[blindlaw] Reduced Billable Hour Requirement as an ADA accommodation

Thu Sep 20 13:50:09 UTC 2018

it depends on how you are measuring what is considered debilitating. If a 
sighted colleague measures extremely low on the intelligence, competence, 
and ethics scale, which are essential qualities of a good attorney, 
regardless of your blindness, this attorney will be less of a valued asset 
to the employer. Blindness is not even part of this equation. This is the 
reason why I found it misguided to redirect the employer's hiring interest 
to your blindness, as oppose to your intelligence, competence, and ethics.

Such an approach is  counterproductive. This is not reasonable accommodation 
but more of a self-inflicted degradation of one's professional standing.

I think there need to be a seminar of sort to help blind attorneys 
understand how to sell oneself effectively as a blind professional. We need 
that in this competitive environment. Not just at job interviews, but in 
other professional business interactions with clients and colleagues and 
partners.

Rod Alcidonis, Esq.
-----Original Message----- 
From: Rahul Bajaj via BlindLaw
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:15 AM
To: Blind Law Mailing List
Cc: Rahul Bajaj
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Reduced Billable Hour Requirement as an ADA 
accommodation

I agree with Mark, except insofar as he says that it would be wrong to 
single out the limitation of blindness as being especially debilitating. I 
think it is a singularly debilitating limitation, and it and other 
limitations of mood, temprament and the like are not mutually exclusive. 
Nothing inoculates a blind lawyer from having these limitations over and 
above the limitation of blindness.

That caveat notwithstanding, I think that demanding this accommodation of 
relaxation of the billable hours requirement may not be prudent. Like I said 
on the call, a blind transactional lawyer has to find ways of being better 
than their colleagues in other areas, such as learning to read faster. 
Blindness gives rise to several limitations which cannot be wished away. But 
if one is able to make a good case for the proposition that one's knowledge 
of the law, articulation ability and communication and interpersonal skills 
are superior to those of one's competitors, the impact of the disability can 
be mitigated.

Best,
Rahul

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:59 PM, Maurer, Marc via BlindLaw 
> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> Colleagues:
>
>
>
> I don't believe in the premise. There are times when a piece of technology 
> is more cumbersome to use as a blind lawyer than it would be to use as a 
> sighted lawyer. However, lawyers get paid for time and talent. Ultimately 
> the talent of blind lawyers must be equivalent to that of sighted lawyers, 
> and my observation is that this is true. All lawyers have limitations. 
> Some of them are limitations of temperament, some of mood, some of 
> background and training, some of interest, some of intelligence, and no 
> doubt many others. To single out one limitation and make it more important 
> than all the others is a mistake in assessment. I am not as good as 
> certain of my colleagues in some areas of the law. However, I am much 
> better than many of my colleagues in other areas. What do I have to sell? 
> Intelligence, aggressiveness, a dogged persistence, a faith in my clients, 
> and a measure of experience. I have no compunction whatever in charging 
> people for these. If you want them, you get to pay for them. Some people 
> get them for free, but they have to convince me that it's worth it to me. 
> Sometimes I'm slow, but I'm good when I work. I am not selling 
> accessibility. I am selling talent and commitment. I remember giving 
> advice to a job applicant who put on a resume that the applicant had the 
> best computer and was therefore worth hiring. I wondered out loud why the 
> employer didn't just buy the computer and skip hiring the employee. People 
> hire me because I have the brains and the talent to use them. This is what 
> blind lawyers should sell.
>
>
>
>
> Marc Maurer
> Director of Legal Policy
> 200 East Wells Street, Baltimore, MD 21230
> 410-659-9314, extension 2268 | mmaurer at nfb.org
>
>
> [National Federation of the Blind]<https://nfb.org/>
>
>                         [Facebook] 
> <http://www.facebook.com/nationalfederationoftheblind>     [Twitter] 
> <https://twitter.com/NFB_Voice>     [Youtube] 
> <https://www.youtube.com/NationsBlind>
>
> The National Federation of the Blind is a community of members and friends 
> who believe in the hopes and dreams of the nation’s blind. Every day we 
> work together to help blind people live the lives they want.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Michal Nowicki 
> via BlindLaw
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 2:38 PM
> To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Michal Nowicki <mnowicki4 at icloud.com>
> Subject: [blindlaw] Reduced Billable Hour Requirement as an ADA 
> accommodation
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
> During last week’s conference call on job interview tips for blind 
> attorneys, I brought up the subject of meeting billable hour requirements 
> as a blind attorney. I now have a follow-up question on that topic. Given 
> the fact that we often need more time to complete some tasks than our 
> sighted colleagues due to access barriers, assistive technology 
> limitations, etc., and that it would be unethical to bill clients for this 
> extra time, does requesting a reasonable reduction in the annual billable 
> hour requirement (e.g., from 2,000 to 1,800 hours) qualify as a reasonable 
> accommodation under the ADA and/or similar disability rights laws? Is 
> there any on-point authority? Any guidance on this issue would be greatly 
> appreciated, as I want to do transactional work, most of which is still 
> done on a billable hour basis.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Michal
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> BlindLaw mailing list
>
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org<mailto:BlindLaw at nfbnet.org>
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> BlindLaw:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mmaurer@nfb.org
>
> Disclaimer
>
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is 
> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others 
> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby 
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in 
> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and 
> may be unlawful.
>
> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been 
> automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a 
> Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for 
> your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and 
> compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rahul.bajaj1038%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rodalcidonis%40gmail.com 