This chapter draws together insights and recommendations from many sources. We greatly appreciate the contributions that are quoted here from survey respondents. Our standard editorial approach is to present the exact words contributed to us by law students and lawyers who have disabilities, rather than adjusting everyday terms used by contributors in conversation or in questionnaires submitted by these knowledgeable individuals. Rarely have we substituted terminology that is more accepted by recognized experts in the field (and by the Editor).

In Chapter 1, we did caution that some terminology found in David Lepofsky’s speech is discordant with today’s lexicon on disability issues. That 1990 speech used terms such as "disabled clients" and "the disabled", rather than, for example, "clients who have disabilities". (The 1983 and 1984 Abella reports had used terms similar to those employed by Lepofsky’s article.) In most parts of this present guidebook, the Editor has struggled to write or insert updated terminology, even when citing older texts. But when this manual quotes a law student or lawyer who has self-identified as being a person with a disability (or says that she or he is "disabled"), the Editor has usually retained their own words.

The following accolade about accommodations offered in BC’s bar admission course came from a lawyer whose undergraduate law studies had been taken elsewhere in Canada:

"The Professional Legal Training Course [PLTC - the bar admission course in British Columbia] has remarkable facilities and accommodations for students with disabilities. Even when students chose not to self-identify as persons with a disability, the PLTC staff was very proactive in making sure that such students had everything they needed to get through the course. Self-identifying mechanisms available upon PLTC registration were comprehensive and very standardized. Students needing personal attendants were accommodated, special exam writing needs were provided for, all facilities were wheelchair accessible, and the list goes on."

Contrast that praise with another lawyer’s perception about the law society’s attitude toward accommodations in that practitioner’s province:

"I do not believe that lawyers or the [provincial] bar accommodate lawyers with disabilities. It is not even a thought. During law school, [my faculty – in the same province] was wonderful. The law society was a nightmare but my determination got me through. Now, there are absolutely no accommodations and I never hear the word "disability". It is very sad; we are forgotten and must fend for ourselves."

Reach researchers were told that at least some officials of the law society in question were contemplating making improvements. Reach will be watching progress with interest.

Regarding law schools, a participant in one Reach focus group said that the law faculty at his university seemed more accommodating to students with disabilities than some other departments and faculties on campus were towards their students. Unlike the law school, the other departments and faculties did not have a designated equity officer. But a law graduate had this to say about another law school (repeated in part from section 6.4 above):

"[It] must turn its attention to the need to accommodate students with a disability. … orientation … facilities were wholly inaccessible… with no ramp or elevator available…. digging up ramps and not arranging for alternate access into the law school during construction… re-scheduling a class to a location virtually impossible to get to in the dead of winter ….having an inaccessible moot court… [The law faculty], rather than underscoring and enforcing any rights that disabled students might have in terms of reasonable accommodation… has consistently built barriers to change …."

A few of these recommendations are collected from earlier parts of the manual, but many appear here for the first time.

