My experience with ‘reasonable adjustments’

I am a newly qualified litigation associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. During my training contract I was diagnosed with ADHD and dyspraxia (with pending referrals for dyslexia and autism assessments). Learning I am ‘neuro-spicy’ came as no surprise. Juvenile memories include being banned from a kettlebells class because of clumsiness, and the parting words (in jest) at my sixth-form graduation speech – ‘go into the world and never stop asking questions – except you JJ, please stop asking questions!’

My experience mirrors that of many other late-diagnosed neurodivergent lawyers moving from education into the corporate workplace: the coping strategies that carried us to that point suddenly become obsolete. Throughout my education, I could supplement my knowledge with independent study, use weekends and evenings to catch up on tricky days, and choose academic modules to align with my interests. This flexibility goes away in private practice. Deadlines are short and fixed; billable hours mean all productive time is meticulously recorded; and evenings and weekends are not guaranteed to be free for extra self-study. Symptoms that never held me back academically now created issues at work on an almost daily basis.

Workplace adjustments

The solution to such predicaments – workplace adjustments – is a complex topic, particularly as what may be ‘reasonable’ in one organisation may not be feasible for the next. It is a legal obligation for employers to make accommodations for disabled employees, including those with neurodivergent conditions. However, seeking such a diagnosis to initiate this dialogue can be a lengthy process. Current NHS wait times for an ADHD assessment are up to 10 years. Last year in England there were 172,022 people waiting for an autism assessment. While I was fortunate to move forward via my firm’s health insurance, this privileged shortcut is unavailable to most.

Some support solutions, such as external coaching, noise-cancelling headphones, or adaptive technology and software, carry a price tag and may therefore only be provided to those who have successfully navigated the diagnosis pathway. This is why the ‘process’ section of the Legal Neurodiversity Network recommendations report emphasises other adaptations that employers can inexpensively offer to everyone regardless of diagnostic status. 

Flexible working

My own reasonable adjustments journey started with the conversation ‘how can we support you to do your best work?’ A big workplace challenge as a neurodivergent employee has been maintaining concentration and productivity while working long hours. Along with an estimated 40-80% of adults with ADHD, I suffer from chronic sleep problems. The ensuing exhaustion means my maximum capacity has felt lower than that of my colleagues, in addition to sleep deprivation exacerbating my ADHD symptoms  – resulting in stress and anxiety that I was underperforming.

I am now trialling a ‘hyper-flexible’ arrangement, reducing my weekly workload (and pay) to the equivalent of an 80% contribution. This is not a neurodivergent-specific adjustment, it is available to all employees who wish to safeguard their mental health or meet caring responsibilities by having a non-working day. It has helped me manage my medication rebound (when ADHD medication wears off and the symptoms return suddenly and intensely, causing a crash). Moreover, I can carve out contracted non-working time in the week if I am having a particularly symptomatic day. Rather than spending three or four hours at my desk for every productive hour that I am able to bill for, I can reset and use my time more efficiently. The arrangement necessitates flexibility from my side as well as the firm’s, requiring open communication and a high level of mutual trust. It is up to me to track my non-working hours to meet the correct output and ensure I can still deliver on client deadlines and attend key meetings.

Overall, I have noticed an enormous reduction in challenging symptoms at work and an accompanying increase in productivity. Flexible working has also provided space for mental safeguarding to minimise the worries that come with my neurodivergent brain.

Competency frameworks

Career development represents another key process to examine. If a competency framework does not account for neurodivergence, it risks over-emphasising areas where neurodivergent individuals frequently struggle. Dyslexic lawyers may not be able to catch every typo and autistic lawyers may find in-person client networking a challenge, but in an era where assistive technology is widely available and connections and brands are increasingly built online, narrowly interpreted skills and attributes such as ‘accuracy’ and ‘confidence’ become less relevant. For example, ‘accuracy’ can be illustrated by spotting flawed logic in legal arguments, rather than just spelling and grammar. Similarly, ‘confidence’ is not the only way to build relationships, but reliability, loyalty and consistency are also traits found to be invaluable to maintaining client relationships and found within neurodivergent lawyers. Unfortunately, these non-inclusive, standardised assumptions are often seen as critical to progression in the profession. That same dyslexic lawyer may creatively solve a legal problem their colleagues were stuck on, and that same autistic lawyer spot a key, non-obvious detail colleagues have missed.

Trying to fit everyone into the same prescriptive template leaves less room for individual strengths. It also harbours a sense of failure for neurodivergent individuals expending effort but not receiving the required grading. Moving away from a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to focusing (and allocating tasks based) on strengths is likely both to increase retention and deliver the more diverse and creative teams clients want. These are two examples of ‘process’ improvements in the LNN’s new report, which can be accessed here.

JJ Thompson is projects and campaigns co-lead at the Legal Neurodiversity Network