Breaking - Widener University Delaware Law School...Breaking Down Barriers : The Benefits of a More Inclusive Legal Profession Agenda Friday, April 8, 2016 8:15 am Registration Check-In

Friday, April 8, 20168:45 am–4:30 pm

Breaking DownBarrierspresented by Widener Law Review, Widener University Delaware Law School, in associationwith the Delaware State Bar Association Committee on Legal Professionals with Disabilities

The Benefits of a More Inclusive LegalProfession

Breaking Down Barriers: The Benefits of a More Inclusive Legal Profession

Agenda Friday, April 8, 2016

8:15 am Registration Check-In & Continental Breakfast 8:45 – 9:00 am Welcome & Introduction

Rebecca Wilcox, Widener Law Review, Editor-in-Chief; Certified Legal Intern, Environmental Law Clinic; J.D. Candidate 2016 Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School

The Honorable Jack A. Markell, Governor of Delaware Santino Ceccotti, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, Appellate Unit

9:00 – 10:00 am Session I: Introduction to the Framework of Disability Law

Daniel G. Atkins, Esquire, Executive Director, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., Wilmington, DE

Robert L. Hayman, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School

10:00 – 10:15 am Break 10:15 – 11:45 am Session II: Making the Bar More Inclusive: How the Bar can become more

inclusive and increase professional opportunities for lawyers with disabilities

Melissa R. Allman, Esquire, Staff Attorney, Fair Housing Clinic, The John Marshall Law School, Chicago, IL Daniel Goldstein, Esquire, Partner, Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD Won Shin, Esquire, Senior Manager, Ernst & Young, Philadelphia, PA

Neal Suggs, Esquire, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Business, Consumer and the Public Sector, Microsoft Corporation Melissa Felder Zappala, Esquire, Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C. Moderator: Ross A. Flockerzie, Office of the Public Defender

11:45 am – 12:20 pm Lunch – Barristers’ Club

12:30 – 1:30 pm Session III: Distinguished Speaker

Andrew J. Imparato, Esquire, Executive Director, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Silver Spring, MD

1:30 – 1:45 pm Break 1:45 – 2:45 pm Session IV: The DSBA Survey of Lawyers with Disabilities: Why diversity in

the legal profession matters

James G. McGiffin, Jr., Esquire, Senior Staff Attorney, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., Dover, DE; past Delaware State Bar Association President Steven W. Peuquet, Ph.D., Director, University of Delaware’s Center for Community Research and Service; Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Newark, DE

2:45 – 3:00 pm Break 3:00 – 4:30 pm Session V: The Special Role of Technology: The effects of technology on

various aspects of the judicial system, and how technological advances facilitate lawyers with disabilities in the practice of law

Daniel Goldstein, Esquire, Partner, Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD Fredric I. Lederer, Chancellor Professor of Law and Director, CLCT, William & Mary Law School, Williamsburg, VA Melissa Felder Zappala, Esquire, Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C. Moderator: Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire, Partner, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Executive Committee, Richard K. Herrmann Technology Inn of Court

******************************

WIRELESS ACCESS INFORMATION AS A “WIDENER GUEST”

WIDENER UNIVERSITY DELAWARE LAW SCHOOL RUBY R. VALE MOOT COURTROOM

FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 2016

Username: barriers Password: cle2016

******************************

Approved for a total of 6 CLE credits (no ethics) in Delaware and Pennsylvania.

BIOGRAPHIES

Melissa R. Allman

Melissa R. Allman joined John Marshall Law School in January 2016 as a Staff Attorney in its Fair Housing Legal Clinic. She is a native of Ohio and a graduate of Georgetown University, where she received a B.S. in Russian Literature. She also received a Masters degree in Russian literature from The Ohio State University. She received her J.D. from Temple University’s James E. Beasley School of Law in 2005. Following law school, Allman worked at Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) in Wilmington, Delaware for ten years. She represented and litigated on behalf of primarily

low-income clients in civil matters including appeals of Social Security application denials, landlord-tenant matters such as evictions and Section 8 voucher terminations, and Fair Housing matters. For the past six years before joining John Marshall, Ms. Allman served as the Fair Housing staff attorney at CLASI, supervising the development of Fair Housing cases, conducting education and outreach, and collaborating with the Center for Community Research and Study at the University of Delaware on research projects which led to systemic Fair Housing actions. Allman served on a Fair Housing Task Force that collaborated with member agencies to address impediments to Fair Housing and support legislation for the expansion of Fair Housing protections. In October of 2011, Allman received a Community Service Award presented by Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Coalition. She was a member of the Delaware State Bar Association Committee for Legal Professionals with Disabilities and assisted in the development of an upcoming symposium focused on best practices in the recruitment and hiring of lawyers with disabilities.

Daniel G. Atkins

Dan is the Executive Director of Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (“CLASI”), Delaware’s largest and oldest civil legal services provider. Dan has been at CLASI since his graduation from law school in 1990. Dan began his career as a Staff Attorney with responsibilities in both the poverty and disabilities programs, became a Senior Attorney in 1995, and Legal Advocacy Director of CLASI’s Disabilities Law Program (“DLP”) in 1997. As Legal Advocacy Director, Dan trained and supervised attorneys, and coordinated and oversaw the advocacy efforts of the DLP

statewide. Dan has litigated individual cases and/or class actions in every court in the State of Delaware, including the U.S. District Court. Dan has litigated numerous cases enforcing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Social Security Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Medicaid Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Unites States Housing Act, and various provisions of the United States Constitution. Since 1998, Dan has served as an Adjunct Professor at Widener University Delaware Law School, where he teaches classes in Disabilities Law, Poverty Law, and Medical-Legal Collaboration, and founded a Medical-Legal Partnership (“MLP”) program to provide students and lawyers with the opportunity to work with people who are poor in Chester and Philadelphia, Pa. Dan has co-authored numerous articles in law reviews, public health journals, newspapers, and a chapter of a textbook, on topics related to poverty law, disability law, and MLP. In 2015, Dan was honored by ACLU Delaware with the Gerald E. Kandler award for outstanding leadership in the cause of civil liberties. In 2016, he will receive the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnerships Distinguished Advocate award for his contribution to the research, policies, scaling or education that support the advancement of the Medical-Legal Partnership movement nationally. Dan graduated in 1987 from the University of Michigan, with distinction, and in 1990 from the George Washington University Law School.

Santino Ceccotti

Santino Ceccotti, Esquire, joined the Office of the Public Defender in 2007 as an attorney in its Appeals Unit. During his time at the Public Defender’s Office, he has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court of Delaware and has achieved many positive outcomes for his clients. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware where he received a B.S. in Business Administration, with a concentration in Finance. He received his J.D. from Widener University Delaware Law School in 2007. While in law

school, he clerked for the Honorable Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr. of the Delaware Court of Chancery. In 2012, the Delaware State Bar Association (DSBA) presented Mr. Ceccotti with its Profile in Courage Award. Currently, he serves as Chair of the DSBA Committee for Legal Professionals with Disabilities and on the Board of the ACLU of Delaware.

Ross A. Flockerzie

Ross Flockerzie, Esquire graduated from La Salle University in Philadelphia, PA with a major in Political Science and a minor in Business Administration and went on to earn his law degree from Widener University Delaware Law School. Ross works at the Office of Defense Services – Public Defender’s Office as an Assistant Public Defender in the Felony Trial Unit. Ross coached a team from Delaware Law School in the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County Mock Trial Competition in Pittsburgh, PA and serves as an

instructor at the Intensive Trial Advocacy Program at Delaware Law School.

1

Daniel Goldstein

Daniel Goldstein, an attorney with the Baltimore, Maryland law firm of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, established his private practice in 1982 and became involved in the field of disability rights law a few years later at the behest of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). Sixteen years ago, the NFB asked him to assist in devising and executing a strategy of education, negotiation, and litigation to make mainstream technology accessible to the blind. Pursuant to that strategy, Dan has sought to increase the

accessibility of the internet with suits against America Online, Target, H&R Block and Scribd; to make consumer kiosks, such as ATMs, accessible through suits against Diebold, Inc., Cardtronics, Inc., and a number of banks; and to make voting accessible through suits against states and counties. He has reached agreements with Apple to make iTunes U accessible and with eBay, Ticketmaster, and Amazon to make the web sites accessible and with the Seattle Public School System, Atlantic Cape Community College, Florida State and Penn State universities to make its digital curricular material and instructional technology accessible. In February 2009, Dan helped form the Reading Rights Coalition, bringing together 30+ organizations representing persons with print disabilities. The goal of the RRC was to make mainstream digital book devices, applications, and content accessible. To that end, the RRC reached a joint position statement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers in March 2010 that whenever a book is available in a format other than print, it should be accessible to persons with print disabilities. As part of that work, Dan also represented the NFB in a suit against Arizona State University over its Kindle pilot program and filed complaints on behalf of those two organizations with the Department of Justice against five other schools with similar programs.

2

When the Authors Guild sued the HathiTrust, alleging that mass digitization of library collections constituted copyright infringement, the NFB and certain blind scholars intervened as defendants and were successful in getting the court to rule that the making and distributing of copyrighted content for use by persons with print disabilities is a fair use. Dan believes this is the most significant victory of his career. In 2011, Dan and Marc Maurer, then President of the National Federation of the Blind, were awarded the Paul Hearne Award for Disability Rights Advocacy by the American Bar Association. Brown, Goldstein & Levy realizes that people with disabilities, including attorneys, continue to face many barriers to employment. So, in 2009, the firm created the Brown, Goldstein & Levy Disability Rights Fellowship, a Fellowship for a law school graduate with a disability and up to three years of legal experience. This Fellowship provides mentoring to a new generation of lawyers with disabilities as they enter the workplace.

Robert L. Hayman, Jr. Robert L. Hayman, Jr., is an Emeritus Professor at Delaware Law School. Professor Hayman received a B.A. from Davidson College in 1978, a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1981, and an LL.M. from Temple University School of Law in 1990. Following graduation from law school, Professor Hayman served as Staff Attorney, Legal Aid of Western Missouri, Kansas City, from 1981-82 and Assistant Director and Clinical Instructor in the DC Street Law Project from 1982-85. He was also a Lecturer at the University of Missouri, Kansas City from 1987-90. Professor Hayman is admitted to practice in Missouri.

Professor Hayman joined the faculty at Delaware Law School in 1990. He was the H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law for 2003-2005. He received the Student Bar Association “Outstanding Faculty Award” from the Graduating Classes of 1994 and 2003, and an “Outstanding Faculty Award” from the Student Bar Association in 2009. He was a recipient of the Alumni Association’s “Professor of the Year” Award in 1999 and 2004. Professor Hayman has taught Constitutional Law and Equal Protection Law, and seminars in: Disability Law (with Dan Atkins, Esq.); Jurisprudence; Poverty Law (with Dan Atkins, Esq.); Race, Gender and Sports; and Selected Topics in Constitutional Law (with the Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.). He has published casebooks on Jurisprudence, and on “Sports and Inequality” (with Professor Michael Cozzillio), and a text on desegregation (“Choosing Equality: Essays and Narratives on the Desegregation Experience”) with Professor Leland Ware of the University of Delaware. His book “The Smart Culture” received a National TASH “Image Award” in 2002 for its “positive portrayals of people with disabilities.” He is currently working on a third edition of a Jurisprudence casebook, with Professors Nancy Levit, Richard Delgado, Stanley Fish, and Alice Eakin.

