Your legal rights

The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination at work on the basis of protected characteristics.

There are 9 protected characteristics:

1. Age;

2. Disability;

3. Gender reassignment;

4. Marriage and civil partnership;

5. Pregnancy and maternity;

6. Race;

7. Religion or belief;

8. Sex;

9. Sexual orientation.

Under the law, employers must:

· not discriminate in any part of recruitment or employment;

· take steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and discrimination;

· make reasonable adjustments for disabled people;

· do what they reasonably can to stop others from discriminating; and

· support staff wellbeing through what’s called a duty of care.
 

Importantly, employers can be legally responsible for the behaviour of their staff, so if a colleague discriminates against you and the firm didn’t prevent it, the firm can still be held liable. Individuals can be held responsible too.

In legal settings, this might apply to the behaviour of partners, clients or even people on secondment. It applies whether you’re a trainee, associate, contractor or even a job applicant.

The Equality Act protects:

· employees (including trainees and NQs);

· contractors and consultants hired to do a specific task;

· job applicants and interviewees; and

· former staff in certain circumstances (including references or post-employment treatment).
 

So, whether you’re applying for a training contract, completing your SQE qualifying work experience or looking for your first post-NQ role, the law still applies. This means you should be able to ask for reasonable adjustments at interview and in your role and not face discrimination as a result.

Yes, but it depends on the context. If you’re studying for a law degree or GDL, your university is likely to be the body responsible for reasonable adjustments and support.

For the SQE and other professional qualifications, responsibility usually lies with the regulator or the assessment provider (for example, the SRA and Kaplan). That means if you face discrimination or poor handling of reasonable adjustments during the SQE, the Equality Act still applies, but you may need to raise the issue through their internal process in the first instance.

Discrimination means unfair or unequal treatment of a person or group because of a protected characteristic (which includes disabilities). In legal workplaces, this could show up in subtle or obvious ways and it doesn’t always need to be intentional to be unlawful.

Discrimination can take many forms. The examples below are intended to illustrate how it might show up in legal workplaces, but we cannot guarantee that any specific situation would legally count as discrimination, that would depend on the facts and context:

· Direct discrimination– treating someone worse than others due to their protected characteristic. For example, a neurodivergent trainee being overlooked for client work because a supervisor assumes they would find the pressure too much because of their neurodiverence.
 

· Indirect discrimination– where a policy or rule applies to everyone but disadvantages neurodivergent people. For example, requiring everyone to attend daily 9am meetings with no remote option might put someone with a sleep disorder or energy-limiting condition at a clear disadvantage.
 

· Harassment– unwanted behaviour connected to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates a hostile environment. For example, making jokes about someone’s tone of voice, eye contact or coping strategies.
 

· Victimisation – being treated unfairly because they have raised a breach of the Equality Act (such as complaint about harassment of failing to make reasonable adjustments) or supported someone who did. For instance, a paralegal being excluded after helping a colleague file a complaint.
 

Discrimination doesn’t have to be ongoing, a one-off incident can count. It can happen in the office, remotely, at social events or during assessment centres.

For legal advice on your specific situation, we would recommend taking independent legal advice.

The Equality Act says you're disabled if:

1. you have a physical or mental impairment; and

2. that impairment has a substantialand long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
 

Substantial means more than minor or trivial. Long-term means it has lasted (or is likely to last) 12 months or more.

This definition may cover many forms of neurodivergence, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, OCD and long-term mental health conditions. You don’t necessarily need a formal diagnosis to be protected, but having one can help in practice to evidence this (see below).

Some conditions are automatically be considered disabilities (this only applies to cancer, MS and HIV). For others, it depends on whether it meets the legal definition detailed above.

If you are unsure whether your neurodivergence fits under the definition, we encourage you to seek independent legal advice. 

This usually means the condition makes normal day-to-day tasks more difficult. That might include reading, concentrating, remembering things, managing change, communication or self-care.

In legal workplaces, these effects can be masked by coping mechanisms, but the law looks at the underlying impact without those. So, if you’re burning out from masking or working far beyond sustainable limits, that can count.

For help working this out, it's worth speaking to an independent solicitor.

No, you don’t have to. It’s your choice whether to disclose your disability or neurodivergence. Some people choose not to for fear of stigma, misunderstanding, or previous bad experiences.

However, employers only have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments if:

· they know (or could reasonably be expected to know) that you’re disabled; and

· you are likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone who isn’t disabled due to a provision, criterion or practice, a physical feature of the workplace or a lack of auxiliary aids;
 

In other words, you don’t have to disclose a diagnosis, but if you never share that you’re facing a barrier, your employer might not be held responsible for failing to adjust (depending on the context).

