Unfortunately, a trend I’ve noticed is that many companies only take action on accessibility issues when they’re faced with the threat of legal action. It’s often not until the possibility of financial consequence looms that budget gets released, and real efforts toward accessibility are allowed to be made.

This is incredibly frustrating because it implies that the rights of disabled people are considered optional until there’s a cost associated with ignoring them. This reactive approach is not ideal, it shouldn’t take the fear of legal consequences to push businesses to ensure websites can be used by everyone. As a result, I’ve developed a bit interest in the intersection between the law and accessibility.

A Law Firm’s Disappointing Approach to Accessibility

Recently, I came across Doughty Street Chambers, a law firm that positions themselves to focus on the Equality Act and human rights.

Initially, I was impressed by their apparent commitment to these issues, so I decided to check out their website. To my disappointment, I noticed that they were using a accessibility overlay, a tool known to exacerbate digital accessibility problems. It’s hard to overstate how counterproductive these tools can be.

Taking Action, But Ignored

I emailed them in June 2024, providing clear evidence that the use of this product was making their site less accessible. Unfortunately, my email was ignored. I thought maybe, just maybe, once highlighted they would take action.

I decided to wait a while and then decided to I leave comment on their social media at in September highlighting the issue again in a public forum. Once again, I was met with silence there was no acknowledgment

The Message They’re Sending

This situation raises a serious concern: if even law firms, organisations that should be familiar with the such technical requirements and the standards expected—are unwilling to take action when accessibility issues are pointed out, what does that say about their commitment to such rights?

How can a law firm offer services around human rights, which exists to protect people from discrimination, while failing to comply with the very technical standards that ensure digital accessibility? This isn’t just about oversight or ignorance; law firms are often profit-driven organisations they have the financial resources to make these changes.

In some accessibility roles, “engaging stakeholders” is part of paid work of influencing and driving change. However in this case, shouldn’t addressing accessibility be part of a law firm’s basic due diligence? When the company claims to be experts on disability rights, ensuring the business practices align with standards shouldn’t this be non-negotiable?

This situation shows that, even with legal expertise, companies can still be complacent when it comes to digital accessibility.