“The topic of neurodiversity in the legal community is trending, but often remains taboo across our industry. It is not a matter of 'if' you will ever work with someone who is neurodiverse; it's a matter of 'when.' It is imperative for all of us to create opportunities to hold these conversations and collaborate with thought leaders in this space to continue to drive the conversation forward and tackle this crucial issue head-on," Nuñez said over email.
DeSantis kicked off the event with a definition of neurodiversity, which she described as “unique brain function” that may be reflected in differences in preferred communication styles and social interactions. She talked about the stigma surrounding neurodiversity in workplaces despite 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. population identifying as neurodivergent. She also referenced the low self-reporting rates as evidence of the stigma: in 2021, just 1.4% of law firm lawyers self-reported having a disability, and only 4.5% of law school graduates self-reported having a disability.
After a round of introductions, the speakers discussed the unique challenges that neurodivergent people face during the law school admissions process. Winfield offered context by noting that in LSAC’s most recent survey of matriculated first year students in 2022 12 percent of students reported having a disability, which included a range of disabilities, but most notably, nonapparent disabilities. “That does not mean they self-disclose on their applications,” she added.
In fact, over 40 percent of law students with disabilities did not disclose their disability on their law school applications, according to LSAC’s survey. What’s more, those identifying as men were more likely to disclose than were women and nonbinary individuals (54%, 43%, and 42%, respectively). Winfield noted that the types of academic and mental health supports available were critical to these students deciding where to apply for law school.
Laguerre-Brown, who worked for 20 years in higher education in DEI positions and provided oversight to disability support services offices, emphasized the importance of LSAC programs such as the Writing for Impact pilot program, which supports students with nonapparent disabilities with how to talk about their own lived experiences in law school admissions essays. “They may have had to focus more on the academic side” due to challenges committing to as many extracurriculars as their peers, she said. In private interview over email, Laguerre added, “In these cases, their strong GPAs were a testament to their grit, determination, and persistence, making the absence of extensive extracurriculars less significant. These decision points were extremely challenging for families.”
Chiquiar-Rabinovich, who has obtained several graduate degrees in addition to a JD and was recently accepted into a PhD program for Global Inclusion, struggled with the GRE and LSAT in 1984 due to the test being inaccessible for him. He is dyslexic, and, unfortunately, he says, not much has changed in the 40 years since he took his first admissions test. To receive accommodations for his master’s program during the pandemic, he was told he needed to provide a certification of dyslexia from within the last six months, despite it being a lifelong condition.
During the second half of the discussion, the panelists discussed the tools and best practices employers can implement to improve the hiring and retention of neurodiverse individuals. Chiquiar-Rabinovich emphasized the importance of a “no-fear law firm … where you’re not afraid to be who you are.” He added that legal employers need to determine how to “economize” an attorney’s time if it takes them longer to perform certain tasks.
The webinar concluded with Winfield encouraging viewers to keep the conversation going. “We’ve talked about systemic and institutional changes … but there’s also the individual level. … Pick one small thing you can do, what small change that you can make. That’s how you build the momentum.”