1

Richard K. Herrmann

Richard K. Herrmann is currently Co-Chair of the Delaware Supreme Court Commission on Law and Technology and Director of the Center of Law Practice Technology at Delaware Law School. His first litigation involving defective software was in the Delaware Superior Court in 1980. Since that time he has litigated, arbitrated and counselled clients, law firms, courts and the Delaware Bar Association on contracts and implementation of various forms of technology at many levels, including corporate counsel law firm management, litigation management, software development, and web development. He has litigated technology issues relating to internet jurisdiction, internet libel, software copyright, termination clauses and electronic discovery.

In 1983 Richard began to lecture nationally for IBM relating to law firm technology. He has been involved in the negotiation and implementation of IBM computer systems. In 1989, as a member of the Superior Court Complex Litigation Task Force he developed the concept of electronic filing and electronic briefs. He has assisted in the negotiation of contracts for the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Superior Court relating to electronic filing and the automation of the Arms of Court. In 1995 he developed the Virtual Docket operated by Parcels, extending electronic access to Delaware Court filings in the Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court, ultimately paving the way for Lexis File and Serve in those Courts. He also designed the Superior Court’s eCourtroom, once housed at One Rodney Square, and negotiated the contract for that courtroom’s technology. Richard began teaching technology related courses at Delaware Law School in 1993 and later at William and Mary Law School and the National Judicial College. He has assisted in the development of technology related rules for the Delaware Supreme and Superior courts and was retained in 1998 by the Maryland Court of Appeals to assist in the drafting of its Model Rule on

2

Computer Generated Evidence and acted as the Court’s Academic in Residence in that regard. In 1999, he was appointed to the American Arbitration Association’s Millennium Task Force, assisting in drafting rules relating to aspects of technology arbitration. In addition to his continued consultation on contractual issues relating to technology, since 2000, Richard has been involved in reviewing contracts and vetting vendors in regards to electronic discovery. He continues to teach electronic discovery and other aspects of technology to the Bench and Bar, American Inns of Court, the National Judicial College and Delaware Law School. He has chaired the Delaware State Bar Association’s Law and Technology Section and co-chaired the Federal District Court’s technology committee. He has been on the drafting committee for the Delaware District Court’s eDiscovery Default Standards, the Superior Court’s eDiscovery Rules and the Supreme Court’s Permanent Rules Committee. He is the co-author of the book The Millennium Lawyer 2001 and continues to publish technology related articles for the Delaware State Bar Association, the American Inns of Court and the Federal Bar Association. Richard is on the Executive Committee of the Richard K. Herrmann Technology Inn of Court.

Andrew J. Imparato

Andrew Imparato has served as executive director of the Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD) since 2013. As a disability rights lawyer and policy professional with more than two decades of experience in government and advocacy roles, Imparato has worked with bipartisan policymakers to advance disability policy at the national level in the areas of civil rights, workforce development, and disability benefits. Prior to coming to AUCD, he was senior counsel and disability policy director for Senator Tom Harkin on the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Before that, he spent 11 years as President and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities, a national membership organization working to grow the political and economic power of the disability community. Imparato’s

perspective is informed by his personal experience with bipolar disorder.

Since joining AUCD, a national network of over 100 university-based programs that conduct research, training and advocacy to improve the quality of life of children and adults with disabilities, Imparato has helped the organization broaden the scope of its advocacy and expand its leadership capacity. In recent years, AUCD has connected in a deeper way with the broader civil rights community and with private sector partners like the Council on Foundations and the US Business Leadership Network, helping the network share its expertise with a broader group of stakeholders.

Imparato’s work has been recognized by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Transportation, the US Junior Chamber of Commerce, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Association of the Deaf, and the Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation. He has testified nine times before Committees of the US Senate and House of Representatives and has been interviewed on a wide range of disability issues by national television, radio and print media. He cultivates grassroots activism on social media and is known for seeking out and mentoring emerging leaders with disabilities. He co-authored articles that have been published in the Stanford Law and Policy Review and the Milbank Quarterly, and wrote a chapter on the Supreme Court’s disability rulings in The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right (Hill & Wang 2003). He has been an adviser on accessibility, recruiting and corporate social responsibility to Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, Walmart, Anthem, and other leading businesses. Imparato graduated summa cum laude from Yale College and with distinction from Stanford Law School. He lives in Baltimore with his wife, historian Elizabeth Nix, Ph.D., and their 17 year-old son Nicholas. Their older son Gareth works and lives in Los Angeles.

1

Frederic I. Lederer

Fredric Lederer, Chancellor Professor of Law, joined the faculty of William & Mary Law School in 1980. He clerked for Judge Frederick P. Bryan, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, held various legal positions with the U.S. Army including four years on the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School and Army Member, Joint Service Committee on Military Justice Working Group. He was a Fulbright-Hays Scholar at the Max Planck Institut fur auslandisches und internationales

Strafrecht, Freiburg, Germany. His degrees consist of LL.M., University of Virginia School of Law; NDG, University of Exeter; J.D., Columbia University School of Law; B.S., Polytechnic University. He is the founder and director of The Center for Legal and Court Technology (formerly the Courtroom 21 Project) which includes in William & Mary's McGlothlin Moot Courtroom the world's most technologically advanced courtroom. Additional professional activities and achievements include servicing on the Virginia Bar Committee on Technology and Practice of Law (2007-present); Public Member, 1996-99, "The Code Committee;" appointed in 1996 by the Secretary of Defense as one of two public members to join the Judge Advocates General and the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on this Congressionally created military law committee; co-chair, Code Committee Subcommittee on Technology. He is a member of the ABA Section of Criminal Justice, Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence, 1980-82 (Reporter, Article V - Federal Rules of Evidence, Subcommittee); 1983-2011. Mr. Lederer is primary co-author, Executive Order No. 12198, March 12, 1980, promulgating the Military Rules of Evidence. See 8 M.J. LXVII (1980). Principal author of Military Rules of Evidence 301-316, codifying the law of

2

confessions and admissions and search and seizure. Author of the Analysis of the 1980 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, MCM, 1969 (Rev. ed.) A18, reprinted in 8 M.J. LXVII. His areas of specialization include Computers and the Law; Constitutional Law--4th, 5th, 6th Amendments; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure Law; Evidence; Law Related Education; Law and Technology; Legal Research; Legal Skills; Legal Writing; Military Law; Practice of Law; Professional Responsibility; Trial Practice. Teaching interests include Evidence and Applied Evidence; Technology-Augmented Trial Advocacy; Criminal Procedure; Electronic Discovery and Data Seizures; Military Law; Legal Skills.

1

The Honorable Jack A. Markell

Jack Markell has served as Governor of Delaware since 2009, after being elected in 2008 (67% of the vote) and re-elected in 2012 (69%). He is term-limited and will complete his time as Governor in January 2017. During his tenure, according to Gallup, Delaware has gone “from one of the lowest-ranking states (in terms of job creation) in 2008 and 2009 to one of the top-ranking in 2013 and 2014. Delaware holds the distinction of being the only state anywhere along the Eastern seaboard to be in the top 10.” This improvement reflects Governor Markell’s keen focus on improving an economy that was

buffeted by the Great Recession. When he took office, he inherited rapidly rising unemployment and the loss of major employers. Since then, companies including JP Morgan Chase, Capital One, Baltimore Aircoil, Sallie Mae, Calpine and many others have re-located to or expanded significantly their operations in Delaware. These and other employers have been attracted by Markell’s keen focus on improving Delaware’s schools and workforce development system. In 2010, Delaware won first place in President Obama’s “Race to the Top” competition. Since that time, Delaware has adopted higher learning standards, raised the bar for its teacher preparation programs , leveraged one of the nation’s best educational data systems in better identification of student needs, invested in early childhood education, created a statewide world language immersion program, built the nation’s best college access program for low-income youth and created a new “Pathways to Prosperity” plan in most of the state’s high schools, enabling juniors and seniors to earn industry-recognized credentials in fields ranging from manufacturing to computer science to hospitality. The results are impressive: thousands more low-income students enrolled in the best early childhood centers, record-high graduation rates, more than doubling the number of students taking college-level courses in high school and

2

increasing in the number of students taking and passing Advanced Placement tests. Markell has focused on running state government efficiently and effectively, having reduced headcount by 4.5% since taking office without layoffs and by keeping average annual budget growth below zero when taking into account inflation and population. He has maintained the state’s AAA bond rating while reforming Delaware’s health and pension systems to make them more sustainable over time. Under his leadership, Delaware has taken major steps to ease regulatory burdens on businesses, and to increase investment in repairing and improving the state’s roads and bridges while making transportation spending more effective and efficient. Markell has also led an effort, with the support of hospitals, health care professionals, institutions of higher education and other stakeholders to move Delaware’s health care system from a fee for service model to one focused on achieving high-quality and lower-cost. Markell has promoted quality of life initiatives that include major investments in libraries and bicycle and walking paths. Delaware has moved from 31st to 3rd in the annual rankings of bicycle-friendly states by the League of American Bicyclists. Thanks to his statewide recycling initiative, Delaware has nearly doubled its recycling rate since 2006. The state also reduced dirty air emissions faster than any other state, serving as a national model for improving the environmental through efforts that also boost the economy. A leader on criminal justice reform, Markell, who was invited to testify before Congress about Delaware’s progress, has led efforts to make better use of state corrections resources and increase the likelihood that ex-offenders will contribute to society rather than reoffend. The Justice Reinvestment Act he championed helps help ensure those who who enter Delaware's criminal justice system are treated in the most effective way, and Markell launched I-ADAPT, a multi-agency re-entry program that includes employment support, health care and housing. Other initiatives have eliminated the loss of a driver's license for low-level offenders, established job training programs through the Department of Correction, and banned the box on state job applications so the more than two thousand ex-offenders who apply for state jobs have a better shot at employment.

3

Markell has been recognized by his fellow governors, having been elected to serve as Chair of both the Democratic Governors Association and the National Governors Association. In that latter role he chose as his Chair’s initiative A Better Bottom Line: Employing People with Disabilities. He has also served for three years as Chair of the National Board of Directors of Jobs for America’s Graduates, co-chair of the Common Core Standards Initiative and chair of the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League. Prior to being elected Governor, Markell was elected three times as Delaware’s State Treasurer, when he created the Delaware Financial Literacy Institute and its signature program, the Delaware Money School. He began his career in the private sector helping lead the wireless technology revolution as the 13th employee at Nextel (a name he coined), where he served as Senior Vice President for Corporate Development, responsible for hundreds of merger and acquisition transactions, equity financings (including the company’s IPO) and strategic planning. His other business experience includes a senior management position at Comcast Corporation, work as an associate at McKinsey and Company and as a banker at First Chicago Corporation. Markell was born and raised in Newark, Delaware and graduated from Newark High School with his wife, Carla. He went on to receive an undergraduate degree in economics and development studies from Brown University and an MBA from the University of Chicago. Markell is a Henry Crown Fellow and a Rodel Fellow at the Aspen Institute. He resides in Wilmington, Delaware with his wife. Their two children, Molly and Michael are in their 20’s. The family has a mixed-breed dog, Rue.

