Supporting disabled and neurodivergent clients in family justice
Lessons from collaborative practice and client experience
How do you know when a client is “ghosting” you, or whether they need extra support? In family justice a client’s delayed replies, incomplete documents or difficulty following advice can too readily be interpreted as avoidance, resistance or disengagement. Sometimes, however, these behaviours indicate something starkly different: a client attempting to participate in a process that has not been made accessible to them.
In our work as a divorce and separation coach (Doris) and family solicitor (Taler), we have seen this frequently. In one case on which we worked collaboratively, we were fortunate to hear directly from the client about their experience, including what did and did not help them communicate, prepare for their case and engage with the process.
This article was born from that and other similar experiences with clients going through divorce and separation, and explores how we can better support disabled and neurodivergent clients in family justice by being more attuned, listening more carefully, remaining curious and adaptable, and prioritising accessibility throughout.
Accessibility begins before court
The publication of the Family Justice Council’s Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners in January 2025 marked an important step forward. Its central principle is simple but significant: understanding an individual’s needs leads to better participation and more effective justice. The guidance cautions against relying on labels or diagnoses to determine what support somebody requires. Adjustments should respond to the barriers experienced by that person, and both the barriers and the support needed may change as the case progresses.
Within proceedings, Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules requires the court to consider whether vulnerability is likely to diminish a party’s participation or the quality of their evidence and, if so, whether participation directions are necessary. Relevant factors include physical disability, physical or mental disorder, medical treatment and any other characteristic affecting participation (see rr3A.3-3A.9).
These provisions are important, but accessibility cannot begin at the courtroom door. Under ss20-21 and Sch 2 of the Equality Act 2010, the reasonable-adjustments duty applying to service providers is anticipatory: providers must consider barriers disabled people may encounter rather than waiting for an individual to struggle and placing the entire burden on them to request help. (See also chapter 7 of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations.) Not every neurodivergent person will meet the Equality Act’s definition of disability, but many will. In either case, good practice should not depend solely on a disclosed diagnosis.
By the time a matter reaches court, a client may already have navigated months of meetings, correspondence, disclosure, negotiations and urgent decisions. Each stage depends on their ability to understand information, communicate instructions and complete tasks. Accessibility must be embedded from the first interaction, not addressed only after participation has visibly broken down.
The cumulative burden
Legal work does not take place in isolation from the rest of a client’s life. A request for a bank statement, pension document or response may be straightforward in itself. For someone simultaneously managing disability, medical appointments, work, benefits, care arrangements and the upheaval of separation, it becomes one more demand on an already depleted supply of time, energy and cognitive capacity.
Our client mentioned above described having to make numerous calls to different services over two days about problems entirely separate from their divorce. Alongside these, they needed to locate financial documents, respond to professionals and make decisions about their case. The issue was not a failure to appreciate the work’s importance, but the cumulative labour of managing multiple systems, each requiring them to organise information, pursue answers and advocate for their needs.
The SRA’s 2025 research, Consumer Vulnerability in the Legal Market, found that vulnerability is complex, changeable and often invisible; people may experience several interacting vulnerabilities, and engaging with the legal system can itself heighten them. It also found that the term “vulnerability” may feel stigmatising and discourage disclosure. A client may not identify with that label or volunteer information about their needs, particularly if previous disclosure has produced little meaningful support.
There is a key distinction between unwillingness and being overwhelmed by matters. When a client feels misunderstood or judged, shame can make it harder to re-engage. Deadlines may then be missed, costs rise and trust deteriorates. Our client described how mounting pressure made administrative tasks harder to begin; delay produced guilt and shame; and those feelings made re-engagement harder still.
What begins as a barrier to one task can become a cycle of misattunement, frustration and withdrawal for client and practitioner alike, even where the individual professionals involved are understanding and willing to help.
Sometimes the fault is in the process, not the people
Neurodivergence may affect processing, working memory, communication, sensory regulation or executive functioning, but presentation varies between people and across circumstances (see the discussion of potential barriers and individualised adjustments in the FJC’s Guidance on Neurodiversity). Physical disability, pain, fatigue, trauma and psychological distress may create further, fluctuating demands. Behaviour alone rarely tells us which factor is operating.
This is where skills often associated with counselling can strengthen professional practice without turning legal work or coaching into therapy. In practice, attunement, reflective listening, careful pacing and curiosity can help us understand what may sit beneath an apparent lack of action. This might mean noticing a change in communication, reflecting rather than judging it, and asking: “What is making this difficult to do at the moment?” Listening to the answer is as important as asking the question.
This approach does not remove responsibility or make every deadline optional. It does, however, help identify the intervention most likely to secure engagement. Rather than asking why a client has “failed” to complete a task, we are asking: what barrier is preventing them from completing it, and what could we change to make participation possible?
