Equality Act 2010: no charging a disabled client for a reasonable adjustment (s.20(7))
Tomasz Wiśniewski, who is profoundly deaf and uses British Sign Language, instructs Lowther Grange, an SRA-authorised firm in Leeds, on a dispute with his landlord. The firm accepts that providing a BSL interpreter at his meetings with his solicitor is a reasonable step to avoid the substantial disadvantage he would otherwise face. The supervising partner suggests adding the interpreter's fees to Tomasz's bill as a disbursement, explaining this in the client care letter.
What is the correct position on the interpreter's fees?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: The firm must bear the cost itself, because it cannot require Tomasz to pay any of the cost of making reasonable adjustments.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A service-provider subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments cannot require the disabled person to pay any of the cost of complying with that duty (Equality Act 2010 s.20(7)).
Equality Act 2010: no charging a disabled client for a reasonable adjustment (s.20(7))
A solicitors' firm providing legal services to the public is a service-provider under Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010, and s.29(7) applies the duty to make reasonable adjustments to service-providers. Section 20(5) requires reasonable steps to provide an auxiliary aid, which includes an auxiliary service such as an interpreter, where a disabled person would otherwise be at a substantial disadvantage. The firm accepts that the interpreter is a reasonable step. Section 20(7) then provides that a person subject to the duty is not entitled to require the disabled person to pay, to any extent, its costs of complying with the duty. Lowther Grange must therefore absorb the interpreter's fees and cannot pass them on to Tomasz, whether or not it tells him in advance or he agrees.
Why B is wrong: Telling the client in advance does not help; s.20(7) prevents the firm requiring him to pay any of the cost.
Why C is wrong: Section 20(7) bars requiring the disabled person to pay 'to any extent', so getting his agreement does not make the charge lawful.
Why D is wrong: The duty applies to service-providers under s.29(7), not only employers, so the firm cannot decline to act for that reason.
Why E is wrong: There is no cost-sharing rule; the disabled person cannot be required to pay any part of the cost.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
SRA Transparency Rules: which advertised service requires published cost information?
For which advertised service must the firm publish cost information on its website under the SRA Transparency Rules?
Legal expenses insurance: checking for before-the-event cover at the outset (Sarwar v Alam)
Which step best reflects proper practice for the solicitor when considering funding at the outset?
Updating a litigation client when the costs estimate will be substantially exceeded (Code 8.7)
Which of the following best describes the fee earner's obligation?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.