Letters roundup

Give neurodiverse candidates a chance

‘Law firms are failing neurodiverse legal professionals.’ Maybe a controversial statement, but with so much evidence it is hard to ignore.

 

The increase in law firms employing diversity and inclusion managers has made little difference to job-seeking neurodiverse legal professionals (people with specific learning differences – for example, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD).

 

Neurodiverse candidates have the key skills that firms need right now. For example, critical thinking, problem-solving, and producing innovative solutions and strategies.

 

Yet neurodiverse candidates are unsuccessful, not because of their skills, experience and attributes, but because of unfair recruitment practices and the bias of others.

 

Many law firms have poor recruitment practices which disadvantage neurodiverse candidates. For example:

 

Applying: terrible recruitment portals – that is, no function to load a covering letter with a CV; no spell-check function; not disability accessible; no equal opportunities form; recruiters refusing reasonable adjustments and ghosting candidate emails requesting further information; and HR refusing to talk on the phone and only corresponding via email.

 

Interviewing: refusing or ignoring reasonable adjustments, using recruitment assessment centres which disadvantage neurodiverse candidates – for example, using psychometric testing, role plays, other exercises which are more likely to prove the candidate is neurodiverse than suitable for the role, recruiters thinking that extra time creates a level playing field, interviewers with no interview training or knowledge of neurodiversity.

 

Some firms say they offer guaranteed interviews for disabled candidates who meet the minimum criteria – in some cases this does not happen. Many firms refuse to give any feedback on unsuccessful applications unless it is a final round interview.

 

Here is a short list of changes that would make a difference:

 

1. Providing a direct dial contact for candidates to ask questions;

 

2. Reviewing portals and making sure they are neurodiverse/disability accessible;

 

3. Reviewing recruitment policies and procedures and making them inclusive and fair for everyone;

 

4. Training interviewers to ask questions in the right way and provide meaningful, considered feedback for every candidate; and

 

5. Communicating with candidates and contacting anyone who has indicated a disability to make sure they get the reasonable adjustments they need, so it is a positive, not negative experience regardless of outcome.

 

Neurodiverse candidates have so much to offer because they think differently. There need to be more neurodiverse role models in senior positions for change to happen. Sadly, at the moment this is not the case because of the barriers which exist.

 

Ruth Fenton   

Non-practising solicitor, Gloucestershire

Conveyancing: cheer up, the future’s bright

Your cover story (‘Bringing the House Down’, 16 September) paints a bleak and not altogether accurate picture of the conveyancing sector.

 

Modernisation, through digital signatures and the like, will not increase the risk of identity fraud; in fact, quite the opposite. Experts believe it will improve security with technology such as biometric verification (facial recognition or fingerprint scanning), cryptographic checks where only the sender and recipient can view the message, and ‘liveness’ tests to detect a genuine presence on the other end of the device, as well as eliminating the risks of storing physical documents.

 

Conveyancing may have faced some challenges of late, but this is not one. HM Land Registry’s Safe Harbour scheme and the myidentity.org.uk pilot, under the government’s draft identity framework, are both examples of progress to ensure safer, smoother, speedier transactions to benefit all parties. The future looks bright.

 

Stephen Ward

Director of strategy, Council for Licensed Conveyancers

Registry record?

The 2 September Gazette article ‘Paperless housebuying by 2024/25: Land Registry’ made me smile. Simon Hayes, chief executive and chief land registrar, appears bullish about the agency being able to deliver electronic conveyancing for the residential market as a means to speed up the housebuying process. I do not have his confidence.

I have recently been involved in the acquisition of the whole of the freehold of a London residential property. The simple transfer was completed on 21 March. On recently checking with the Registry I found to my astonishment the new ownership registration had not been completed. I asked the London-based firm of lawyers that dealt with the transaction to ascertain from the LR when it would be. The LR response was January 2024. Yes, 2024!

Is this a record? If so, it is one the Registry should be ashamed of.

Robert Gibbs

Solicitor (retired), Norfolk

Credit where it's due

The 24 June Gazette editorial on the regulation of litigation funding reminded me of a suggestion I put to the Law Society in the 1960s by letter to the publication: that a client should be allowed to pay for legal advice and services using a credit card. Barclaycard had just been introduced. The suggestion was almost immediately dismissed on the basis that allowing a client to pay in that manner would amount to ‘sharing costs with unqualified persons’ – namely, Barclaycard.

Anthony J Cooper

Great Shelford, Cambridge

Mind the pay gap

When I joined the profession many years ago there did not appear to be much talk of turnover and earnings. Now I see in the media tables of the turnover of some of the large (mainly City) firms. There is also mention of some senior partners, who are obviously doing a good job, earning upwards of £2m a year. These earnings must seem eye-watering to lawyers engaged in general practice (often in high street firms) who are also doing a good job.

 

We have all qualified in much the same way and such huge differences do not indicate a healthy profession.

 

Blair Sessions

Solicitor (retired), London NW7