1

James G. McGiffin, Jr.

Jim McGiffin, a Senior Staff Attorney with Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI), has been with CLASI for 26 of his 30 years at the Bar. He has worked for CLASI in a variety of capacities, including his service to the agency as Executive Director from 1998 to 2005 and as Managing Attorney of the Kent County Office from 1987 to 1994. In 1994 Governor Carper appointed Jim a Commissioner of the Family Court, where he served a 4-year term, hearing civil and criminal cases in both Kent and Sussex Counties. He has been honored with the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council’s Outstanding Community Service Award (2014), the Delaware State Bar Association’s Community Service Award (2008), the New Lawyers Distinguished

Service Award (1994) and the Community Builder Award of the National Conference for Community and Justice (1993). He practices primarily in the areas of Family Law, Housing Law and Government Benefits for people in poverty. He also serves as counsel to the Delaware Senate Majority Caucus. Jim’s work in law is complemented by his interest in elected politics. He served on Dover’s City Council 2006 to 2011. He also volunteers for local, state and national candidates with whom he agrees. An accomplished musician, Jim is a multi-instrumentalist who enjoys performing with the local Irish traditional music band Celtic Harvest. Jim is the convener of an all-Delaware lawyer rock/blues/country band known as The Learned Hands, which performs for judges and charities. He performs in the bass section of the Dover Symphony Orchestra. He also volunteers as a music minister at Holy Cross Church, working with the Chamber and Contemporary Ensembles. Jim can be spotted in the orchestra pit during various community theater and school productions, and he has been implicated in the legendary musicals penned by the Honorable Robert B. Young, Judge of the Superior Court. Jim has also produced two recordings as fund raisers for CLASI, each

2

featuring several of Delaware’s talented lawyer-musicians: "The Court House Blues" and "The Court House Blues: Remanded." Jim lives in Dover with his wife of 30 years, Kathy Doyle, an award winning high school social studies teacher. They have two adult children who are relatively independent. He attended George Mason University, received his Bachelor of Arts Degree (in music) from the University of North Texas and his Juris Doctor from Boston College. He is Past President of the Delaware State Bar Association (2011 - 2012), and is active with NCALL Research, Inc. (President 2012 - present).

Steven W. Peuquet

Steven W. Peuquet, Ph.D., is Director of the University of Delaware’s Center for Community Research and Service and Associate Professor in the university’s School of Public Policy and Administration. He is a city planner and urban economist with expertise in the areas of poverty, housing, homelessness and community revitalization. In addition to leading his center’s efforts to develop new knowledge and approaches to reduce poverty and increase social and economic opportunity, he teaches graduate courses in research design and data analysis, economics, housing policy, and community analysis and development. He’s

worked in Western Europe and West Africa, and frequently leads study trips abroad focusing on urban planning and community development policies and practices. He holds master’s degrees from the University of Pittsburgh and University of Pennsylvania, and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania.

Won Shin

Won Shin, Esquire, is a tax senior manager in the Transaction Advisory Services group with Ernst & Young in Philadelphia. Won focuses on tax transaction structuring, tax due diligence in mergers and acquisitions, tax attribute analysis and transaction costs analysis. Won was a trial attorney and a former Assistant Deputy Mayor of the City of Philadelphia serving as the Executive Director of the Mayor’s Commission on People with Disabilities. Won earned his J.D. from the Southern Methodist University School of Law and an LL.M. in Taxation, with Distinction, from Georgetown University Law Center. In

addition, he holds a BBA in Finance from the University of Texas at Arlington. Won is an active member of the Pennsylvania Bar and the tax sections of the American, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations. Currently, Won serves Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors for the Inglis Foundation. Won was a member of the President’s Council of Magee Rehabilitation of Jefferson Health Systems and a board member of Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis & Education, Inc. Won served a full term on the Board of Directors for the Marple-Newtown School District where he served as Vice President and Chairman of Budget & Finance. Won and his wife, Dana, and their two children live in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.

1

Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla is Dean and Professor of Law at Widener University Delaware Law School. He was raised in the Chicago area, where his father was an air traffic controller. He attended a public high school, and was the first person in his extended family to attend college. He went to Yale as a football recruit (though he was injured as a sophomore and had to give up football), and graduated from Yale cum laude, majoring in American Studies. He then went to Duke Law School, where he graduated first in his class. After law school Smolla clerked for Judge Charles Clark of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and then began private practice in Chicago, with the firm of Mayer, Brown, and Platt. He then

moved into academic life, beginning his career as a law professor. His academic career has been evenly divided between service at public and private universities and colleges. Smolla has had a multi-faceted career, as a university president, a dean at two law schools, a director of academic centers, a professor, a civic leader, a prolific writer and public speaker, and a highly successful lawyer, specializing in constitutional law and appellate litigation. He was the 11th President of Furman University, in Greenville, South Carolina, the Dean of the Law School at Washington and Lee University Law School and at the University of Richmond Law School, Director of the Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the College of William and Mary, and Senior Fellow and Project Director of the Washington Annenberg Program of Northwestern University. In 2011, he was appointed by Governor Nikki Haley to serve as a Commissioner on the South Carolina Commission of Higher Education, which included within its mission the oversight of all of South Carolina’s public universities and colleges, and licensure and programmatic approval for all public and private educational programs within the state. Smolla has also served on the law faculties of DePaul University, the University of Illinois, and the University of Arkansas, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia, Indiana University, the University of Denver, Duke University School of Law, and the University of Georgia School of Law.

2

As an educator, Smolla has been an advocate for approaches to learning that emphasize engagement, experiential learning, service, and the bridging of theoretical inquiry and real-world experience. As a Law School Dean he argued that American law schools should seek a greater balance between instruction of legal theory and doctrine and the development of law students as professionals, including skills relating to counseling, advocacy, writing, negotiating, civic engagement, pro bono service, legal ethics, and professionalism. As a University President he emphasized community outreach, diversity, holistic approaches to admissions, the arts, athletics, engaged learning, public service, and the importance of intense university involvement in the surrounding community. Smolla is an accomplished teacher and author. He has won numerous teaching awards, including the Virginia State Council of Higher Education Distinguished Faculty Award. His writing interests are eclectic, including law review scholarship, law school casebooks, legal treatises, university press books, trade books published for general audiences, magazine and newspaper articles, on-line publications, and fiction, including short stories and plays. He has published over 65 law review articles and essays, including pieces in the Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Fordham Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Georgia Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Illinois Law Review, Texas Law Review, George Washington Law Review, Wake Forest Law Review, Law and Contemporary Problems, Washington and Lee Law Review, William and Mary Law Review, and Southern California Law Review, among many others. He is one of the nation’s leading legal scholars on issues of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and mass media. He is the recipient of numerous literary and academic prizes and honors, including the ABA Silver Gavel award. His latest book, The Constitution Goes to College, was published in 2011 by New York University Press, and deals with constitutional principles and ideas that have shaped American higher education. One of his trade books, Deliberate Intent (Crown Publishers 1999), was made into a television movie by the FX Cable Network, and the role of Rod Smolla was played by Timothy Hutton. The book and movie describe Smolla’s involvement in the notorious Hit Man case, in which he successfully represented the families of three murder victims in a suit against the publisher of a murder instruction manual used by a hit man for instructions in carrying out the murders.

3

Throughout his career, Smolla has been active in litigation matters involving constitutional law, civil rights, mass media, advertising, defamation, and privacy law. He has participated as counsel or co-counsel in litigation matters in state and federal courts throughout the nation, and is a frequent advocate, having presented oral argument in numerous state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. He has also served as an expert witness in litigation, and presented testimony in committees of the United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, state legislative bodies, and state and federal administrative agencies. Smolla is active in civic and community affairs, and in various legal, academic, and civic organizations, and he frequently speaks to community groups, church groups, youth groups, schools, and college organizations. He has served on many corporate and non-profit boards and held leadership roles in numerous scholarly and civic organizations. In the public sphere he has been an advocate for greater bipartisan cooperation in addressing major issues of public policy, and for greater civility in public discourse.

Neal Suggs As the Vice President and Associate General Counsel for the Business, Consumer and Public Sector team, Neal Suggs has served as Microsoft’s lead commercial attorney since September 2010. In that capacity, Neal leads the teams responsible for providing legal support for all sales segments, channels and services organizations across the Microsoft sales organization. Previously at Microsoft, Neal has also been the lead attorney for Xbox and Microsoft Business Solutions. Neal led the diversity efforts for Microsoft’s Corporate, External and Legal Affairs group from 2007-2012.

Prior to joining Microsoft, Neal practiced at various firms in the Seattle area and in London. Neal started his private practice career as a commercial litigator. He then transitioned to become a general business and corporate finance attorney supporting biotech and high-tech startup companies and angel and venture capital investors. Additionally, he supported U.S. equity market, municipal and aircraft finance and other transactions. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Michigan Law School.

Rebecca Wilcox

Rebecca Wilcox is the current Editor-in-Chief of Widener Law Review at Widener University Delaware Law School. She earned a Bachelor's degree from Wilmington University in Business Management, and will graduate from Delaware Law School in May 2016. During law school, she interned for the Honorable Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. She was a staff member of Widener Law Review during her second year of law school, and was subsequently elected to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the 2015-2016 school year. She also serves as a certified legal clerk for the Environmental and Natural Resources Law

Clinic, which represents not-for-profit organizations and individuals who seek to protect the environment and litigates cases involving violations of environmental laws. Upon graduation, she plans to remain in Delaware and practice in the area of civil litigation defense.

Melissa Felder Zappala

Melissa Felder Zappala specializes in complex commercial litigation. She has extensive experience in a variety of legal areas, including securities, antitrust, class actions, and business torts on both the trial and appellate levels. Examples of Ms. Felder Zappala’s matters include:

• Representing a private equity firm in a trial in federal court against a major financial institution alleging fraud;

• Representing opt-out plaintiffs in litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the TFT-LCD industry;

• Representing a corporation in a FINRA arbitration against a major financial institution alleging fraud in the sale of auction rate securities;

• Representing a corporation in a trial in federal court against its competitor alleging unfair competition;

• Representing a direct purchaser class alleging a price-fixing conspiracy related to polyurethane foam;

• Representing the putative class in a securities fraud class action regarding the improper elimination of “tracking stock;”

• Representing a telecommunications company in several matters related to securities fraud across domestic and international jurisdictions;

• Representing a major financial institution against putative class actions alleging fraud in the sale of securities;

• Representing a major credit card company against allegations that it violated the Sherman Act.

In recent pro bono work, Ms. Felder Zappala, along with the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, brought suit against the District of Columbia on behalf of a deaf individual alleging that videos posted on the District’s website either had no captions or had captions that were not intelligible. Deaf residents were unable to access important information about DC services and benefits. As a result of this litigation, which appears to be one of the first of its kind in the United States, the District of Columbia agreed to issue a Mayoral Order requiring that the District caption or provide transcripts for videos that it posts on its website and on third party websites such as YouTube and Vimeo.

