chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

    Lawyer Spotlight: James Fetter

    James Fetter on Finding Secure Employment as a Blind Lawyer.

    James Fetter on Finding Secure Employment as a Blind Lawyer.

    You describe the numerous difficulties you faced with finding secure employment in academia and then in the legal profession as someone with a visible disability—blindness—in your essay, “The Sisyphean Struggle for Secure Employment,” published by the Journal of Legal Education (Fall 2021). Can you discuss those briefly? What advice would you give to law students and recent law school graduates with disabilities experiencing similar issues and seeking employment?

    The difficulties I described in my essay, and some others I have experienced since, broadly fall into two categories: (1) systemic accessibility barriers, and (2) discrimination, likely arising from unsubstantiated fears about my limitations rather than animus. As described in the essay, I was unable to obtain a job in academia following my Ph.D. due to a combination of an extremely tight job market and the widespread belief that the challenges associated with accommodating me would outweigh the benefit of hiring me, especially when there were so many additional candidates. When taking the LSAT, I faced challenges not only with the logic games section (discussed at greater length below) but also with the basics of obtaining accommodations. For example, I had to scramble at the last minute to ensure that an LSAC clerical error did not require me to dictate the writing sample to a scribe, who would handwrite it, rather than being able to write it myself. My no-offer following my 2L summer associate position was, in my view, a direct result of both types of barriers: an inaccessible document management system that the firm in question did not wish to spend the money to fix, and ableist beliefs about my capabilities, particularly as related to analyzing visual evidence.

    Unfortunately, I have faced similar difficulties since the essay was finalized in 2021—though it was published some years later. I faced multiple barriers when taking the North Carolina bar, described at greater length below. And, while working at my previous firm, I was told directly that I did not “deserve” opportunities to take depositions, appear in court, or otherwise broaden my litigation skillset beyond brief writing, until I could prove that I was “better than everyone else” on my team—a team which included multiple partners. However, I was also told that I was one of the best writers, including partners, in the entire firm.

    My advice to law students and new attorneys with disabilities is simple: keep going, always do your best, and have faith that something will eventually break your way. There is a ton of ableism in this profession, even in spaces where one would not expect to see it, but there are also decent people who will give you a chance. Critically in my case, one of these was the federal judge on the Fourth Circuit for whom I clerked. And others include my colleagues at my current firm, Kahn Swick & Foti, all of whom have treated me like a full member of the team and have taken my access needs seriously.

    You also wrote about the access barriers associated with not only taking the LSAT but also preparing for it, particularly because the Logic Games section required (at the time) drawing diagrams, which you said is not possible for you. How did you ultimately end up preparing for this section? Did you have to invent a method? And did you encounter any barriers for the bar exam?

    I cobbled together my own method for trying to deal with the logic games using Microsoft Excel. It must have been partially effective, but it did not enable me to finish the section accurately in the allotted time. Needless to say, I am glad that LSAC was forced by litigation to drop the section.

    I did face barriers in taking the bar exam, though none related to the content of the exam itself. For example, to obtain accommodations on the North Carolina bar, which my previous firm required me to take, I had to prove that I was, in fact, still blind and had been receiving accommodations going back all the way through elementary school. This was a needlessly stressful and time-consuming process. The character and fitness application was also riddled with accessibility barriers, which made it difficult for me to independently determine whether I was answering critical questions accurately without sighted assistance.

    In addition to a J.D. from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, you have a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Notre Dame. How does your Ph.D. inform your work as a lawyer?

    My Ph.D. has given me one huge advantage: it has trained me to write well under very tight deadlines. I do not believe that I would be as good of a writer as I am today, were it not for the years spent toiling on a book-length dissertation and multiple lengthy papers, a couple of which I managed to publish. It has also given me the tools to persist in the face of significant headwinds. For example, the academic job market is exponentially tighter than the legal job market has ever been, so sending out dozens or even hundreds of applications, and knowing that I may have to relocate for the one employer that decides to give me a chance, are essentially par for the course for me.

    After law school, you served as a Judicial Law Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. What did you learn from that experience? Was the court accessible? Were your accommodations effective?

    I cannot recommend clerking highly enough. It turbocharged my legal career and helped me to regain my confidence after a difficult first two years of my career. Yes, I received all needed accommodations, the technology was accessible, and everyone was very helpful. But I received so much more – a chance to show not only all future employers, but myself, that I could flourish in the world of high-stakes, complex litigation. My judge treated me like my three other co-clerks, had the same expectations of me as of them, and was beyond supportive of any access needs I had. And he continues to be just a phone call away.

    Why did you decide to make the switch from disability law and civil rights to securities litigation?

    Before switching to securities litigation, I worked at a defense firm for about a year-and-a half. I did so, because I wanted to integrate as much as possible into the legal profession, and I needed to support myself and my wife on a single income. I am now doing plaintiff-side securities litigation, which is far more in line with my desire to fight for those whom the system generally disfavors and also feeds my intellectual curiosity. Under the right circumstances, I would be in a position to take on a disability rights class action as well. I also continue to do disability rights work, though in a different capacity; I am on the board of Disability Rights Ohio and have been since March of this year.

    How would you describe the state of the legal profession for people with disabilities?

    A recent study indicated that 1.4% of attorneys in law firms identify as having a disability. That grim number describes the state of disability inclusion in the legal profession far better than I could. But there are, without question, spaces in this profession where attorneys with disabilities can thrive. The federal courts (assuming you can clerk or work for a great judge) are one; firms like mine, which are genuinely committed to diversity and inclusion are another. The biggest barrier, in my view, is visibility. How many non-disabled practicing attorneys can say that they know, let alone work with, an attorney with a disability? That needs to change.

    How can legal employers promote disability diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in their workplaces?

    Legal employers should treat disability like any other DEI category and hire accordingly. It isn’t that simple, but that is the most important step they can take today to improve the 1.4% number I cited above. There are plenty of technological access barriers as well, but the solution to these is, at bottom, a matter of sincerely committing to solving them, rather than shying away from hiring attorneys with disabilities because of them. And, above all, employers must start taking our resumes at face value and assume us to be competent, unless or until proven otherwise.

    Is there anything you would like to add?

    I described my struggle to find secure employment in the article as a Sisyphean one. While I think this is still largely accurate, I am cautiously optimistic that the tide may be turning. After all, I am now not only employed but also supported and valued. I can finally live where I want to, am supporting my family on a single income, and am fully remote, which means that I’m not limited by transportation barriers or already frustrated before I get to work, because I had to evade a random stranger’s effort to “help” me by grabbing me without permission while taking mass transit. I had to work far harder, initially accept less pay, and move far more often than my comparable non-disabled peers. But I have finally managed to create a life that is significantly better than I could have imagined when I wrote “The Sisyphean Struggle” back in 2021.