Disability in the Law
The last 30 years have seen many advances in disability law, in large part due to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). With that said, the reality is there is still much work that needs to be completed.
Stereotypes and biases against individuals with disabilities still linger. Some folks, including employers and associates, have not made the shift from focusing on what individuals with disabilities can’t do to focusing more appropriately on the many things they can do. These individuals face challenges specific to the manifestations of their disabilities, but given the opportunity to succeed, they are more than capable of exceeding expectations.
Approximately 11.4 million adults (or 1 in 25 adults) in the United States suffer from serious mental illness. (Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin. Ctr. for Behavioral Health Stat. & Quality, 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Aug. 26, 2019).) Severe mental impairments (anxiety, depression, mood disorders, and schizophrenia) and cognitive disorders (dementia, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease) affect individuals in a variety of ways that may significantly impact their abilities to assist in the representation of their best interests.
GPSolo looks forward to organizing discussions on how the legal profession can better accommodate clients, law students, lawyers, and others with mental impairments.
Title II of the ADA and many state rules require courts to accommodate individuals with disabilities, including individuals with mental impairments and cognitive disabilities. Potential accommodations include allowing testimony by phone or video, allowing support animals, granting frequent breaks, adjusting court schedules to comply with medication schedules, appointing guardians ad litem or court-appointed counsel, and reassigning and reconfiguring courtrooms or hearing spaces.
Litigation is stressful to most individuals and may be exponentially more stressful to individuals suffering from mental impairments and cognitive disorders. Individuals with these conditions may experience difficulties adapting to increased anxiety; recalling important information; understanding, remembering, or following through on instructions; storing and processing information; maintaining attention; avoiding distractions; and communicating effectively.
The core requirements of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial tribunal. Due process requires that the hearing opportunity be tailored to the capacities and circumstances of those to be heard. (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268–69 (1970).) Notice and opportunity to be heard are of decreased value to litigants suffering from mental impairments and cognitive disorders if, because of their conditions, they are less able to fully appreciate the seriousness of the legal proceeding or are limited in their ability to assist in the representation of their interests.
As Justice Thurgood Marshall once advised, “Mere access to the courthouse doors does not by itself assure a proper functioning of the adversary process.” (Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 (1985).)
Students with disabilities face challenges accessing law school facilities and services and procuring reasonable accommodations that will allow them to succeed. GPSolo will collaborate with groups such as the National Disabled Law Students Association, the Law School Disability Advocacy Coalition, and others to support law students as they begin the journey to enter the legal profession.
GPSolo will serve as a clearinghouse of information and advocacy center for solo and small firm practitioners seeking advice on navigating the vast area of disability law.
The Scott LaBarre Disability Law Committee is just the beginning of better things to come, but with Starrett and Moss in the lead, rest assured we are off to a good start.