COURSE MATERIALS

SESSION I

BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS:

THE BENEFITS OF A MORE INCLUSIVE LEGAL PROFESSION

SESSION I:INTRODUCTION TO THE FRAMEWORK OF DISABILITY LAW

Dan Atkins & Bob Hayman

I. A Brief History of DisabilityPrologue: Eugenics, Racial Hygiene, and T4

A. The Biological/Medical Model1. disability located in the corpus of the individual2. individuals need to be rehabilitated

B. A Social/Cultural Model1. disability located in the gap between individual ability and societal demands.2. at least in part, society needs to be reconstructed.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (1980):Impairment: an abnormality or loss of any physiological or anatomical structure or function.Disability: the consequences of an impairment.Handicap: the social disadvantage that results from an impairment or disability.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2001):Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and

participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; anactivity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action;while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvementin life situations.

An illustrative interlude: four people with disabilities.

II. The Social Model in Law.A. Overview of Anti-Discrimination Law.

1. Overview of Federal Civil Rights Laws.2. Overview of the ADA.

B. Disability Discrimination: The Failure/Refusal to Accommodate.

A Cautionary Note: Board of Trustees v. Garrett (2001).“States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations forthe disabled, so long as their actions towards such individuals are rational. They couldquite hard headedly–and perhaps hardheartedly–hold to job-qualification requirementswhich do not make allowance for the disabled. . . . [It] would be entirely rational (andtherefore constitutional) for a state employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring

employees who are able to use existing facilities.”

III. The Legal Framework: Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A. Who is Covered.1. Employers.

a. >15.b. Private, state and federal.c. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

2. People with Disabilities (PWD).a. Individual with a disability, record of, regarded as

i. >6 months.ii. School Board of Nassau County v. Arline (1987).

b. Physical, mental, or emotional impairment that substantially limits amajor life activity. i. Examples seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, thinking. ii. Bragdon v. Abbott (1998).iii. > 6 months.

c. ADA Amendments Act of 2008.i. Uncorrected.ii. Sutton v. United Air Lines (1999). iii. Not current illegal drug users.

d. Disparate Treatment/Impact.e. Failure to make a Reasonable Accommodation.

i. Undue Hardship.- Significant difficulty or expense.- Overall finances and size.

ii. Direct threat exception. Chevron USA v. Echazabal (2002). iii. Essential Functions of the Job.

B. Application Process.1. Don’t ask if need a Reasonable Accommodation.

a. Unless obvious.b. Unless applicant voluntarily reveals.c. You think they will clearly need it.

i. Do you need one? ii. What accommodation will you need?

d. No pre offer medical exam.i. Drug test ok.ii. No business necessity needed.

2. Examples of Accommodations.a. SLI.b. Different location.

Page 2 of 5

C. Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation.1. Interactive Process.

a. PWD?b. Documentation requests.c. RA needed?d. What RA needed?

2. No Magic Words.3. No time limit.4. Create Culture of Accommodation.

a. Policies and procedures.b. Training.c. Opportunities not burdens.

5. Types of Reasonable Accommodations.a. Physical modifications.b. Job restructuring.c. Schedule change.d. Aids.

D. Enforcement.1. 180 days to file with EEOC.2. Mediation.3. Right to Sue.

E. Compare Delaware Persons With Disabilities Employment Protections Act.

I want future generations to know that we are a people who see our differences as agreat gift, that we are a people who value the dignity and worth of everycitizen—man and woman, young and old, Black and White, Latino and Asian,immigrant and Native American, gay and straight, Americans with Mental Illness orphysical disability.- President Barak Obama, January 20, 2015.

Page 3 of 5

CLE: BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS

April 2016FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Employment PublicAccommodations

Federally AssistedPrograms

(Generally)

Education(FederallyAssisted)

Housing Public Services(including voting)

Equal ProtectionStandard

Race Title VII,Civil Rights Act of

1964

Title II,Civil Rights Act of

1964

Title VI,Civil Rights Act of

1964

See “Federally

Assisted Programs(Generally)”

Fair Housing Act(Title VIII,

Civil Rights Act of1968)

Equal Protection(enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983);

Amend. XV(enforced throughVoting Rights Act

of 1965)

Strict Scrutiny

Gender Equal Pay Act of1963;

Title VII,Civil Rights Act of

1964

None None(but see

“Education”)

Title IX,Education

Amendments of1972

Fair Housing Act(Title VIII,

Civil Rights Act of1968)

Equal Protection(enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983);

Amend. XIX

Heightened (Intermediate)

Scrutiny

Disability Title I,Americans withDisabilities Act

(1990)

Title III,Americans withDisabilities Act

(1990)

Section 504,Rehabilitation Act

of 1973

Individuals withDisabilities

Education Act(1975); see also

“FederallyAssisted Programs

(Generally)”

Fair HousingAmendments Act

of 1988 (to Title VIII,

Civil Rights Act of1968)

Equal Protection(enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983);Title II, Americans

with DisabilitiesAct (1990)

Rational Basis

SexualOrientation

None(Proposed

Employment Non-Discrimination

Act)

None None None None Equal Protection(enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983)

Not Established

Page 4 of 5

CLE: BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS

April 2016ADA OVERVIEW

Section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102), as amended by the ADAAmendments Act of 2008, defines disability to include, “with respect to an individual”:

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major lifeactivities of such individual;(B) a record of such an impairment; or(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

Title IEmployment

Title IIPublic Services*

Title IIIPublic Accommodations

qualifiedperson

otherwise qualified, i.e., can perform essential

functions

meets essential eligibilityrequirements

discrimination:disparatetreatment

individual shall not beexcluded or denied equal

benefits because of disability

individual shall not beexcluded or subjected todiscrimination because of

disability

individual shall not be deniedparticipation or equal

benefits because of disability

discrimination:disparate impact

using standards, criteria, etc.that have the effect of

discrimination or that screenout individuals with

disabilities

using criteria or methods thathave the effect of

discrimination or that screenout individuals with

disabilities (DOJ regs)

using standards that have theeffect of discriminating or

eligibility criteria that screenout individuals with

disabilities

discrimination:required

adjustments

reasonableaccommodations

reasonable modifications(DOJ) and services must be

accessible (DOJ)

reasonable modifications;provision of auxiliary aids andservices; removal of structural

barriers; new constructionmust be accessible

affirmativedefense:necessity

qualification standards may bejustified by business necessity

may use eligibility criteria thatare necessary for provision of

services

affirmativedefense: direct

threat

qualifications may preventthreat to health or safety

of others (statute)or self (EEOC regs.)

not required to permitparticipation where individualposes threat to health or safety

of others

affirmativedefense: undue

hardship

not required to make anaccommodation that employerdemonstrates would impose

an undue hardship

not required to take action toachieve accessibility that

would result in undue burden(DOJ)

auxiliary aids or services notrequired if they would resultin undue burden; removal ofstructural barriers only where

readily achievable; newconstruction need not be fullyaccessible if it is structurally

impracticable

affirmativedefense:

fundamentalalteration

not required to makemodifications that

fundamentally alter nature ofthe service (DOJ)

not required to makemodifications or provide

auxiliary aids or services thatfundamentally alter the nature

of the accommodations

* Including public transportation, regulated by the Department of Transportation and not covered by this chart.

Page 5 of 5

COURSE MATERIALS SESSION IV

Survey of Delaware State Bar Association

Members To Assess the Presence of Conditions that Hinder Their Practice of Law

A research project conducted on behalf of the

Delaware State Bar Association

by the

Center for Community Research and Service

School of Public Policy and Administration

University of Delaware

Authors:

Steven W. Peuquet, Ph.D.

Asiah M. Lemon

Sharon Merriman-Nai

February 2013

Page 2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 5

Introduction and Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 6

Survey Design and Methodology...................................................................................................... 7

Findings .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Demographic and Professional Characteristics ..................................................................... 8

Perceptions Regarding Employers’ Knowledge of Current Disabilities Laws ........... 10

Nature of Conditions Hindering Professional Practice ..................................................... 10

Perceptions Regarding Equitable Employment Conditions ............................................. 12

Requests for Reasonable Accommodations ........................................................................... 13

Experiences Related to Specific Types of Conditions ......................................................... 13

Mobility or Dexterity Limitation ......................................................................................................... 14

Vision-related Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 14

Hearing-related Conditions ................................................................................................................... 14

Communications and Assistive Technology .......................................................................... 14

Favorability of the Establishment of a Centralized, Statewide, and Confidential

Registry for Lawyers with Conditions ...................................................................................... 15

Additional Themes and Comments ........................................................................................... 15

Discussion and Implications ........................................................................................................... 16

Research Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 18

References ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 21

Page 3

Acknowledgments

The University of Delaware Center for Community Research and Service (CCRS) would like to acknowledge and thank the following members of the Delaware State Bar Association (DSBA) project Advisory Committee for their input and assistance: Santino Ceccotti (chair), The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli, Mellissa Renee Allman, P. Ross A. Flockerzie, Timothy L. Hitchings, James G. McGiffin, Jr., and Theresa V. Brown-Edwards. The project was initiated under the leadership of Jim McGiffin during his term as President of the DSBA, and throughout the process he and the members of the Advisory Committee provided many valuable insights and suggestions.

Funding was provided by DSBA and by CCRS through a grant it receives from the State of Delaware to carry out important public service projects.

Page 4

Executive Summary

Introduction

In order to understand the extent to which Delaware attorneys face barriers, impediments, or disabilities that hinder their practice of law, the Delaware State Bar Association (DSBA) contracted with the University of Delaware Center for Community Research and Service (CCRS) to survey DSBA members regarding these challenges. The project, undertaken with guidance from the DSBA Advisory Committee, was funded by DSBA and by CCRS through support it receives from the State of Delaware to carry out important public service projects.

For DSBA members who reported that they do face barriers, impediments, or disabilities that hinder their practice of law, the project specifically investigated the following:

The extent to which the respondent believes his or her condition has hindered professional success;

The specific obstacles faced in professional practice;

The extent to which the respondent believes reasonable accommodations have been provided to enhance his or her ability to practice law; and

What DSBA can do to enhance the respondent’s ability to successfully practice law.

Methodology

To solicit this information, CCRS researchers developed an online self-administered survey instrument using Qualtrics software. The DSBA Advisory Committee was very helpful in providing guidance regarding the kinds of questions to be asked and how to word them. On April 9, 2012 an email message was sent from DSBA President James G. McGiffin, Jr. inviting all 4,388 DSBA members to complete the survey. The email included an embedded link that, when clicked, would take the respondent directly to the survey instrument which could be completed entirely online. In addition, however, a prospective respondent could also elect to receive a printed copy of the survey instrument or complete the survey over the telephone. Participation was entirely voluntary and anonymous. Individual responses have been kept confidential by the University of Delaware and have not been shared with DSBA or other outside parties. Only aggregated data is presented in the final report.

Findings

Of the 4,388 DSBA members, 22% (960) responded to the survey. Of those responding, 11% (103) indicated that they experience a condition that hinders their ability to engage in the professional practice of law. Of those reporting some type of condition, the most common categories of conditions were other (30%), followed by problems with attention/self-regulation

Page 5

(25%), mental health problems (23%), and social or emotional disorders (22%). Limitations of mobility, limitations of manual dexterity, and hearing impairments were conditions that each affected at least ten percent of the population experiencing some type of hindering condition.