1. "Curriculum is the most important tool to educate future jurists on how to serve clients with disabilities. Due to sheer lack of exposure to living and working with disability in the average law student’s life, law faculties and bar associations must include materials on disability related issues in their curriculum."
2. "Law faculties must begin by offering courses (electives) on Disability Law in Canada. You must at the very least provide an opportunity for future lawyers to educate themselves on people with disabilities. Such electives exist for a variety of minority/special interest groups issues such as First Nations/Aboriginal law, Talmudic Law, Women and the Law, Children and the Law, etc. Faculties need to encourage disability awareness first by at least offering courses designed to focus on the impact of the law on disability and disability rights in Canada."
3. "[There is a … need to incorporate disability issues in core curriculums of law faculties. For example, the treatment of disabled Accused and Victims in terms of Criminal Procedure; the handling of disabled clients in Advocacy; courtroom decorum and procedure for lawyers with disabilities in Criminal/Civil Trial Procedure; special interests and needs of the disabled in Foundations of Canadian Law; special interest and needs of the disabled in Canadian Constitutional Law; how disability impacts the law in Family Law; etc."
4. "Bar schools need to make disability one of their core units in teaching professional responsibility, ethics, and lawyer-client relationships."
5. "Legal information/legal aid clinics associated with the faculty should provide specific training on treatment of clients with disabilities."
6. "Extra curricular workshops made available to students, but funded by the faculty, should include workshops on the treatment of clients with disabilities."
7. "Providing accessible spaces to CLE for lawyers is essential and most obvious. This includes accommodation of physical, visual, and hearing impairments. Any CLE provider must have available a standard process by which lawyers may, if they choose, identify their disability and accompanying needs in order to pursue CLE. Lawyers must not be made to bear the burden of self-identification on their own. Nor must they be made to accommodate their needs by themselves alone."
8. "CLE programmes must include up-to-date material on treatment of lawyers in the local legal community who have disabilities, including latest steps taken by the community to facilitate the practice of law by those lawyers, with regard to specific barriers faced by individuals with various disabilities (i.e., new ramps, visual or hearing impairment aids/services available at courthouses, court libraries, land title offices, etc.)."
9. "Any inappropriate behaviour exhibited by any member of the bar, including judges, directed at lawyers or clients with disabilities, should be brought out during CLE sessions, if not to solve the problem, to make people aware of the problem."
10.  
    1. "CLE must include material on disability issues at large in order to sensitize the legal community to better serve its disabled clients."
    2. "Experts and lay people should be brought in as guest speakers in order to underscore hidden needs of such clients not apparent to the average non-disabled person. Jurists having had experience with disabled clients should also share their experiences and various solutions to disabled-related problems in their legal practice. Groups focused on disability awareness and accessibility rights should be invited to speak during CLE sessions. Law school professors, and even students, should be asked to present latest findings and research on the inclusive treatment of disabled clients."
11. "Courses providing guidance to the legal profession … could discuss concrete legal issues such as: "Charter [Criminal Procedure] Warnings and Mental Disability", "Hearing Procedures for Clients with Visual and Hearing Impairments - What is Counsel’s Responsibility?", and "Informed Consent and Cognitive Disability".
12. "Groups and institutions that provide wheelchair access to educational facilities could utilize a recognizable wheelchair symbol with a link to a web page."

Helpful insights from concerned educators and education administrators are captured throughout this publication, as well as being incorporated into previous Reach publications. The current section allows us to refer to some useful input that was not adequately covered above.

According to law society, Bar Admission and law school officials, a continuing problem for students who have disabilities is the concern that colleagues or potential employers might learn about the individual's disability if it is disclosed in order to obtain accommodation during legal education. Yet optimal accommodation cannot be given to someone who does not self-identify as a person needing accommodation. The individual needs assurance that confidentiality will be maintained. This can be done (as in Ontario) by keeping separate files for individuals on disability accommodations and on all other matters. This practice of keeping a person's data apart could potentially complicate efforts to provide accommodations later during CLE, but this potential drawback can be addressed somewhat by assuring appropriate accommodation is available for CLE programmes generally. After all, many disabilities will occur or evolve after a lawyer is called to the Bar, so that requisite accommodation needs will also newly arise or evolve.

From Lepofsky Recommendation # 2: "The Co-ordinator should maintain ongoing contact with his or her counterparts at other law schools, so each can learn from the experiences of others."

Lepofsky Recommendation # 27: "Law faculties should keep each other posted about initiatives in each of these areas, so that each can learn from the experience of others."

This final section concentrates on ways in which survey respondents thought that the original 1990 Lepofsky recommendations could be reinforced, updated or improved upon, taking into account developments over the past dozen years. While the 1990 "Lepofsky" recommendations remain almost entirely relevant, the Reach study in 2002-2003 has taken steps to cover gaps resulting from subsequent developments, as well as taking into account differences of opinion within the disability community. The final chapter of this volume therefore includes recommendations for adding to or updating the package of recommendations presented 13 years ago. Yet the degree to which 1990’s assessment of problems and likely remedies remain relevant today is remarkable - and sometimes unsettling.

The following statements concerning the Lepofsky article are quoted from several written responses to surveys distributed as part of the project that led to the present guidebook:

