.
And then there are stereotype views of “what a good lawyer looks like” that may lean towards “neuro-normative”. Nevertheless, the LNN believes there is a desire from firms to do better.
“We don’t often hear conceptual objections – we truly believe most organisations in our sector want to be inclusive,” says Smither. “Practical objections are more commonplace; for example, that non-inclusive HR processes are ‘tried and trusted’, so changing them is difficult or unnecessary. Or that tailored adjustments requested by an individual – for example, to working hours or billable hours targets – may lead to a perception of unfair treatment for others.”
Data quality can also be a problem. “With systematic under-diagnosis and under-disclosure, law firms looking only at the numbers coming back in their diversity questionnaires may perceive that this is a far less statistically relevant issue than the reality and de-prioritise accordingly,” explains Boyle.
Although various studies estimate one-in-five Brits to be neurodiverse, this number is believed to be higher among certain professions, including the law.
“Much like information technology, the opportunity for deep technical specialism and hyper-focus in the law intrinsically appeals to brains that are wired differently,” says Boyle, adding that there is increasing evidence that the percentage of neurodivergent workers in the legal sector is growing.
LNN member firms that have offered voluntary neurodiversity screening to graduate or apprentice intakes report that the prevalence of neurodiversity within these populations may be between 30%-50%, much higher than the nationally assumed average of 15%-20%.
“This underlines our central message to industry leadership that this is not a ‘niche’ question – and it is also one to which finding the right answers is fundamental to the future of our workforce and talent landscape,” argues Boyle.
While the sector still has some way to go, the LNN is seeing encouraging signs of neurodiversity being recognised as a core pillar of many firms’ diversity and inclusion initiatives.
“Perhaps most encouragingly, we are now seeing some emerging areas of best practice where our industry seems to be leading the wider economy – such as organisations offering paid-for access to private diagnosis of neurodiversity conditions for both employees and family members under their private healthcare schemes, and the provision of paid leave for parent-carers of neurodivergent – and other – relatives,” says Boyle.
According to the LNN, the legal industry’s “competitive insecurity” is actually helpful in moving the needle on inclusive policies. “We see this very clearly when one prominent organisation implements a new practice and broadcasts this fact, then its competitors – often very quickly – seek to imitate or even surpass that move,” explains Smither.
Shifting demographics and a greater public awareness of neurodiverse conditions will also play their part in driving long term change within the sector.
“The younger generations entering our workforce are more likely to have had access to specialist assessment and diagnosis at school or university than their predecessors, and are also much more willing to be open about their neurodivergence,” explains Smither.
“This will definitely help drive change over time: these talented young advocates will simply and loudly ask for and expect appropriate support and accommodation – and vote with their feet if they don’t receive it.”
To mitigate the risk of this happening, the LNN report offers simple, inexpensive measures firms can put in place to support not only new hires, but also senior lawyers who may be unaware of their neurodivergence.
Prominent among these “quick wins”, says Boyle, is setting up an affinity network for those with a personal connection to neurodiversity, either through lived experience or as a parent or carer.
“This costs literally nothing beyond providing a meeting room and perhaps some tea and biscuits, and can be a tremendous starting point. The network can be a source not only of mutual support and connection for those included, but also of fresh ideas for neuro-inclusion in your organisation, and volunteers to drive implementation of those ideas,” she explains.
Drawing on best practices from several leading law firms, the LNN guide also suggests factoring neuro-inclusive design into planning office moves or refits. Some relatively simple adjustments include using natural lighting, or easily variable electric lighting, rather than fluorescent bulbs that can flicker and generate distracting noise, and creating quiet spaces for people to work free from other distractions.
“Offering reasonable adjustments for those who need and ask for them is of course a statutory requirement, but we don’t think this needs to be intimidating or engineered into an overly ‘baseline compliance-focused’ approach,” says Smither.
“As we set out in the report, proactively offering and revisiting accommodations at regular stages – from hiring onwards – and pre-emptively suggesting ideas of solutions that can be provided can really humanise this process, in particular for individuals who may not know what they need or be confident in what they can ask for,” adds Boyle.
Firm-wide training focused on raising awareness and understanding of neurodiverse conditions is another inexpensive and straightforward recommendation that can have a big impact.
“Many of our members tell us that having even the most inclusive HR policies or office layout only goes so far; it is the experience and interactions you have with your team, colleagues, and your supervisor on a daily basis that really determines whether you feel included or excluded,” says Boyle.
Importantly, however, firms should not view neuro-inclusive practices as a “one size fits all”.
“We do recognise and understand that the landscape of different neurodivergent conditions – how they manifest differently within different individuals and intersect with other historically-disadvantaged diversity attributes – can be challenging to grasp for a lay audience, especially when the correct ‘vocabulary’ of neurodiversity is also thrown into the mix,” says Boyle.
“This is precisely why our report emphasises both proactively putting in place generally mindful and inclusive measures that make work better for everyone, including the ‘neuro-majority’, and why we underline the importance of supporting individuals as individuals, on the basis of their personal strengths and challenges – rather than worrying unduly about the diagnostic labels they may or may not have been able to access, or with which they identify.”
For law firm leaders still sceptical about the potential return on such small investments, Smither argues teams that think differently not only better reflect the diversity of our society but also are more likely to reach better, more innovative, and original conclusions.
“Interestingly, we are seeing growing evidence that clients agree with this view, that different types of brain make for better end product,” he adds.
“Ultimately, we suspect that if the biggest legal services employers don’t change ‘from the inside’, they will be forced to change ‘from the outside’ when clients demand that they demonstrate they are putting forward truly neurodiverse teams to work on their assignments – or miss out on those instructions.”
