Reasonable Adjustments in Legal Recruitment

Recruitment processes were built around one narrow idea of what a strong candidate looks like, and that idea has never reflected the full range of genuinely capable people applying for legal roles. A pause before answering, a request for information in writing, a quieter room, none of these change what’s being assessed. They simply remove the parts of the process that were never testing legal ability in the first place.

Reasonable adjustments aren’t a concession or a lowering of standards. They’re the difference between a process that measures how well someone performs under one specific, unexamined set of conditions, and one that measures what a candidate can actually do. Most adjustments cost little or nothing to put in place, and many of them, extra time, clear written instructions, a calmer interview environment, quietly improve the experience for every candidate, not only those who requested them.

What follows is a practical guide to the adjustments firms can make at each stage of recruitment, why they matter, and which candidates they tend to help most.

EXTRA TIME

Giving a candidate longer than the standard allowance to complete a written exercise, psychometric test, or timed assessment, without changing the content or the standard being assessed against.

Why it helps

A fixed time limit tests two things at once: the underlying skill, and how quickly someone can demonstrate it under pressure. For a lot of candidates, a countdown clock adds a layer of pressure that has nothing to do with their actual ability, whether that’s needing longer to process written material, finding a visible clock itself distracting, needing a moment to reach a genuine sense of completion before submitting an answer, or simply performing worse under time pressure generally. The clock, in these cases, is measuring something other than the skill the test claims to assess.

How to offer it

  • Add a standard proportion of extra time (commonly 25–50%) to written exercises and psychometric tests
  • Apply it consistently, rather than asking candidates to justify the exact percentage they need
  • Where a test can reasonably be delivered untimed without changing what it measures, consider removing the limit entirely
  • State the option clearly in advance, in the interview invite or application instructions, rather than waiting for a candidate to ask

What it costs

Little to nothing. It requires no special equipment, and no candidate has to explain or justify their diagnosis in detail to access it.

THINKING TIME

Giving a candidate a genuine moment to think before answering in an interview, without filling the silence, rushing them, or reading the pause as a sign of weaker knowledge.

Why it helps

Interviews move fast by default, and that pace itself can work against a strong candidate. Some people need a beat to process a question fully before responding. Others need a moment to organise a clear answer, or to manage a stammer, or simply to think something through properly rather than reaching for the first thing that comes to mind. A pause in these cases reflects care and genuine processing, not uncertainty about the material, but an interviewer unused to it can easily misread it as hesitation or a lack of confidence.

How to offer it

  • Allow a natural pause after each question rather than immediately following up or rephrasing
  • Avoid finishing a candidate’s sentence or answering on their behalf
  • Brief interviewers in advance not to read a pause as a negative signal
  • Where useful, let candidates know at the start of the interview that they’re welcome to take a moment before answering

What it costs

Nothing beyond a small adjustment to interview pace and interviewer training. It requires no advance planning, no equipment, and applies to every interview by default rather than needing to be specifically requested.

BREAKS DURING ASSESSMENTS

Building scheduled or on-request breaks into longer testing sessions and assessment days, rather than expecting candidates to sustain focus for several hours without a pause.

Why it helps

Concentration, energy, and physical comfort aren’t unlimited for anyone, and for some candidates, a long, unbroken stretch of testing or assessment makes accuracy and performance decline over time in a way that has nothing to do with their underlying ability. A break part-way through gives a candidate the chance to reset, manage fatigue, or simply recover from a demanding stretch of the day, so what’s being assessed at the end of a long session is still a genuine reflection of their capability, not just a test of stamina.

How to offer it

  • Build at least one scheduled break into any test or exercise running longer than 45 minutes to an hour
  • Allow candidates to request an additional short break during an assessment day without needing to explain why
  • Share the timing of scheduled breaks in advance, as part of a clear day schedule
  • Make sure break space is genuinely available and not just a formality, a real room, not a corridor

What it costs

Very little. It mostly requires building pauses into a schedule that firms are already designing, and it benefits every candidate’s ability to concentrate, not only those who specifically need it.

QUIET ASSESSMENT SPACE

Offering a calmer, lower-sensory environment, for tests, interviews, or breaks, away from background noise, bright or flickering lighting, and general foot traffic.

Why it helps

Standard office and assessment environments are rarely neutral. Open-plan noise, fluorescent lighting, and a busy, unfamiliar space can be genuinely distracting or uncomfortable for some candidates, consuming attention and energy before the actual task has even begun. For others, a quiet space during a break offers a chance to reset after a demanding stretch of the day. In both cases, the aim is the same: making sure the environment itself isn’t adding an extra, unrelated difficulty on top of what’s actually being assessed.

How to offer it

  • Use a quiet, enclosed room for tests and interviews where possible, away from general office noise
  • Choose softer lighting over harsh overhead fluorescents where there’s a choice
  • Provide a clearly signposted, genuinely private space candidates can use during breaks
  • Let candidates bring their own aids, such as noise-reducing headphones, without treating the request as unusual

What it costs

Little to nothing, particularly where a firm already has a spare meeting room or quiet space available. It benefits concentration and comfort broadly, not only for candidates who specifically request it.

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Giving candidates access to tools like text-to-speech, speech-to-text, screen readers, or spelling and grammar support, so a task tests the underlying skill rather than an unrelated barrier around reading, writing, or processing.

Why it helps

Assistive technology bridges the gap between what someone knows and how easily they can get it onto the page or take it in from the page in the first place. Text-to-speech lets a candidate hear written material rather than relying solely on reading it under pressure. Speech-to-text lets someone get their thinking down without being slowed by handwriting or typing difficulty. Spelling and grammar tools reduce the risk of a strong answer being marked down for surface-level errors that have nothing to do with the quality of the underlying argument. In every case, the technology removes a barrier around expression or intake, not around the reasoning itself.