1. "Lepofsky suggested an independent audit, even as a student initiative, to review how law schools are managing in accommodating disabled students, what can be done well, what is being done well, and what issues must be considered for the future. Moreover, the process would be educational for students and the staff/administration alike."
2. "[Even… articles … a couple of years old… tend not to focus on the technologies now available and commonly being used in law schools. Lepofsky mentioned ensuring that web sites for classes, bursaries and the school in general are both clear and accessible for students. [Other problems with] …messages for students sent via email or otherwise posted about class cancellation and other important issues … are not broached… e.g. [at my law faculty, notice postings] are made via email and secondly on a high, small t.v. that would be quite inaccessible for the visually impaired. Yet these messages are necessary to know about classroom changes, class rescheduling and other events."
3. "[At our law school], course registration is done on the Internet, and essentially if you do not do it on the Internet, you will have a decreased chance of getting into courses that you want/need. A priority system, or a system that accommodates special needs, is particularly important here... Moreover, registration starts at 12 a.m. (midnight), so students with depression, fatigue or other similar afflictions may have difficulty staying up and enrolling in courses before they are filled by other students."
4. "An alternative procedure may have to be implemented for course registration. Course registration also starts with course selection, which is done by reading a "course schedule" for the upcoming year that is mailed to students during the summer. A Braille version should be sent to the visually impaired, and maybe a consultation process with administrative personnel should be set up for students who need it. A question is thus certainly warranted about how students are accommodated with respect to registration, accessing bursaries and grades, and general school information."
5. "Receiving course marks is now done on the Internet [at our law faculty]. Bursaries are also now often done, at least in part, over the Internet. So, it is necessary that access to the Internet be provided, and that this "access" be accessible to all students."
6. "The exam schedule often demands exams on the same day, or subsequent days. An altered exam schedule that provides for more rest time, or increased time if time-extensions are given for exams, should be considered for some students."
7. "Many classes that are offered are 3 hours in length. It’s my thinking that if a 3 hour exam often needs to be accommodated, then wouldn’t the same needs fit for 3 hour classes? Maybe some "core" courses should be offered both in three hour and two 1 ½ hour increments."
8. "It seems very important that education of rights and opportunities be presented and initiated by the school – and that this be done very early in the school process."
9. "All articles I have read indicate that many students are unwilling to come forward with requests for accommodations. Thus, the schools will have to be proactive."
10. "Asking what orientation, education and other services are provided for all students may help some schools realize they need to provide tours during orientation week with disabilities in mind (including "secret" disabilities that the school might not know about)."
11. "Education should also be given up front as to how certain issues are dealt with, where students would go to discuss certain issues; and it must be made very clear that confidentiality will be absolutely respected."
12. "Lepofsky Recommendation #2 seems out of date to refer to a Dean [as the administrator of equity matters]. It appears that Equity Officers or Equity Commissioners are appropriate for this task. [Schools] that do not have such a position should immediately develop one (or two)… I think this would be growing trend. The reality is an associate dean would be far less likely to partake in this than an assigned staff member. The Equity Officer/Commissioner/Advisor should be in communication with the general campus disability office to be kept up to date on services available – such as bursaries (re housing, transport, subsidies for disability parking, etc.)."
13. The utilization of language in the [1990 Lepofsky article seems to me to be out of date. Language is really important as it informs our perceptions about the world around us. I think the terms ‘disabled person’, ‘the disabled newcomer’, ‘disabled law student’, or ‘disabled student’ can function as a label (despite good intentions) - the disability becomes all encompassing as it ‘defines’ – the word becomes an adjective as it categorizes. Contrastingly, it should only be used as a noun – the disability becomes distinct from the person, which I think is important. The terms ‘persons with disabilities’, ‘student with a disability’, or ‘the newcomer with a disability’ function to undermine the tendency to define people as ‘disabled’. We are not disabled – we are quite able (without barriers)."
14. "Re {Lepofsky] recommendation 12, I would include in part (a) that orientation (the first two weeks, which are full of activities) should be made completely accessible; that the law school student societies should have a duty to ensure that their clubs are accessible. To help with this – there could also be an accessibility officer on the LSS to deal with these issues."
15. "I support the idea springing from recommendation 12 (c) that students with disabilities do not need to participate in the lottery to participate in the legal aid clinics; and the legal aid clinics should be fully accessible."
16. "The area covered by recommendation 12 could also include supporting the development of a student-run disability association to develop links with the community – school is not the only place when you go somewhere new that needs to be accessible – and to provide mentoring and support systems for fellow students."
17. "In line with Recommendation #13, permit parking (which is a reserve system) for disability parking should be made available upon request free of charge - with enforcement - as near as possible to the student’s housing, when it is university- owned housing (which includes off-campus buildings).
18. "Re recommendation #16 [compulsory accessibility for all education activities in any venue], the relevant policy and info should be posted online."
19. "Recommendation #9, providing a longer period to complete studies is not a viable solution replacing inflexibility and barriers, because the burden becomes placed on the student. Law school is a lot more expensive for a 6-year duration compared to 3 years. Also, going part-time the first year, taking summer courses to make up, and then going into full-time is another solution - if the first year is predicted to be the hardest because of adaptation. However, this will mean that the school has to provide summer courses or accept other courses from different faculties for summer credits." [Some law faculties, including that at Queen’s University, do so.]
20. "Re Recommendation #15 [re facilitation of job searches] … the Career Placement Officer or Career Services Director [is] appropriate for this task. The functions could include having information available in the career office about accessible law firms, compared to non-accessible firms. The Career Officer/Director should be aware of the difficulties of securing employment and should be in contact as soon as possible with a student with a disability who seeks assistance by exploring opportunities – especially important for articling."