A majority of respondents that reported hindering conditions believed they negatively affected

their employment opportunities, and almost one-third reported they had experienced negative

comments regarding these conditions, most commonly at the hands of co-workers, supervisors,

and colleagues. Many of these conditions are imperceptible to others, and comments provided

by respondents suggest that there is reluctance to reveal the nature and existence of such personal

conditions for fear of negative professional repercussions. Stigmatism, particularly regarding

mental health and substance abuse, is an example of an intangible barrier thought to impede

professional engagement.

When those who experience hindering conditions request reasonable accommodations, requests

are usually granted. However, only 25% of these respondents report requesting such

accommodations, which suggests the possibility that some attorneys may be unaware of potential

accommodations or may fear drawing attention to a personal condition.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Respondents recognize the role that DSBA has played in supporting attorneys who experience

hindering conditions. A number of recommendations may expand and enhance the organization’s

role:

In order to increase disabilities awareness and sensitivity among employers and

colleagues across sectors, DSBA may wish to offer professional, complementary

continuing legal education for all practitioners. Continuing legal education on rights and

protections as well as resources for practitioners who experience hindering conditions is

also likely to be beneficial. Training that can be delivered at work sites, via the Internet,

and through other electronic means will likely improve participation rates.

Provide links on the DSBA website to relevant disabilities legislation, resources for

assistance, and government entities with authority to address employment discrimination.

To promote a more robust utilization of accommodations, provide education and a

centralized information source to identify accommodations designed to address specific

conditions.

Lead an awareness campaign to reduce the stigma associated with mental health

conditions and substance abuse, and to promote awareness of available resources.

Consider the feasibility of establishing a peer support system for Delaware attorneys

experiencing disabilities and other conditions that hinder professional practice.

Page 6

Consider the feasibility of establishing an immediate response system to advise attorneys

when they encounter discrimination and other barriers.

Provide additional seating, dietary options, and other accommodations at DSBA events

for members with special needs.

Establish a working group to explore recommendations for balancing professional and

personal responsibilities with particular sensitivity to gender inequality.

Introduction and Purpose of the Study

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities…” (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Sec. 12101, a, 1). The act specifically provides civil rights protections in the domains of employment, public entities, transportation, public accommodations and commercial facilities, and telecommunications. The ADA applies to people who meet the statute’s definition of disabled; that is, if he or she has (or is regarded as having) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits his or her ability to perform what the ADA terms a major life activity (a basic task undertaken during the course of daily life, such as walking, talking, seeing, hearing, thinking, concentrating, or caring for oneself (American with Disabilities Act, 1990).

Despite the protections afforded by the ADA, legal practitioners in the state of Delaware who have disabilities report facing everyday challenges that impact their ability to fully participate in professional activities. These include challenges in obtaining employment, refusal and/or resistance to fulfilling reasonable requests for accommodation, and insufficient services. In order to understand the extent to which Delaware attorneys face barriers, impediments, or disabilities that hinder their practice of law, the Delaware State Bar Association (DSBA) contracted with the University of Delaware Center for Community Research and Service to conduct an online survey to explore the challenges encountered while attempting to conduct professional activities and obtain necessary technical assistance. The survey, open to all members of the Association, was also designed to generate recommendations as to how the organization can help reduce or eliminate these obstacles and facilitate a greater degree of participation in professional practice among attorneys with disabilities.

For DSBA members who reported that they do face barriers, impediments, or disabilities that hinder their practice of law, this project specifically investigated the following:

The extent to which the respondent believes his or her condition has hindered professional success;

Page 7

The specific obstacles faced in professional practice;

The extent to which the respondent believes reasonable accommodations have been provided to enhance his or her ability to practice law; and

What the DSBA can do to enhance the respondent’s ability to successfully practice law.

This report provides an analysis and discussion of the survey’s findings and recommendations for future action.

Survey Design and Methodology

The research project was undertaken with guidance from the Advisory Committee, established by the DSBA (see the “Acknowledgements” section of this report for the names of Committee members). After reviewing similar types of studies conducted in other parts of the country, especially by the California and Florida Bar Associations, CCRS researchers developed an online self-administered survey instrument using Qualtrics software. Researchers consulted with the DSBA Committee on Disabilities regarding the nature and wording of questions to be included, though final decisions about the content and format of the instrument were made by CCRS. The project was then submitted for review to the University’s Institutional Review Board and was determined to be in compliance with regulations governing research on human subjects. While the online instrument was the primary method for fielding the survey, respondents with special needs were also provided the opportunity to request and complete a mailed, paper copy of the questionnaire (an option exercised by two respondents) or to complete the survey by telephone (which was not selected by any respondent).

The survey was fielded to the entire DSBA membership (4,388). Invitations to participate were posted in the organization’s March 2012 newsletter. Following the newsletter advertisement, an email message was sent from DSBA President James G. McGiffin, Jr. on April 9, 2012 to all members inviting them to participate in the survey. Members were encouraged to participate whether or not they felt that they had some type of condition that hinders their practice of law. The email included an embedded link that, when clicked, would take the respondent directly to the survey instrument which could be completed entirely online. (The email also included information on alternate methods for participation.) The survey was posted and available online for approximately six weeks, and over this period reminder emails were periodically sent encouraging DSBA members to participate. Participation was entirely voluntary. All individual survey responses have been kept confidential by the University of Delaware and will never be shared with DSBA or other outside parties. Only aggregated data is being reported. This was particularly important for the respondents to understand because the survey was designed to elicit personal information of a sensitive nature.

Page 8

All respondents were initially asked if they thought they experienced a mental, physical, or emotional condition that hindered their ability to engage in the professional practice of law; whether they believed their employers were up to date about laws relating to persons with a disability; and, finally, questions regarding demographic characteristics and professional practice (such as participant’s gender, age, ethnicity, type of law practiced, years in practice, and annual income). Attorneys who self-identified as experiencing a condition that hindered their ability to engage in professional practice were asked more specific questions regarding the nature of the condition(s), which included physical, cognitive, psycho-social, and/or mental health issues. Further questions focused on policies, practice or procedural barriers, and participation in DSBA activities. Incorporated within the survey was a skip pattern so that respondents were automatically taken to the next appropriate question based on their answers to previous questions. The respondent was also given the opportunity to provide more detailed, descriptive information and additional comments regarding personal experiences.

An overarching goal of the research was to not only explore the impact of disabilities on the level of professional engagement, but the impact of all conditions that hinder professional practice among DSBA members. Therefore, categories of hindering conditions also included issues such as sleep disorders, problems with gender or sexual identity, problems with drugs or alcohol, or “other.”

Findings

Demographic and Professional Characteristics

A total of 960 people responded to the survey, which represents 22% of the total DSBA membership. Respondents were fairly evenly distributed across the age span, with 25% aged 35 and under; 26% aged 36 through 45; 23% aged 46 through 55; and 26% aged 56 and older. Fifty-six percent of respondents were male and 44% were female. The sample was predominantly white/Caucasian (96%).

Responses from completed as well as partially completed surveys were included in the analysis. Eleven percent of the sample, or 103 respondents, indicated that they experience a condition that hinders their ability to engage in the professional practice of law; 89% (856 respondents) reported they did not experience such a hindrance. Because the number of all DSBA members who experience a disability is unknown, we are unable to determine if the sample is reflective of the rate of disability among the organization’s total membership. However, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), 14.8% of adults living in Delaware experience some type of disability (ACS, 2009-2011). This suggests that the rate of disability among survey respondents is probably somewhat lower than in the general population, especially given the broad definition of disability used in the survey.

Page 9

There was little variation among demographic characteristics when comparing respondents who reported experiencing a hindering condition with those who did not. Appendix B provides cross tabulations and additional details regarding demographic and professional characteristics across participant groups.

In terms of professional practice characteristics, respondents ranged from having less than 5 to more than 30 years experience, with approximately two-thirds of the sample having more than 11 years experience. Generally, in terms of professional experience, there was little difference between respondents who did and did not report a hindering condition.

Results suggest that there may be an association between having a hindering condition and size of workplace. A higher percentage of respondents reporting a hindering condition worked in solo practices and firms employing 30 or fewer attorneys (nearly 61% compared to 47% of other respondents). There was also a higher rate of unemployment among respondents reporting hindering conditions (7.4% compared to 3.8%).

There may also be a relationship between experiencing a hindering condition and annual earnings. As the following table indicates, 11% of respondents reporting a condition also reported earning under $50,000 annually, compared to only 5% of those who did not report such a condition. Further inspection of this table shows that differences were most notable at the extremes of salary categories. Except for respondents with less than five years experience, attorneys reporting a hindering condition were more likely to earn less than $50,000 annually and less likely to earn over $350,000. Female attorneys reporting hindering conditions were also more likely than their male counterparts to be earning less than $50,000 dollars annually.

Annual Earnings by Presence

or Absence of Hindering Conditions

Annual Earnings Hindering

Condition

No Hindering

Condition

< $50,000 11.0% 5.0%

$50,000 - $100,000 41.5% 25.2%

$100,001 - $200,000 37.8% 45.3%

$200,001 - $350,000 7.3% 13.0%

> $350,000 2.4% 11.6%

Totals 100.0% 100.0%

More than half (56%) of all respondents participated in at least one DSBA meeting within the past five years, including 62.4% of respondents reporting and 55.4% of those not reporting hindering conditions.

Page 10

Perceptions Regarding Employers’ Knowledge of Current Disabilities Laws

All respondents were asked whether they believed their employers were up-to-date on current laws related to persons with disabilities. Almost three-fourths of the total sample (73.6%) indicated they felt their employers were up-to-date on disabilities law. However, and as shown in the table below, there are differences between those reporting a hindering condition and those who did not report one. Only 59% of those with a hindering condition said that their employer was up-to-date on disability law, compared to 75.1% of those with no hindering condition. Conversely, 18.1% of those with a hindering condition said that their employer was not up-to-date on disability law, compared to 5.9% of those with no hindering condition. About 23% of those with a hindering condition and 19% with no hindering condition said that they did not know whether their employer was up-to-date on current laws related to persons with disabilities.

Employers’ Knowledge of

Disability Law by Presence or Absence

of Hindering Conditions

Employer Up-to-Date on Disability Law?

Hindering Condition

No Hindering Condition

Yes 59.0% 75.1%

No 18.1% 5.9%

Don't Know 22.9% 19.0%

Totals 100.0% 100.0%

Nature of Conditions Hindering Professional Practice

The graph on the following page details the nature of conditions respondents reported as impeding their ability to practice law. Respondents were asked to indicate all conditions that they experience, and were given the option to write in other conditions that did not appear on the checklist. A number of respondents indicated more than one such limiting condition. The most commonly reported categories of conditions were other (30%, including various chronic physical conditions and diseases, migraines, age, side effects of medications, family issues, and burnout), followed by problems with attention/self-regulation (25%), mental health problems (23%), and social or emotional disorders (22%). Limitations of mobility, limitations of manual dexterity, and hearing impairments were conditions that each affected at least 10% of the population experiencing a hindering condition. Reported, but not as common were sleep disorders, visual impairments, diabetes, problems with substance abuse, learning disabilities, seizure disorders, cognitive dysfunction, speech impairments, and problems with gender/sexual identity.

