Autism Employment in the legal profession: here's to the next five years!

I was flattered to be featured by The Law Society on neurodivergence and in particular my autistic perspective for Disability History Month in 2023. Since then, the Buckland Review of Autism Employment report was published, to which the Legal Neurodiversity Network contributed.

Reading the Buckland Review report reminded me of the “Legally Disabled?” report published in 2020 by the University of Cardiff Business School, as both confirm what autistic and disabled people respectively have known anecdotally, while also highlighting achievable tips for employers.

The United Nations neatly summarises autism as a lifelong neurological condition mainly characterised by its unique social interactions, non-standard ways of learning, keen interests in specific subjects, inclination to routines, challenges in typical communications and particular ways of processing sensory information. However, there is variation in how autism is expressed and I find it helpful that the Buckland report notes for example that not all autistic people have communication difficulties and indeed will be able to communicate well with others.

One paragraph I think others on the spectrum will find all too familiar: “Autistic people have far more negative experiences of interviews, group tasks and psychometric tests. Autistic jobseekers must navigate vague, generic job descriptions, ambiguous interview questions and challenging sensory environments, often with an emphasis on social skills rather than job skills. Many feel they must mask their autistic traits to succeed."

What can we do to fix this experience from the employment perspective? This is a wide-ranging question for a short article. I will therefore focus on The Financial Times’ recent piece about employers which found managers had raised concerns about employees’ performance, only for the employees to then disclose neurodivergent conditions which would have been helpful to know about sooner. This concern that such employees may be lying is legitimate and could be alleviated by neurodivergent employees disclosing conditions earlier so that we are able to do our best work. Likewise it should be understood by employers that neurodivergent employees may be struggling to obtain a diagnosis due to family not cooperating with providing much-needed evidence, long wait lists (spanning multiple years) when using the NHS and lack of financial means to go private.

Thus, if potential employers ask whether an applicant is neurodivergent and what adjustments they might need, it might help to include the option to disclose that they are pursuing a diagnosis. This and a welcoming environment helps more readily establish what recruitment practices suit the candidate best, as well as how to help them thrive in the workplace.

Employers in the legal profession have plenty of resources like The Law Society’s reasonable adjustments guidance and easy wins for disability inclusion documents, with more on the way from other legal networks (watch this space!) as this much-needed area of inclusion develops. Autistic employees now have the Buckland report to add to our arsenal of information to educate employers on how we can thrive in the workplace. For those on the job hunt, there’s also my recent Law Society Gazette “Tips on finding inclusive employers” article.

Five years ago this level of knowledge sharing in the legal profession was unheard of, so here’s to the next five years as we continue to progress neurodivergent inclusion!

This piece was written by Martin Whitehorn for the Legal Neurodiversity Network in honour of Autism Acceptance Day 2024.