Archive for October, 2004
International Deaf Lawyers
Posted by Alison in Deaf Lawyers on October 31, 2004
In the summer of 2003, some international Deaf Lawyers had the pleasure of meeting up, at the World Federation of the Deaf conference in Montreal, Canada.

Brett Casey (Australia), Faye Kuo (USA), Alison Bryan (UK), Anne Vikkels? (Denmark), Henry Vlug (Canada), Helga Stevens (Belguim), Dr Adam Kosa (Hungary), Professor Marshall Wick (USA), Jennifer Jackson (Canada), Howard Rosenblum (USA).

Back: Brett Casey (Australia), Professor Marshall Wick (USA), Henry Vlug (Canada), Alison Bryan (UK),
Front: Dr Adam Kosa (Hungary), Richard Sahlin (Sweden), Anne Vikkels? (Denmark), Helga Stevens (Belguim), Faye Kuo (USA), Howard Rosenblum (USA).
Law Office of Matthew Rafat
Posted by Alison in Deaf Lawyers on October 26, 2004

One of our colleagues on Surduslaw has launched his own website: Law Office of Matthew Rafat.
Congratulations: it is great to see such an initiative.
If you live in the Bay area / Silicon Valley (California), and you are in need of Employment Law advice, you should consider contacting him as your attorney.
UPS and deaf employees
Posted by Alison in Employment on October 22, 2004
Judge orders UPS not to discriminate against deaf drivers
An Associated Press article was prominent in some USA media outlets as follows:
UPS violates anti-discrimination laws by barring the deaf and hearing impaired from driving parcel delivery trucks, a federal judge ruled Thursday. US District Judge Thelton Henderson said the Atlanta-based company’s practices breach the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and ordered the service to change its policies within 30 days.
Read the rest of this entry »
Are you a hearing solicitor, barrister, law student?
Posted by Alison in Deaf Law Centre on October 16, 2004
Whilst in today’s See Hear programme, there was an item about Deaf people trying to access the legal profession, are you a lawyer, and wondered how you could get involved?
If you did watch the programme today or indeed you are just reading this blawg, and are you a solicitor, barrister or law student who is interested in Deaf people’s access to the legal system? Are you interested in the term ‘Deaf Law’, and proposals to develop this?
We would like to set up a UK network, of solicitors, barristers and law students. Here, we are not identifying Deaf professionals per se, but any professional in this field who has an interest in deafness.
If this is you, please contact us, as we would like to set up an egroup in the first instance, to take this idea forward.
Deaf Law Centre
Posted by Alison in Deaf Law Centre on October 15, 2004
For over 10 years, I have wanted to set up a Deaf Law Centre, with the aim of Deaf clients being able to receive advice in their first language: BSL. This is something that I’ve floated around in various circles, and even wrote my dissertation on the very subject for my LL.B. For years I have received mixed messages of yes, lets go for it, to pushing Deaf people down in the fact that it will never happen. This issue has raised its ugly head and amounted to bullying and harrassment.
This issue seems to be pushing towards the agenda with the formation of the Blind and Deaf Legal Access Group, plus there are other things happening within the field.
Currently I am seriously worried, if not angry how this whole thing is being pushed forward. There is complete little regard to understanding the ethos behind legal services and merging this seamlessly with the unique make up of the Deaf community.
Any such initiative, has to be completely independent of deaf organisations. For such a law centre to be tied in any way to a deaf organisation, either financially or by other means, goes against many of the ethos of law and secondly fails to understand the Deaf community.
For example, many Deaf people work for deaf organisations, attend Deaf Clubs which are owned by deaf organisations. Should a Deaf Law Centre be affiliated to an organisation, even financially, it will exclude many Deaf people from being able to access advice, where no conflict of interest is present. Those people working closely with deaf organisations, where ties are made, I seriously question if impartiality can be maintained, yet alone trust, whereby a Deaf person wants to challenge the status quo.
Deaf history, and indeed the current set up is very much geared towards paternalism of Deaf people. Deaf organisations are one of the major catalysts of controlling Deaf people, and indeed has maintained structures to (in)directly ensured that this has continued.
Any set up a Deaf Law Centre, needs to do so independently, and the Law Centres Federation needs to work within this remit. I worry, in the sense that the Law Centres Federation will fail to appreciate how the Deaf community works, its make up, and thus not pick up on some of the issues involved. Deaf organisations won’t do it, on the basis that they are in it for financial gain, and with 225 organisations in the UK very often such initiatives are not there for the best interests of Deaf people, but an attempt to gain yet another illusionary feather in their hat. Lawyers may seek out deaf organisations, as they do not have the necessary expertise within deafness, and thus not able to step outside the box.
The issue is one that has been played around with for so long, and for the past 10 years, there has been no Deaf leadership in this respect. Leaders and speakers are all hearing. Noone challenges this. Whilst Deaf people want to work with hearing professionals, advice has to be adhered. At the end of the day, hearing professionals do not live and work in the deaf community, thus may not pick up on some of the nuances.
The Deaf Law Centre is an initiative that should be taken forward, but it has to involve Deaf people alongside lawyers, and it has to be independent. This cannot be stressed enough.
See Hear: Deaf Lawyers UK
Posted by Alison in Deaf Lawyers on October 15, 2004