Most respondents said they believe their conditions are imperceptible to those who do not know them. Two-thirds of the sample indicated their conditions are not apparent to strangers, 13%

Page 11

think their conditions are apparent, and 19% are unsure. Seventy percent reported co-workers are the most likely professional contacts to be aware of hindering conditions, followed by supervisors (42%), other attorneys (34%), clients (30%), judges (24%), and court personnel.

Conditions Hindering Professional Practice

Note: Respondents were asked to check all conditions that apply, therefore percentages do not

sum to 100.

Page 12

Perceptions Regarding Equitable Employment Conditions

Respondents who reported experiencing a condition that hindered their ability to practice law were asked if they believed the condition affected their employment and compensation. As can be seen in the graph below, a majority of the respondents (53.9%) reported their employment opportunities were limited due to their condition(s); 36% did not believe such opportunities were limited; and 10% were unsure. However, 78% did not believe they were receiving unequal pay due to their condition(s), and 87% did not believe they were receiving unequal employment benefits.

Does Hindering Condition Affect Respondent’s

Employment Opportunities?

Respondents reporting hindering conditions were asked the following:

With regard to your condition, does your current employer treat you the same as other

staff in the workplace?

More than two-thirds (67%) of respondents felt they were treated the same as others in the

workplace; 7% did not believe they were treated the same; 10% believed they were treated the

same sometimes but not always; and, because 15% were self-employed, the question was not

applicable to this group.

In addition, respondents were asked:

Over the past 12 months, have you encountered any comments about your condition that

have made you feel uncomfortable?

Page 13

Thirty-one percent of respondents indicated that they had encountered such comments, most

frequently made by co-workers, supervisors, and other attorneys.

Sources of Comments that

Made Respondents Feel Uncomfortable

Requests for Reasonable Accommodations

A majority of respondents experiencing hindering conditions had not requested reasonable accommodations during the previous two years. Of the 25% who indicated that they had requested reasonable accommodations for their condition at locations where they practiced law, 55% reported the accommodation was readily provided. Forty percent of respondents reported the accommodation was provided but with some resistance. Five percent indicated that their requests had been denied. No participant reported that an accommodation had been provided after they had strenuously pursued it; it is unclear if no one had strenuously pursued an accommodation or if some had and were among the 5% whose requests was denied. The most common setting in which accommodation requests were denied or resisted were the respondents’ place of employment. Court hearings, conferences, meetings with opposing counsel, employment-seeking, and organizational events were other settings in which resistance to and/or refusal of requests occurred.

Experiences Related to Specific Types of Conditions

Respondents were asked a series of questions based on their specific type of hindering condition(s).

Page 14

Mobility or Dexterity Limitation

Fifteen respondents indicated they experienced a limitation relating to mobility or dexterity. Five

of these respondents reported experiencing a physical access or architectural barrier during

professional practice, most commonly in their own place of employment. Physical barriers were

also encountered at DSBA events, court hearings, conferences and continuing legal education

events, when seeking employment, and other organizational events. Awkward layout, walking

distances (including from parking space to hearings), and workspace ergonomics were the most

commonly reported physical barriers. Lack of sufficient seating or ergonomic office supplies (for

example, hole punches) were also reported.

Vision-related Conditions

Five respondents reported having vision related conditions, and three of these respondents

reported experiencing vision-related barriers which were experienced in multiple settings, most

commonly at their own place of employment, dealing with clients, continuing legal education

events, but also at court hearings, at DSBA events, and when seeking employment. One

participant reported limited access to methods to read or understand documents produced or

distributed by clients or opposing counsel or parties.

Hearing-related Conditions

Of the ten respondents reporting hearing-related conditions, seven encountered hearing-related

barriers in locations where they practice law, with the most common setting being court hearings

or conferences. Dealings with clients, continuing legal education events, non-judicial

proceedings, organizational events, DSBA events, places of employment, and dealings with

opposing counsel were also reported as settings in which hearing-related barriers were

experienced.

Communications and Assistive Technology

Eighty-four percent of respondents reporting hindering conditions indicated that they had not encountered inaccessible technology or equipment. Of those experiencing such barriers: 11% had encountered barriers in their own office; 4% in courtrooms; 4% in non-judicial proceedings; and 1% in court-related administrative offices. Twenty-three percent of respondents have used one or more assistive technologies to enhance their professional performance; 47% have not; and 27% found this not applicable to their needs.

Half of respondents reporting conditions indicated that they have found teleconferencing or telecommuting useful for managing activities related to the practice of law. Forty percent indicated they do not use teleconferencing or telecommuting because they do not need or want to; 6% have not pursued these options with their employer but would like to; and 5% would like to use these options but their employer will not permit it.

Page 15

Favorability of the Establishment of a Centralized, Statewide, and Confidential

Registry for Lawyers with Conditions

Respondents reporting conditions that hindered their ability to practice law were then asked the following:

Would you be in favor of the establishment of a centralized, statewide, and confidential

registry for lawyers with conditions like yours that would identify what accommodations

they require in employment, court administrative or Bar Association settings?

Respondents were almost equally divided on this question, with 52% indicating that they would not be in favor of the establishment of such a registry, while 48% of respondents said they would be.

Additional Themes and Comments

Finally, all respondents were asked the following:

Please provide any additional comments you feel would help the Delaware State Bar

Association assist members of the Delaware Bar in dealing with a condition that hinders

their ability to engage in the professional practice of law. Several themes were identified among the comments offered. A number of respondents noted the significant value of the Lawyers Assistance Program, which provides confidential assistance to judges and attorneys with substance abuse, mental health, and/or physical health problems. However, the persistent perception that it is necessary to hide such problems or else forfeit job security or opportunities for advancement remains strong, and some respondents believe this tendency significantly limits people from accessing these and other available resources. Stress was noted as a contributing factor to the development and exacerbation of these conditions. Efforts to reduce the stigma regarding disabilities, including mental health issues and substance abuse, through awareness and education were suggested as potential strategies for DSBA intervention. Several respondents noted that flexibility (to schedule work assignments according to personal needs, to telecommute, etc.) provided by their employers was a critical factor to their ability to succeed professionally despite potentially hindering conditions. Another theme that emerged was the ongoing challenge of juggling professional and personal responsibilities, and its association with increased stress, in addition to workload stress. A related theme was the need to provide reasonable guidelines for professional success for expecting and new mothers, and to better accommodate family caregivers. Several respondents noted that the costs of technology in general (including assistive technology) might be prohibitive, which deterred at least one respondent from asking for such an accommodation. Personal costs born by respondents (such as those needing to purchase hearing aids which were not covered by insurance) presented additional barriers.

Page 16

Some respondents noted that ageism, sexism, and racism also inhibit the ability of some to practice law. Respondents also recommended: a source for immediate assistance, such as a 24-hour support line, when barriers are encountered; peer assistance or counseling for those experiencing hindering conditions; and continuing legal education regarding disabilities, and disabilities rights and resources, as well as sensitivity training related to diversity. Among the more practical recommendations made were the need to provide options for dietary restrictions at DSBA and other professionally-sponsored events; privacy for those needing to routinely manage medical conditions (such as diabetes) while working; and encouraging judges to use the microphones provided in Delaware courts to help reduce hearing-related barriers during court proceedings. Finally, a number of respondents commended DSBA on its efforts to learn about and address issues that hinder the ability of attorneys to maximize their successful practice of law.

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of this survey was to cast a wide net to identify the nature and extent of hindering

conditions, including personal disabilities as well as external barriers that inhibit professional

engagement among Delaware attorneys. Respondents reported a broad range of such conditions.

It is interesting to note that the most commonly identified conditions were “invisible” in nature:

problems with attention/self-regulation; mental health problems; and social or emotional disorders.

Comments offered by a number of respondents suggest that there is a perceived need to hide hindering conditions, despite their nature, in order to succeed professionally. Such secrecy may limit the likelihood of an individual to seek help. The fact that only 25% of respondents who reported having hindering conditions sought reasonable accommodations to enhance professional performance may also reflect this tendency towards secrecy (although this may also be due to a lack of awareness regarding disabilities rights). This is unfortunate, since most accommodations requested by respondents were provided, though often not without resistance.

Flexibility to manage one’s time, the ability to telecommute and teleconference, and assistive technologies were considered important tools for reducing the impact of hindering conditions on professional success. However, if lawyers experiencing such conditions are afraid to raise awareness of their conditions with employers, they will not be able to take advantage of these options. This is especially significant because respondents identified their own places of employment as the setting in which they often encountered barriers.

Page 17

The desire to not draw attention to what could be considered a personal and/or professional limitation may also explain the dichotomy of responses for establishing a statewide registry for lawyers with hindering conditions and the accommodations needed to ameliorate these conditions. If DSBA were to pursue the development of such a registry, in order for such an effort to be successful, it will be necessary to chip away at this resistance by educating practitioners regarding the nature of information to be collected, how confidentiality would be maintained, and how the information would be used. However, as an alternative to maintaining a registry for lawyers with disabilities, it may be more feasible to collect information on specific types of accommodations that address specific conditions. Such information could be published and disseminated, electronically and in hard copy, through DSBA and other professional channels. A robust effort to publicize potentially beneficial accommodations may result in a higher percentage of professionals seeking and obtaining resources to overcome barriers to practice and thus enhance professional engagement.

A majority of respondents believed that having a condition such as a disability negatively impacted their employment opportunities. However, a majority of those employed believed that they were equitably compensated and generally treated the same as other staff by their employers. Yet a higher rate of respondents who reported hindering conditions were earning less than $50,000 annually when compared to respondents who did not report experiencing hindering conditions. There may be a number of factors for this, including practice size, particularly since respondents reporting conditions were more likely to work in smaller firms. The question of equitable compensation may be one for further investigation. The fact that a higher percentage of lawyers reporting hindering conditions work in smaller firms may also be worthy of further investigation.

In addition to physical and psycho-social-emotional conditions, respondents reported themes such as balancing personal and professional obligations as major barriers to professional engagement. These comments further reflect issues concerning gender inequality in terms of opportunity for advancement. Stress, both work-related as well as the byproduct of efforts to juggle personal and professional demands, was also observed by commenters as being linked to substance abuse and mental health issues.

Research Limitations

There are a number of limitations associated with this study. Despite a robust participation rate

(22% of the total DSBA membership), it is unknown whether the study sample is reflective of

the organization’s general membership. Similarly, it is unknown if the subsample of respondents

who reported experiencing hindering conditions is reflective of all Delaware attorneys

experiencing hindering conditions.

Page 18

Although 103 respondents reported having a disability or experiencing another condition that

hindered their ability to practice law, there were too few respondents reporting specific

categories of conditions to make valid comparisons across types.

Cross tabulation of various characteristics revealed potential associations between a participant’s

reporting of a hindering condition and variables of income earnings and employment setting.

Further exploration of these associations may provide valuable insights; however, the data

currently available is insufficient to determine the validity of these associations.