The guidebook’s Editor will close with a few additional observations and drams of advice.

1. Under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001, public sector organizations such as universities and municipal governments are required to establish and make public an annual accessibility plan by September 30, 2003. A coalition of Ontario disability rights groups has urged all organizations that are required to develop such plans to hold open "Barrier Busters' Forums" to get input from the public on the barriers that should be addressed in these plans. Participants are thereby afforded an opportunity to review the progress (if any) being made by a university, law school, city or other institution regarding accessibility, and to contribute ideas on issues of physical, procedural, and policy-related accessibility. If official plans are lacking, or if citizen input is treated without respect in the final planning stages, the process can provide a factual basis for ensuring later examination through the media and/or in political fora.

   David Lepofsky, as the main spokesperson for Barrier Busters activities, has urged groups and individuals to conduct audits of disability-relevant barriers associated with policies, procedures, facilities and services of municipal governments and universities in their communities. As part of this provincial campaign, David Lepofsky has spoken at universities across Ontario (sometimes at law faculties) recommending that interested parties use the Barrier Busters' approach as a catalyst for promoting change. One direct result manifested in March, 2003 in Ottawa. A team of volunteers organized by the Human Rights Research and Education Centre (based at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law) conducted an audit of barriers (of all sorts) at the law faculty. The team was planning to produce reports for the law school administration and for the overall University, with a view to inspiring removal of barriers and assurance of better accommodation for students, personnel and visitors with disabilities.

   Of course educators and administrators should not need to be spurred by new legislation in order to conduct a "barrier audit" focused on a law faculty, Bar Admission programme or CLE site. As a step in fulfilling obligations to provide reasonable accommodation for various disabilities, it would seem appropriate for any legal education institution to conduct regular surveys to discover barriers (not just physical ones) pertaining to its policies, procedures and facilities.
    

2. A "good practice" example for educators has been provided on another front by the Barrier Busters campaign. Accommodative features of a Forum planned for Queen's University (where both university and municipal barriers would be addressed) illustrate how CLE programmes and academic conferences could be organized so as to accommodate presenters and participants who have disabilities: "The meeting location is physically accessible, sign language interpreters have been booked for the event and all desks will be set up with microphones. Discussion will also be typed and projected onto a screen as it unfolds, and all printed materials will be available in alternative formats."
    
3. Through studies conducted by Reach, we have seen and heard evidence that while most legal education entities are generally more aware of their duty to accommodate than was probably the case in 1990, some have made little discernible progress with respect to providing disability accommodation, or have moved forward in one area while backsliding in another. We commend those lawyers’ bodies and law schools that have recently undertaken self-examination concerning facets of disability accommodation, with a view to enhancing policies, procedures, programmes, facilities and/or services.

   We find the approach taken by the Law Society of BC to be very commendable, because it has assured continuing self-assessment, with concrete input by lawyers who have disabilities. Like the LSBC, other law societies and law faculties have committees concerned with equity, for which disability accommodation is one issue among several. The LSBC, however, for some duration has maintained mechanisms assuring that equality and participation issues pertaining to disabilities are considered on a fairly continuous basis, increasing the chance that improvements may be initiated and maintained.
    

4. Finally, we observe that during a number of interviews and focus groups that helped to shape this guidebook, respondents pointed to a previous Reach publication, Navigating Law School, as a valuable resource for inspiration and precedent. In a survey response, one legal educator wrote that Navigating Law School had been a source of many ideas on accommodation that were then addressed at her legal education institution. We therefore suggest that individuals concerned with good practices in providing education accommodations should look again at printed or online versions of Navigating Law School – and at related Reach publications.