The SRA’s Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, at para 3.4, requires solicitors to consider and take account of each client’s attributes, needs and circumstances. Often, the most effective adjustments are also the simplest. Ask early how the client prefers to receive and process information, and revisit that conversation: needs can fluctuate, clients may not know at the outset what will help, and preferences may emerge over time.
At an initial meeting, Taler asks how the client prefers to receive information and communicate their views and instructions. Legal advice sometimes has to be lengthy and detailed, but its delivery can still be adapted. For example, one client prefers to receive information in writing before discussing it verbally rather than responding in writing. Taler therefore makes clear at the beginning of an email when a response is needed and suggests a time to discuss it.
Clients may not always know or feel able to explain what they need at the outset. Preferences can also emerge as the professional relationship develops, so practitioners should continue noticing how the client engages and checking whether the approach remains helpful.
From principle to practice
Accessibility will look different for every client, but professionals should be prepared to respond to patterns rather than waiting for a client to formulate a formal request. These adjustments do not diminish legal rigour; they can enable the client to provide clearer instructions, make better-informed decisions and participate more effectively.
If a client repeatedly disengages from formal letters attached to emails, continuing to communicate in the same way is unlikely to produce a different result. The letter may still be necessary, but it could be accompanied by a plain-language summary explaining what it means, what the client needs to do and by when. A brief telephone or video call may be more accessible still, followed by a concise written record. In our shared case, Taler provided necessary detailed correspondence in a clearly structured email, reflecting the client’s preference for email over formal letters. The client later confirmed that the way it was presented made the information easier to digest and work through.
Preferences may also be communicated indirectly. A client who repeatedly accepts online meetings but postpones in-person appointments may be signalling a practical, physical, sensory or psychological barrier they do not feel able to articulate. Practitioners can ask – not assume – whether meeting remotely would help. Where meetings are in person, accessibility includes transport, parking, step-free access, seating, toilets, lighting, noise and whether the client can safely remain in the space for the required time.
Duration and pacing matter too. A long call without planned breaks may place significant demands on attention, working memory and regulation, particularly for some neurodivergent clients, including those with ADHD. Sharing an agenda, identifying the decisions required, allowing breaks and providing a short action summary afterwards may improve both understanding and instructions.
Some clients benefit from practical support beyond the legal team. Doris has used “body doubling” – remaining present while a client begins and works through an avoided task – to help ADHD clients organise legal paperwork. With other neurodivergent clients, coaching has helped them process the sense of rejection or rupture caused by an unexpected change of solicitor, even where the change arose from an ordinary promotion or move between firms.
Similar openness is valuable at court. Where a client has invited a coach, therapist or other support professional to assist them in the waiting room, barristers and solicitors should approach that arrangement openly and with curiosity. Subject to the client’s consent, confidentiality, professional boundaries and any restrictions imposed by the court, support professionals can help the client regulate, retain information and prepare for discussions. They are not there to provide legal advice or displace the legal team, but to help the client participate in its work.
Client-invited support is distinct from the formal participation measures the court may direct. Where communication difficulties may affect a client’s ability to understand questions, process information, participate in a hearing or give their best evidence, practitioners should also consider whether the issue needs to be raised with the court under Part 3A. An intermediary may sometimes be required, although this should be considered alongside other participation directions and reasonable adjustments. An intermediary can assess the individual’s communication needs and recommend measures such as adapting questions or allowing additional processing time, with the aim of enabling fair and effective participation. (See the President of the Family Division’s Practice Guidance: The Use of Intermediaries, Lay Advocates and Cognitive Assessments in the Family Court, 7 November 2025.)
Collaboration that reduces complexity
In our shared case, collaborative support meant that practical and emotional preparation could take place outside the solicitor’s legal work, while the solicitor retained responsibility for advice, strategy and the conduct of the case.
For this to work, roles and boundaries must be explicit. The client should consent to information-sharing; each professional should know what they are responsible for; confidentiality must be respected; and the client should not become the messenger between an expanding group of advisers (see the SRA Code of Conduct, para 6.3 on confidentiality and disclosure with client consent). Collaboration should reduce duplication, conflicting messages (and cost, where possible), not add another layer of administration.
The SRA’s vulnerability research proposes a wider “universal practice” approach: designing legal services to be accessible and inclusive for everyone, grounded in trust and respect, rather than relying only on individual disclosure and adjustment. That does not – and should not – replace personalised support, but create a more accessible baseline from which individual needs can be explored.
Curiosity before conclusion
We will not always identify every need immediately or get every adjustment right. The more realistic aim is to remain attentive and willing to adapt.
When engagement changes, curiosity should come before conclusion: is this client choosing not to act, or are pain, overload, fear or an inaccessible process getting in the way? Asking that question – and genuinely listening to the answer – may protect the professional relationship, improve participation and make justice more accessible in practice, not only in principle.
Doris Cozma, Divorce and Separation Coach at DC2, and Taler Kelly, Irwin Mitchell