In an effort to capture a wide range of information, the survey instrument listed a broad spectrum

of categories of conditions that may hinder one’s professional practice and asked respondents to

select all they had experienced. However, the categories of conditions were not defined in the

instrument, and overlapped in some instances, which may have led to confusion for some

respondents that could muddy responses.

Respondents were asked the nature of the barriers they experienced in relation to

mobility/dexterity limitations, vision-related limitations, and hearing limitations, but did not ask

respondents to describe the nature of barriers experienced related to the more commonly reported

“invisible” conditions. Additional exploration will be important in order to address these needs.

Finally, the intention of the study was to cast a wide net to explore not only disabilities but other

conditions as well that hinder professional engagement. While this generated a wealth of

information, the findings pertain to factors that are broader than traditionally defined disabilities.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study was designed to explore the following questions:

The extent to which the respondent believes his or her condition has hindered professional success;

The specific obstacles faced in professional practice;

The extent to which the respondent believes reasonable accommodations have been provided to enhance his or her ability to practice law; and

What DSBA can do to enhance the respondent’s ability to successfully practice law.

Eleven percent of all respondents indicated that they experienced a condition that hindered their

ability to practice law in Delaware. A majority of these respondents believed that reported

conditions negatively impacted their employment opportunities, and almost one-third reported

they had experienced negative comments regarding these conditions, most commonly at the

hands of co-workers, supervisors, and colleagues. Many of these conditions are imperceptible to

Page 19

others, and comments suggest that there is reluctance to reveal the nature and existence of such

personal conditions for fear of negative professional repercussions. Stigmatism, particularly

regarding mental health and substance abuse, is an example of an intangible barrier that impedes

professional engagement.

When those who experience hindering conditions request reasonable accommodations, requests

are usually granted. However, only 25% of these respondents report requesting such

accommodations, which suggests the possibility that some attorneys may be unaware of potential

accommodations or may fear drawing attention to a personal condition.

Respondents recognize the role that DSBA has played in supporting attorneys who experience

hindering conditions. However, a number of recommendations may expand and enhance the

organization’s role:

In order to increase disabilities awareness and sensitivity training among employers and

colleagues across sectors, DSBA may wish to offer professional, complementary

continuing legal education for all practitioners. Continuing legal education on rights and

protections as well as resources for practitioners who experience hindering conditions is

also likely to be beneficial. Training that can be delivered at work sites, via internet, and

through other electronic means will likely improve participation rates.

Provide links on the DSBA website to relevant disabilities legislation, resources for

assistance, and government entities with authority to address employment discrimination.

To promote a more robust utilization of accommodations, provide education and a

centralized information source to identify accommodations designed to address specific

conditions.

Lead an awareness campaign to reduce the stigma associated with mental health

conditions and substance abuse, and to promote awareness of available resources.

Consider the feasibility of establishing a peer support system for Delaware attorneys

experiencing disabilities and other conditions that hinder professional practice.

Consider the feasibility of establishing an immediate response system to advise attorneys

when they encounter discrimination and other barriers.

Provide additional seating, dietary options, and other accommodations at DSBA events

for members with special needs.

Establish a working group to explore recommendations for balancing professional and

personal responsibilities with particular sensitivity to gender inequality.

Page 20

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (1990). Retrieved from: http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm

The Disability Independence Group. (2007). Florida Lawyers with Disabilities. A Survey

Report. Miami Florida. Retrieved from:

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/43978A94AFC940F9852573CA006

E2526/$FILE/DIG%20Survey%20Report%20Final%2012%2007.pdf?OpenElement

State Bar of California Committee on Legal Professionals with Disabilities.

(2004). Challenges to Employment and the Practice of Law Continue to Face Attorneys

with Disabilities. Retrieved from:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/portals/0/documents/publicComment/2004/Disability-Survey-

Report.pdf

Page 21

Appendices

Appendix  A:  Delaware  State  Bar  Association  Survey  

Delaware State Bar Association Survey

This survey is being conducted by the University of Delaware's Center for Community Research and

Service and is being sent to all current members of the Delaware Bar. Data obtained from this survey

will help the Delaware State Bar Association understand the extent to which members of the Delaware

Bar face barriers, impediments or disabilities which hinder their professional practice of law. This

knowledge will then be used to explore ways in which the Delaware State Bar Association can play a role

in reducing or eliminating these obstacles. For purposes of this survey, a barrier, impediment or

disability which hinders the ability of a person to engage in the professional practice of law will be

referred to as a "condition." Such a condition may be physical, medical, cognitive, psychological,

or emotional in nature. This survey is anonymous -- no personal identifying information is requested. In

addition, individual responses will be kept strictly confidential by the University of Delaware and only

aggregated data will be shared with the Delaware State Bar Association or other parties. Participation in

this survey is entirely voluntary and participants may choose to not respond to any individual question.

Prospective responders will not be harmed in any way due to their participation or non-participation in

this survey. By completing this questionnaire you are indicating your willingness to participate in this

survey, and you are also consenting to the use of the provided information for the research

purposes described above. Please provide the best answer you can to the following questions. Some

questions allow you to "choose all that apply" and others only allow one answer. If you choose "other"

as a reply to a particular question, please be sure to provide some specific detail in the box that appears

after that answer.

Q1. Before you answer the first question below, please keep in mind that a "condition" that hinders the

ability of a person to engage in the professional practice of law may consist of a barrier, impediment or

disability, and that these may be physical, medical, cognitive, psychological, or emotional in nature. Do

you feel that you face some type of condition that hinders your ability to engage in the professional

practice of law?

Yes (1)

No (2)

If “No” is selected, then skip to Q27.

Q2. What is the nature of your condition that hinders your ability to engage in the professional practice

of law? [choose all that apply]

Limits to physical mobility (1)

Limits to manual dexterity (due to arthritis, carpel tunnel or a variety of other conditions) (2)

Blindness or visual impairment (3)

Deafness or hearing impairment (4)

Speech or language impairment (5)

HIV/AIDS (6)

Diabetes (7)

Respiratory limitation (8)

Seizure disorder (9)

Learning disability (10)

Cognitive dysfunction (11)

Mental health problems (12)

Social or emotional disorder (13)

Problems with attention and self-regulation (14)

Sleep disorder (15)

Problems with gender or sexual identity (16)

Problems with drugs or alcohol (17)

Other [please specify] (18) ____________________

Q3. Is your condition apparent to people who do not know you?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Not Sure (3)

Q4. To your knowledge, who is aware of your condition? [choose all that apply]

Judges (1)

Court personnel (2)

Supervisors (3)

Co-workers (4)

Co-counsel (5)

Clients (6)

Opposing counsel (7)

Opposing parties (8)

Other attorneys (9)

Other [please specify] (10) ____________________

Q5. Do you feel your employment opportunities are limited because of your condition?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Not sure (3)

Q6. Do you feel you are currently receiving unequal pay because of your condition?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Not sure (3)

Q7. Do you feel you are currently receiving unequal employment benefits because of your condition?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Not sure (3)

Q8. Over the past 12 months have you encountered any comments about your condition that have

made you feel uncomfortable?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Answer the next question only if you answered “Yes” to the previous question (Q8.)

Q9. Given that you have encountered one or more comments about your condition during the past 12

months that made you feel uncomfortable, who made the comment(s)? [choose all that apply]

Judges (1)

Court personnel (2)

Supervisors (3)

Co-workers (4)

Co-counsel (5)

Clients (6)

Opposing counsel (7)

Opposing parties (8)

Other attorneys (9)

Other [please specify] (10) ____________________

Answer the next question only if you indicated in Q2. that you have a mobility or dexterity limitation.

Q10. Given that you have a mobility or dexterity limitation, over the past 2 years have you encountered

any physical access or architectural barriers where you do your work?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Answer the next question only if you have answered “Yes” to the previous question (Q10).

Q11. Given that you have encountered a physical or architectural barrier over the past 2 years, what

was the setting or situation where you encountered a barrier? [choose all that apply]

Court hearings or conferences (1)

Non-judicial proceedings (2)

Dealings with clients (3)

Dealings with opposing counsel/parties (4)

My own place of employment (5)

Delaware State Bar Association events (6)

Continuing legal education events (7)

Other law-related organization events (8)

When seeking employment in the legal field (9)

Other [please specify] (10) ____________________

Answer the next question only if you have answered “Yes” to question Q10.

Q12. Given that you have encountered a physical or architectural access barrier over the past 2 years,

what have been the most common types of barriers you have faced?

Description of physical or architectural barrier (1)

Most common (1)

Second most common (2)

Third most common (3)

Answer the next question only if you have answered “Yes” to question Q10.

Q13. Given that you have encountered a physical or architectural access barrier over the past 2 years,

what were the most common places where you found physical or architectural barriers? [choose all that

apply]

Courtrooms (1)

Court-related administrative offices (2)

Offices of clients (3)

Offices of colleagues (4)

Offices of counsel or opposing counsel (5)

At my place of work (6)

Locations where I'm seeking employment opportunities (7)

State Bar Association functions (8)

Continuing legal education training (9)

Other public places [please specify] (10) ____________________

Answer the next question only if you indicated in Q2. that you have a visual impairment.

Q14. Given that you have a vision-related condition, over the past 2 years have you encountered any

vision-related barriers in locations where you work?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Answer the next question only if you have answered “Yes” to the previous question (Q14).

Q15. Given that you have encountered a vision-related barriers over the last 2 years, what was the

setting or situation where you found such a barrier? [choose all that apply]

Court hearings or conferences (1)

Non-judicial proceedings (2)

Dealings with clients (3)

Dealings with opposing counsel/parties (4)

My own place of employment (5)

Delaware State Bar Association events (6)

Continuing legal education events (7)

Other law-related organization events (8)

When seeking employment in the legal field (9)

Other [please specify] (10) ____________________

Answer the next question only if you indicated in Q2. that you have a visual impairment.

Q16. Given that you have a vision-related condition, please indicate if you have access to methods that

allow you to read/understand the following documents?

Have good access (1) Have limited access (2) Have no access (3)

Court documents (1)

Documents produced/ distributed by my office

(2)

Documents produced/ distributed by opposing

counsel or parties (3)

Documents produced/ distributed by clients

(4)

Employment applications/ interviews

(5)

Answer the next question only if you indicated in Q2. that you have a hearing impairment.

Q17. Given that you have a hearing-related condition, over the past 2 years have you encountered any

hearing-related barriers in locations where you work?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Answer the next question only if you have answered “Yes” to the previous question (Q17).

Q18. Given that you have encountered a hearing-related barrier over the last 2 years, what was the

setting or situation where you found such a barrier? [choose all that apply]

Court hearings or conferences (1)

Non-judicial proceedings (2)

Dealings with clients (3)

Dealings with opposing counsel/parties (4)

My own place of employment (5)

Delaware State Bar Association events (6)

Continuing legal education events (7)

Other law-related organization events (8)

When seeking employment in the legal field (9)

Other [please specify] (10) ____________________

Q19. Over the past 2 years have you requested some type of reasonable accommodation(s) for your

condition at locations where you do your work?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Answer the next question only if you have answered “Yes” to the previous question (Q19).

Q20. When you've requested some type of reasonable accommodation for your condition over the last

2 years, how would you characterize the typical response you received?