In many cases, you can share the impact without naming the diagnosis. For example, “I may have condition that affects my working memory” may be enough to trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustmen

A reasonable adjustment is a change to your workplace or role that removes or reduces a disadvantage experienced by a disabled person so that they can work or apply for a job as equally as a non-disabled person. The aim is to level the playing field, not to give you an advantage or avoid all difficulty.

Examples in legal work could include:

· Providing written instructions or meeting agendas in advance;

· Allowing headphones or access to quieter workspaces;

· Adjusting hours to avoid sensory overwhelm from rush hour;

· Using clear, structured feedback methods instead of ambiguous performance chats; and/or

· Offering longer deadlines or breaking complex tasks into smaller parts.
 

Reasonable adjustments can apply to recruitment, onboarding, day-to-day work, supervision and performance management. They must be tailored to you, not based on a generic checklist for all neurodivergent people. What works for one sometimes doesn’t work for others depending how their neurodivergence impacts them.

Employers have a legal duty to provide adjustments that are reasonable. The key here is the ‘reasonable’ element, and they have to balance your needs against the impact on the team and clients (see below). They cannot insist that everyone is treated identically if that treatment causes disadvantage.

Yes, just like any other employer. Law firms are covered by the Equality Act and have the same legal obligations to make reasonable adjustments for disabled staff and applicants.

However, some large law firms have more resources, and so what is “reasonable” for them might be more generous than for a smaller firm.

That said, not all firms get this right. Some neurodivergent people report being refused adjustments for unclear reasons or only being supported after a formal grievance. You are not alone in this. If you're facing difficulty, support and advice are available.

Note that some employers will refer to an occupational health therapist in order to assess the individual and recommend reasonable adjustments.

There’s no strict definition, but the law expects reasonable adjustments to be made unless they are genuinely unworkable by placing undue burden on the employer or fails to effectively address the disadvantage of the disabled person. Whether something is ‘reasonable’ depends on context, there’s no one-size-fits-all rule.

Factors that are often considered include:

· the size and resources of the employer;

· whether the reasonable adjustment would effectively remove the disadvantage;

· the cost or burden and how easily the employer could afford it (although this can’t be the single determining factor);

· health and safety risks; and

· if alternative options exist;

· the practical impact on the business; and/or

· how disruptive or complex it would be to implement.
 

But here’s the problem: some employers misunderstand this. They assume they can reject an adjustment simply because they personally don’t think it’s reasonable, without properly assessing the legal test or engaging in a dialogue.

Potential examples from legal settings:

· A trainee asks for short processing breaks after intense client calls. The firm says no, because “everyone finds those calls tough”, but that’s not the legal test. The question is whether the break would remove or reduce a disadvantage linked to disability and whether it can be reasonably implemented.

· A solicitor requests to wear discreet noise-reduction aids in a busy open-plan office. The firm refuses, calling them “unprofessional”. Again, that’s not enough. Reasonable adjustments can’t be turned down based on personal preference or outdated views of what’s ‘normal’.

· A junior lawyer asks to have agendas or questions in advance of meetings, to help with executive functioning. The partner says they “don’t plan like that”, but that doesn’t mean the adjustment is unreasonable, especially if the change would take minimal effort.
 

Just because a manager doesn’t like or understand the reasonable adjustment doesn’t make it legally unreasonable. It’s about disadvantage removal or reduction, not personal views. 

Importantly, if one reasonable adjustment is turned down, that doesn’t mean support ends there. Employers should work with you to find alternatives, ‘no’ to one thing doesn’t mean ‘no’ to everything.

However, in all of the above examples, it is important to have an open and honest conversation with your employer in order to explain why the reasonable adjustment is sought. 

If you’re facing this, it can be helpful to get advice. Sometimes employers genuinely don’t understand their duties and sometimes they may require some education or external pressure to act properly.

There’s some helpful guidance on the ACAS website about reasonable adjustments here https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

 Not usually. Your employer isn’t expected to redesign your job from scratch or remove the core parts of it. The law doesn’t require them to turn it into something totally different.

That said, there’s often a difference between reasonably adjusting how a task is done and removing it altogether. So, while they might not be expected to take away a key part of the job, they should consider whether that part can be done in a different way, at a different time, or with support. 

For example, if your role involves lots of client meetings that drain your energy or create access barriers, it might not be reasonable to remove them entirely but it might be reasonable to do fewer, to space them out more or to be allowed to take written questions instead of verbal ones.

