The legal industry is violating the ADA.

It's time to expose the naked emperor.

What if I told you that almost every interaction with lawyers discriminates on the basis of disability under the ADA, Title III?

This week I got a demand letter from a lawyer. It was basically a shakedown attempt, and they don’t know that they’ve stepped on the wrong motherfucking rattlesnake, but I’m actually thankful this happened, because this brought to light a GLARING problem with the legal industry and Title III of the ADA.

The entire legal industry violates the ADA!

Okay, first, my regular disclaimer. This is presented for aid and encouragement of those who are or intend to exercise or enjoy the rights of equal access, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and Final Rule implementation “(ADA”). THIS WRITING IS ABSENT INTENT OR AUTHORITY AS LEGAL ADVICE.

So, for the last almost 6 years, I have been a Certified ADA Advocate for litigants with invisible disabilities. I’m trained to advocate in court and stand up to the court for violating the ADA and discriminating on the basis of disability. With that said, I MISSED THIS for almost SIX years.

Here are the steps of my presented position that almost every interaction (I can’t currently think of an exception) in which a lawyer is addressing you with the intent that you do business with them is subject to the ADA, and they ARE NOT offering (non-clients, at least) Accommodations under Title III of the ADA!

1. A law office is a public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(F). “office of a lawyer”. So the “office of a lawyer” has to provide equal access under Title III. Does this end at the architectural boundaries? NO. It extends to the “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation”.

2. Offers from lawyers (demands, negotiations, subpoenas, etc.) create a very observable nexus to the “place of public accommodation, and these offers are a part of the “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation” (Notice that “facilities” has a separator from “goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” 

The “facilities” of a place of public accommodation is one thing. The “goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” of a place of public accommodation is something entirely different. For a lawyer, their goods and services go out into the world daily and affect commerce.

Imagine a lawyer telling a deaf, or blind client that they would accommodate them as long as they were in the physical building of the law office. This would mean that clients are only accommodated in office, and when they get to court, they get NO accommodations from their lawyer. That’s absurd, right? Because the services of the lawyer continue into court, and into the communication to non-clients, on behalf of clients. (Looking in William Goren's direction)

Imagine a lawyer sending a demand letter to a blind individual, and the blind individual not being able to read the letter without braille. Is the blind individual out of luck because they aren’t in the office “building” of the lawyer? NO. They are entitled to request and receive accommodation concerning being able to access that demand letter with effective communication.

(Side note: ” Title II of the ADA, makes attorneys for state and local government subject to the provisions of the ADA, in-office, as well as in any of their “services, programs, and activities.” So public accommodation attorneys may kick and scream about this, but they are NOT entitled to discriminate against disabled individuals with whom they seek to do business or interact with.)

Title III of the ADA:  28 CFR § 36.201

(a) Prohibition of discrimination. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 

Letters and other communications from lawyers issue from their office, with the expectation that responses come back into the office. There is a clear nexus that shows that the BULK of what a lawyer does is to issue communication between clients and non-clients. These communications are sent from, and the non-clients respond to the PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, THROUGH THE MAIL OR EMAIL OR ANY OTHER FORM OF COMMUNICATION.

3. The American Bar Association acknowledges that the responsibilities of a lawyer include business dealings with others, and the model rules of professional conduct include responsibilities as to “others”.

American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (LINK)

Notice that Rule #2 includes “honest dealings with others” and “reporting about [legal affairs] to the client or to others.” Interacting with others is a staple of the legal industry. In fact, they DEMAND that the people they reach out to respond to them, or there is often a threat of compulsion by legal action.

This is part of the standard operations, i.e the goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” of a law office ARE the offers and other communication they send out. THAT IS THE NEXUS - the connection between the “goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” and the place of public accommodation. The CONNECTION is on paper, to and from non-clients who are or may be disabled, and these services MUST be accessible according to Title III of the ADA.

The hardest thing for most anyone to do is to think outside the box, when a certain construct DEPENDS on the box that has been created. What I am spelling out is an actual threat to the legal industry, and I understand how serious this is. My mentor and dear friend, the late Dr. Karin Huffer PhD, coined the term “Legal Abuse Syndrome” as a source for PTSD. I encourage you to read her book by the same title - Legal Abuse Syndrome.

The Legal Industry Creates Disability And The Discriminates By The Use Of Disability

The legal industry does the ADA 2-step. First, the industry sets up a disability, by the use of legalese, words and terms that are corrupted with latent ambiguity, and they act as if they have no duty to make the law a simple process. People who can buy the law, win. People who cannot buy the law, lose, for the most part, because the lawyers have this operation of subterfuge, artifice, sleight of words, and as 2 Peter 2:3 puts it, “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you”…

Here are the 2 steps of the ADA 2 step.

1. Create a disability. This is done through the use of words, legalese, artifice, sleight of mouth, as a binding spell, and it creates, and has for centuries created, a “physiological condition” (28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(1)(i)) that substantially limits the major life activities of communicating, interacting with others, caring for oneself, working, and more.
   

2. Discriminate against those who have the disability you created, either by their lack of knowledge due to your obfuscation and artifice (Luke 11:52), or who don’t use the court’s offered accommodation of hiring a lawyer to “represent” them. See, Title I, Title II, and Title III offer a provision that “Nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or benefit provided under the ADA or this part which such individual chooses not to accept.” But if one doesn’t buy a lawyer’s services, one cannot hope to know enough about the true workings of the court and law to remain unscathed, as a general rule. That’s why it’s a disability, and it’s definitely discriminatory, because those who don’t buy in and/or those who buy in and don’t receive “assistance of EFFECTIVE counsel” are receiving a different set of benefits than those who do buy in.

   HOW THE SCAM WORKS
   
   The Constitution, if you believe it enumerates certain rights, says that the accused shall have the “assistance of counsel.” If someone “assists” you, then you are in control. If they “represent” you, you are NOT in control, and as a client, you’re considered a ward of the court (incompetent.)
   
   So a lawyer “represents” you through a trial, and then at the sentencing, the lawyer automagically UN-represents you and lets you take the sentence. Hell, that’s the time to look at the lawyer and say “You said you’d represent me, stand in my place like you promised, and take the sentence.”
   

BOTTOM LINE:

As an individual with disabilities that is being engaged by an adverse lawyer’s office, you’re entitled to effective communication (28 C.F.R. §36.303(c)(1)). To make matters even sticker, when you ask for effective communication, which is going to look different for different disabilities, you’re entitled to PRIVACY and INDEPENDENCE (28 C.F.R. §36.303(c)(1)(ii)). How is an adverse attorney going to maintain your privacy and independence, when that means they will have to withhold your request for effective communication from their client? That’s a real humdinger, but the law says “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.” (emphasis added) Lawyers are NOT taught the ADA in law school because it’s not a money-maker for them, and they are without any incentive to take on ADA cases.

When a lawyer sends you something, they are definitely seeking to engage you in their business and commerce. It’s an offer. If, like me, you have a communication disorder, whether it is Social Communication Disorder or PTSD, as I am diagnosed with, or whether it is just that you don’t understand the words and terms that lawyers use, and that is a physiological condition that substantially impairs your major life activities of communicating, interacting with others, caring for yourself (because you have no clue how to respond) and more, then I’m going to encourage you to INVOKE THE ADA, and as is my practice, and my “learned behavioral modification” (28 C.F.R. §36.105(d)(4)(iv)), ask for the specific, static, complete, and permanent meaning to each and every word on the offer that is sent to you, or at least enough of the words that you can get a bearing, and don’t stop there. But that’s for another “newsletter”.

P.D., JAY V. SHORE