The accommodation was readily provided (1)

The accommodation was provided, but with some resistance (2)

The accommodation was provided, but only after I strenuously pursued it (3)

The request for an accommodation was denied (4)

Answer the next question only if you have requested a reasonable accommodation over the past 2 years

(Q19 is “Yes”) and in Q20 you indicated that your request was resisted in some way or denied.

Q21. Given that you have encountered a refusal or resistance to make reasonable accommodations for

your condition over the last 2 years, what were the settings or situations where this happened? [choose

all that apply]

Court hearings or conferences (1)

Non-judicial proceedings (2)

Dealings with clients (3)

Dealings with opposing counsel/parties (4)

My own place of employment (5)

Delaware State Bar Association events (6)

Continuing legal education events (7)

Other law-related organization events (8)

When seeking employment in the legal field (9)

Other [please specify] (10) ____________________

Q22. Have you encountered inaccessible technology or equipment in any of the following settings?

[choose all that apply]

My own office (1)

Courtrooms (2)

Non-Judicial Proceedings (3)

Court-related administrative offices (4)

No, I've had no problems with inaccessible technology or equipment (5)

Q23. With regard to your condition, does your current employer treat you the same as other staff in the

workplace?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Sometimes but not always (3)

Not applicable because I'm self-employed (4)

Q24. Have you used one or more assistive technologies to enhance your job function/performance?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Not applicable (3)

Q25. Given your condition, have you found that teleconferencing or telecommuting have

been useful for managing activities related to the practice of law?

Yes, I've done it and it's been useful (1)

No, I've not done it because I don't need/want to (2)

No, I've not done it but I would like to, but have not pursued it with my employer (3)

No, I've not done it but I would like to, but my employer won't permit it (4)

Q26. Would you be in favor of the establishment of a centralized, statewide and confidential registry for

lawyers with conditions like yours that would identify what accommodations they require in

employment, court administrative or Bar Association settings?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Q27. Do you feel your employer is up to date on current laws related to people with disabilities?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Not sure (3)

Q28. Which of the following best describe your law practice or office? [choose all that apply]

1 person practice/office (1)

Small firm/office ( less than 30 attorneys) (2)

Medium firm/office (30-100 attorneys) (3)

Large firm/office (more than 100 attorneys) (4)

I'm currently unemployed (5)

Q29. How many years have you been practicing law?

Under 5 Years (1)

5-10 Years (2)

11-20 Years (3)

21-30 Years (4)

More than 30 Years (5)

Q30. Have you attended any Delaware State Bar Association meetings during the past 5 years?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Q31. What is your gender?

Male (1)

Female (2)

Q32. Please indicate your age group?

Under 26 Years (1)

26-35 Years (2)

36-45 Years (3)

46-55 Years (4)

56-65 Years (5)

66-75 Years (6)

76 Years or older (7)

Q33. What is your ethnic and racial background? [choose all that apply]

White/ Caucasian (1)

African-American (2)

Latino/Hispanic (3)

Native American (4)

Other [please specify] (6) ____________________

Q34. What is your approximate annual salary or income level?

Under $50,000 (1)

$50.000-$100,000 (2)

$101,000-$200,000 (3)

$201,000-$350,000 (4)

Over $350,000 (5)

Q35. Please provide any additional comments you feel would help the Delaware State Bar

Association assist members of the Delaware Bar in dealing with a condition that hinders their ability to

engage in the professional practice of law.

Appendix  B:  Cross  Tabulations  of  Professional  and  Demographic  Characteristics  across  Respondent  Groups  

Delaware State Bar Association Survey - Final Cross Tabulation(1)

Yes No Total

Yes 4959.04%

59675.06%

64573.55%

No 1518.07%

475.92%

627.07%

Not sure 1922.89%

15119.02%

17019.38%

Total 83100.00%

794100.00%

877100.00%

1 person practice/office 1113.58%

759.57%

869.94%

Small firm/office ( less than 30 attorneys) 3846.91%

29337.37%

33138.27%

Medium firm/office (30-100 attorneys) 911.11%

13917.73%

14817.11%

Large firm/office (more than 100 attorneys) 1720.99%

24731.51%

26430.52%

I'm currently unemployed 67.41%

303.83%

364.16%

Total 81100.00%

784100.00%

865100.00%

Under 5 Years 1517.86%

13616.94%

15117.02%

5-10 Years 1821.43%

14518.06%

16318.38%

11-20 Years 2023.81%

20325.28%

22325.14%

21-30 Years 2023.81%

17321.54%

19321.76%

More than 30 Years 1113.10%

14618.18%

15717.70%

Total 84100.00%

803100.00%

887100.00%

Yes 5362.35%

44655.40%

49956.07%

No 3237.65%

35944.60%

39143.93%

Total 85100.00%

805100.00%

890100.00%

Male 4959.04%

44155.26%

49055.62%

Female 3440.96%

35744.74%

39144.38%

Total 83100.00%

798100.00%

881100.00%

Under 26 Years 00.00%

81.00%

80.90%

26-35 Years 2024.10%

19123.85%

21123.87%

36-45 Years 2428.92%

20325.34%

22725.68%

46-55 Years 1619.28%

18923.60%

20523.19%

56-65 Years 1720.48%

14417.98%

16118.21%

66-75 Years 11.20%

516.37%

525.88%

76 Years or older 56.02%

151.87%

202.26%

Total 83100.00%

801100.00%

884100.00%

White/ Caucasian 7995.18%

76195.96%

84095.89%

African-American 11.20%

151.89%

161.83%

Latino/Hispanic 56.02%

91.13%

141.60%

Native American 22.41%

30.38%

50.57%

Other [please specify] 22.41%

151.89%

171.94%

Total 83100.00%

793100.00%

876100.00%

Under $50,000 910.98%

384.99%

475.57%

$50.000-$100,000 3441.46%

19225.20%

22626.78%

$101,000-$200,000 3137.80%

34545.28%

37644.55%

$201,000-$350,000 67.32%

9912.99%

10512.44%

Over $350,000 22.44%

8811.55%

9010.66%

Total 82100.00%

762100.00%

844100.00%

Please indicate if you have a condition

Do you feel your employer is up to date on current laws related to people with disabilities?

Which of the following best describe your law practice or office? [choose all that apply]

How many years have you been practicing law?

Have you attended any Delaware State Bar Association meetings during the past 5 years?

What is your gender?

Please indicate your age group?

What is your ethnic and racial background? [choose all that apply]

What is your approximate annual salary or income level?

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

Do you feel your employer isup to date on current laws

related to people withdisabilities?

Chi Square 18.90

Degrees of Freedom 2

p-value 0.00

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

Which of the following bestdescribe your law practice oroffice? [choose all that apply]

Chi Square 9.74*

Degrees of Freedom 4

p-value 0.05

*Note: The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate - expected frequency less than 5.

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

How many years have youbeen practicing law?

Chi Square 1.86

Degrees of Freedom 4

p-value 0.76

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

Have you attended anyDelaware State Bar

Association meetings duringthe past 5 years?

Chi Square 1.51

Degrees of Freedom 1

p-value 0.22

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

What is your gender?

Chi Square 0.43

Degrees of Freedom 1

p-value 0.51

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

Please indicate your agegroup?

Chi Square 11.20*

Degrees of Freedom 6

p-value 0.08

*Note: The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate - expected frequency less than 5.

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

What is your ethnic and racialbackground? [choose all that

apply]

Chi Square 16.97*

Degrees of Freedom 4

p-value 0.00

*Note: The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate - expected frequency less than 5.

Before you answer the firstquestion below, please keepin mind that a "condition" that

hinders the...

What is your approximateannual salary or income

level?

Chi Square 20.69*

Degrees of Freedom 4

p-value 0.00

*Note: The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate - expected frequency less than 5.

Delaware State Bar Association Survey - Final Cross Tabulation(1)

Yes No Total

Male

Under $50,000

Under 5 Years 00.00%

81.06%

80.96%

5-10 Years 22.50%

00.00%

20.24%

11-20 Years 00.00%

00.00%

00.00%

21-30 Years 00.00%

50.66%

50.60%

More than 30 Years 00.00%

70.92%

70.84%

$50.000-$100,000

Under 5 Years 45.00%

273.57%

313.70%

5-10 Years 45.00%

121.59%

161.91%

11-20 Years 45.00%

121.59%

161.91%

21-30 Years 45.00%

101.32%

141.67%

More than 30 Years 33.75%

131.72%

161.91%

$101,000-$200,000

Under 5 Years 56.25%

395.15%

445.26%

5-10 Years 45.00%

354.62%

394.66%

11-20 Years 45.00%

334.36%

374.42%

21-30 Years 45.00%

314.10%

354.18%

More than 30 Years 45.00%

476.21%

516.09%

$201,000-$350,000

Under 5 Years 00.00%

20.26%

20.24%

5-10 Years 00.00%

91.19%

91.08%

11-20 Years 22.50%

172.25%

192.27%

21-30 Years 00.00%

182.38%

182.15%

More than 30 Years 11.25%

212.77%

222.63%

Over $350,000

Under 5 Years 00.00%

00.00%

00.00%

5-10 Years 00.00%

30.40%

30.36%

11-20 Years 00.00%

141.85%

141.67%

21-30 Years 11.25%

263.43%

273.23%

More than 30 Years 11.25%

253.30%

263.11%

Female

Under $50,000

Under 5 Years 00.00%

30.40%

30.36%

5-10 Years 22.50%

30.40%

50.60%

11-20 Years 22.50%

91.19%

111.31%

21-30 Years 33.75%

30.40%

60.72%

More than 30 Years 00.00%

00.00%

00.00%

$50.000-$100,000

Under 5 Years 45.00%

273.57%

313.70%

5-10 Years 45.00%

344.49%

384.54%

11-20 Years 22.50%

324.23%

344.06%

21-30 Years 33.75%

202.64%

232.75%

More than 30 Years 00.00%

40.53%

40.48%

$101,000-$200,000

Under 5 Years 22.50%

283.70%

303.58%

5-10 Years 11.25%

354.62%

364.30%

11-20 Years 22.50%

547.13%

566.69%

21-30 Years 45.00%

273.57%

313.70%

More than 30 Years 11.25%

131.72%

141.67%

$201,000-$350,000

Under 5 Years 00.00%

10.13%

10.12%

5-10 Years 00.00%

60.79%

60.72%

11-20 Years 33.75%

121.59%

151.79%

21-30 Years 00.00%

91.19%

91.08%

More than 30 Years 00.00%

30.40%

30.36%

Over $350,000

Under 5 Years 00.00%

00.00%

00.00%

5-10 Years 00.00%

10.13%

10.12%

11-20 Years 00.00%

91.19%

91.08%

21-30 Years 00.00%

101.32%

101.19%

More than 30 Years 00.00%

00.00%

00.00%

Total 80100.00%

757100.00%

837100.00%

Please indicate if you have a condition

What is your gender? What is your approximate annual salary or income level? How many years have you been practicing law?

Please indicate if you have acondition

What is your gender? - Whatis your approximate annual

salary or income level? - Howmany years have you been

practicing law?

Chi Square 76.56*

Degrees of Freedom 49

p-value 0.01

*Note: The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate - expected frequency less than 5.