Employers should consider creative solutions. Just because they can’t take away a big part of the job doesn’t mean nothing can change. But if the role becomes unrecognisable, they may not be required to make that change. It’s a grey area and may need specialist advice. This is a particularly sensitive area as, in certain circumstances, an employer may terminate an employee’s role if they can’t do their job due to a disability on capability grounds

Discrimination in the legal profession can be difficult to recognise and even harder to process. It’s not always obvious. It might show up in subtle patterns or quiet exclusions. Over time, this can seriously affect your mental health and sense of safety at work. It can also feel confusing or even surreal, you might expect legal employers to understand the law and respect your rights. Raising concerns, even informally, can feel intimidating when the people involved are lawyers or part of the firm’s leadership.

You might be unsure whether what’s happening really “counts” or whether it’s serious enough to act on. That uncertainty is common. But if you’re feeling worn down, anxious or afraid to be yourself at work, it’s worth taking seriously.

If you are struggling, you don’t have to go through it alone. But in law, you do need to be careful about who you speak to and how you record what’s happening.

It’s usually best not to confide in colleagues unless you’re sure it is safe. Even well-meaning people can pass on information, and things said informally can later be used in ways you did not expect.

Instead, you could:

· Keep a clear and factual record of what’s happening, including dates, who was involved, what exactly was said and the impact on you;

· Get confidential support from someone external, such as a therapist, LawCare, ACAS, a union, an advocacy organisation or take legal advice;

· Speak to friends and family on a confidential basis about your concerns;

· Be cautious in written communications, especially if you feel upset or under pressure; and/or

· Take advice early if you can, even if you’re not ready to take action.
 

You don’t have to raise a grievance or legal claim right away. Sometimes the first step is simply talking it through with someone neutral who understands the legal world. There is no perfect way to cope, but you are not imagining things and you do not have to keep pretending everything is fine. However, it is important to keep in mind that the time limit to bring an Employment Tribunal claim is 3 months less one day from the last incident of discrimination.

If you’re experiencing discrimination, unfair treatment or issues with adjustments at work, here are some steps you could consider:

1. Keep a clear written record
 Note down dates, what happened, who was involved and how it affected you (it is important to have note about how any possible acts of discrimination made you feel at the time). Save any relevant emails or messages.
 

2. Check your internal grievance policy
 Most law firms have a formal process for raising concerns. You don’t always need to use it straight away, but knowing the steps helps you plan. When you do - also check out the ACAS guidance linked below for guidance.
 

3. Raise the issue informally (if safe to do so)
 You could speak to HR or your line manager. Explain the barrier you’re facing, what support you need and how it is making you feel.
 

4. Use your firm’s grievance process
 If the issue continues or you don’t feel heard, you can raise a formal grievance. Put your concerns in writing and include any evidence.
 

5. Contact ACAS
 If internal processes don’t resolve the issue, ACAS offers a free and confidential helpline.

6. Seek legal advice
 Especially if you’re considering a tribunal claim. Some legal charities or unions offer free advice, or you can contact a solicitor specialising in employment law.

There are several places you can turn to for free support or initial guidance:

· ACAS – for employment rights and early conciliation: https://www.acas.org.uk

· Citizens Advice– for practical advice: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk

· Disability Law Service– specialist advice for disabled people: https://dls.org.uk

· LawCare – support for mental health and wellbeing in the legal sector: https://www.lawcare.org.uk 

· Mind – if your mental health is being impacted: https://www.mind.org.uk

· Thrive Law – offer free initial assessments and guidance www.thrivelaw.co.uk 

Yes. Some firms and legal charities have specific experience in this area. Look out for:

· Firms that specialise in employment law and discrimination claims

· Charities with legal services, such as DLS or Equality Advisory Support Service

· Specialist firms who understand neurodivergent clients and systemic issues in legal workplaces
 

You can check the Law Society’s “Find a Solicitor” tool and search by discrimination expertise.

It’s completely valid to want someone who understands your experiences. That might include someone who is openly neurodivergent, or someone with lived experience in mental health or disability rights work.

However, because there are fewer openly neurodivergent lawyers (especially in private practice), this may limit your options. It is also important to assess whether this firm or individual is the best option for you. You should still consider their level of experience and expertise, funding and costs and testimonials/reviews for more context.

You could:

· Look for lawyers who publicly mention experience working with neurodivergent clients; 

· Ask about their understanding of neurodivergence and the social model of disability;

· Check whether their firm has a reputation for inclusive practice.
 

Remember, you deserve someone who respects and validates your needs, even if they don’t share them personally.