Link: BBC See Hear, This Week
My year of applications
Posted by Rob in Own Experience on October 14, 2004
The training contract deadline period for application has now passed for another year. It appears that I have been unsuccessful again this year in securing a training contract, which means that if I am successful next year, I am looking at a 2007 start.
I thought it would be useful to give an overview of this year’s applications and rejections and non responses. So here goes, “a year in the life of a rejected candidate”.
Read the rest of this entry »
Fame
Posted by Rob in Own Experience on October 14, 2004
Deaf Lawyers UK will get eight minutes of fame on Saturday 16 October 2004’s issue of See Hear, 12.30pm, BBC2. Tune in to see Rob, John, Shobha and Marije in the flesh!
Repeated on Tues 19th October, 12.50am on BBC ONE
We’ve got a legal theme on this week’s programme. We’re finding out about Deaf Lawyers UK, getting to the heart of the new Disability Discrimination Act regulations, and visiting the Tower of London to see a one off performance that Deafinitely Theatre have been developing – and Jeff McWhinney interviews acclaimed academic Jonathan R?e in Hardsign.
Deaf Lawyers UK is a new group set up for Deaf and Hard of Hearing lawyers in the UK, to offer support and advice to those who find their deafness a barrier to entering the legal profession. We chat to John, Shobha and Rob to find out more, and we then follow up with an interview with the RNID’s Marije Davidson about the new DDA regulations coming into effect ? has that much actually changed?
Deafinitely Theatre have been running a small community project in partnership with Historic Royal Palaces, running drama workshops for deaf people with a one off performance at the Tower of London. See Hear was there to interview Deafinitely Theatre’s Steven Webb and Cathy Woolley, Community Relations Officer at Historic Royal Palaces.
Jonathan R?e is a respected writer and scholar with controversial views on the Deaf community. He goes up against Jeff McWhinney in what promises to be a very interesting interview.
After all that, we’ve got more comedy sketches, a brand new Challenge for Clare, and Professor Memnos!
That’s this week’s edition of See Hear, transmitting this Saturday, 12 midday. Don’t miss out!
Judge Recruitment
The Guardian published a special report today about the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Falconer, and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, attempts to recruit more women, ethnic minoritiy and solicitor judges to make the judiciary more representative of the general population, because, the article says, the judiciary is overwhelmingly white, middle-aged and male. The article can be read here.
This is all very well, but there has been an extremely significant omission in this “drive”. It doesn’t include disabled and Deaf people. What does this indicate? Do Lord Falconer and Lord Woolf not think that disabled/Deaf people are up to the job? Are we that easy to ignore or forget about?
Attitudes like this only serve to remind us that disabled and Deaf lawyers have a long way to go before we are recognised as equals by the law profession. Perhaps this is the attitude that makes it difficult for Deaf people to make inroads in the profession, both on an academic and professional level.
California Bar Journal
Posted by Rob in International on October 12, 2004
Our colleague from across the pond,
Matthew Medhi Rafat, has had a letter published in the California Bar Journal, highlighting the fact that disabled attorneys are excluded from the profession on the basis that they are not “economically viable” for many firms. Letters to the Editor can be read here. The letter was sent to the Editor in response to a letter written by William F. Crowell, which can be viewed here, who suggests that all disabled people want to claim benefits and simultaneously claim that they are able to work. Matthew’s was one of two attorneys to reply (the other was by Christine M. Dabrowski. This was Matthew’s letter.
If William Crowell?s beliefs are a common misconception, it shows the compelling need for State Bar involvement on behalf of disabled attorneys. The typical attorney who practices law takes the most common tasks for granted ? being able to talk to clients over the phone, research cases, walk to the library or court, and hear the judge and opposing counsel while there. Because most law firms are set up so that time must be spent as efficiently as possible, disabled attorneys are often at a tremendous disadvantage their first few years in practice. New equipment may need to be set up, a CRC 989.3 form may need to be approved, and so on; law firms don?t want to deal with this extra work.
Moreover, the billable-hour and efficiency dynamic causes most non-top-10 percent disabled attorneys who graduate from school to enter solo practice or part-time work to learn the law because many firms refuse to hire disabled attorneys, knowing of the additional ?start-up costs.? Indeed, even small law firms expect lawyers to hit the ground running, meaning that a new attorney may need to learn the law on his/her own. This problem may be true for all lawyers, but it hits disabled lawyers hard, forcing many of them into solo practice from Day 1, rather than after a few years of experience (and client interaction).
If we intend the American legal profession to be something other than a gift from affluent or well-connected parents to their children, we need to explore ways to educate all new attorneys effectively, including free MCLE, effective mentoring programs, an ethics opinion mandating communication by e-mail rather than phone if one attorney is hearing-impaired, and law schools that teach the practice of law.
Matthew Mehdi Rafat
Campbell
Matthew has hit it right on the nail. What is happening in the USA applies equally in the UK. The UK law profession has not yet seen the value of recruiting disabled lawyers in their ranks.
Perhaps Deaf Lawyers UK should start a national campaign? Other bodies such as the Group for Solicitors for Disabilities don’t seem to be doing much.