How to offer it

  • Allow candidates to use their own familiar assistive software during written exercises and tests
  • Offer built-in text-to-speech or speech-to-text options as standard on any digital assessment platform
  • Provide a laptop or device as an alternative to handwritten tasks, with relevant software enabled
  • State clearly in advance that assistive technology is welcome, rather than leaving candidates to ask and risk drawing attention to it

What it costs

Often nothing beyond enabling existing, built-in accessibility features on a testing platform. Where dedicated software is needed, many options are low-cost or free, and the adjustment removes a barrier entirely unrelated to what the task is meant to measure.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS PROVIDED IN ADVANCE

Sharing the interview questions, or at minimum the general topics and areas that will be covered, ahead of the interview itself.

Why it helps

An interview asks a candidate to understand a question, retrieve the relevant knowledge, and organise a clear, articulate answer, all in real time, under observation. For some candidates, that combination is where the real difficulty sits, not in the underlying knowledge or reasoning, but in producing it fluently on demand. Seeing the questions in advance lets a candidate prepare their thinking properly, rather than generating it live under pressure, so what comes through in the interview is a genuine reflection of their ability rather than their ability to think and speak simultaneously under stress.

How to offer it

  • Send the full list of questions, or a clear outline of the topics, a few days before the interview
  • Where sharing exact questions isn’t appropriate, share the general areas or type of scenario that will come up instead
  • Apply this consistently across candidates for the same role, so it doesn’t function as an individual favour
  • Make clear that preparation is expected and welcomed, not something to hide

What it costs

Nothing beyond deciding the interview structure slightly earlier than usual. It also tends to produce more consistent, comparable answers across candidates, since everyone is responding to the same known material rather than reacting to it cold.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS ALONGSIDE ORAL DELIVERY

Presenting spoken interview questions and instructions in writing at the same time they’re delivered verbally, rather than relying on speech alone.

Why it helps

Some candidates process written information more reliably than spoken information delivered once, in real time, with no chance to reread it. A question asked aloud only exists for a moment, and if it isn’t fully taken in the first time, a candidate either has to ask for it to be repeated or attempt an answer based on a partial understanding of what was actually asked. Having the question in front of them in writing at the same time removes that risk entirely, and lets a candidate refer back to it while they think, rather than trying to hold it in memory throughout their answer.

How to offer it

  • Provide a printed or on-screen copy of each question as it’s asked, not just a verbal delivery
  • For video interviews, share questions in the chat or on screen alongside speaking them aloud
  • For in-person interviews, hand over a simple written list at the start, or display questions on a screen or card
  • Allow candidates to glance back at the written version while answering, without treating it as note-reliance

What it costs

Very little, usually just printing a question sheet or sharing a document on screen. It benefits any candidate who processes written information more reliably than spoken information heard once, and it removes the need for a candidate to ask for a question to be repeated.

ADDITIONAL PROCESSING TIME

Building in a dedicated window to take in and process material, a complex question, a document, a multi-part instruction, before a candidate is expected to respond or act on it.

Why it helps

This is different from extending a deadline or pausing mid-conversation. It’s about the moment information first arrives. Some candidates need longer to fully take in a dense piece of writing, a multi-step instruction, or a complex scenario before they can engage with it properly, and if a response is expected immediately, that processing has to happen under pressure, at the cost of the quality of what follows. Given a proper window to absorb the material first, the same candidate can often respond with real clarity and precision.

How to offer it

  • Where a candidate is asked to read a document cold, allow a few quiet minutes before questions begin
  • Break multi-part instructions into clear, separate steps rather than delivering them all at once
  • For complex scenarios or case studies, allow reading and processing time before discussion starts, rather than expecting an immediate response
  • Check in briefly, “let me know when you’re ready,” rather than assuming processing has finished once the material has technically been read aloud or handed over

What it costs

Very little, mainly a short pause built into the structure of an interview or exercise. It benefits comprehension and the quality of a candidate’s response broadly, not only for those who specifically need longer to process new information.

ALTERNATIVE FORMATS FOR VIDEO INTERVIEWS

Adjusting how a pre-recorded, asynchronous video interview works, where a question is shown or read aloud, followed by a short prep window and a limited time to record an answer, so the format doesn’t add difficulty unrelated to the answer itself.

Why it helps

This format compresses several demands into a very short space of time: understanding the question, organising a clear response, and speaking fluently into a camera with no one to react to, all within a fixed, often quite short window. For a lot of candidates, that combination is considerably harder than either a normal conversation or a written task on its own, not because the underlying answer is weak, but because the format itself allows no room to think, restart, or settle before the clock starts running. A stammer, a slower processing style, or simply needing a moment to organise thoughts clearly can all be badly disadvantaged by a tight recording window that has nothing to do with the quality of the actual answer.

How to offer it

  • Extend both the preparation time and the recording time as standard, not only on request
  • Allow a candidate to redo a response a set number of times, rather than accepting only the first take
  • Offer a written alternative to the same question, where the exercise allows it
  • Where possible, let the candidate choose to answer live via a real-time call instead, if that suits them better than the recorded format
  • Share, in advance, exactly how much prep and recording time each question will allow, so nothing is a surprise once the process begins

What it costs

Very little, adjusting time limits and allowing an extra take are usually simple platform settings. It benefits any candidate who finds a tight, one-shot recording window harder than the substance of the question itself.

ASSESSMENT MATERIAL PROVIDED IN ADVANCE

Sharing case studies, documents, or scenario materials for an assessment exercise ahead of the assessment day itself, rather than handing them over cold at the point the exercise begins.

Why it helps

Many assessment exercises, a case study discussion, a mock negotiation, a document review task, involve absorbing a substantial amount of material and then reasoning through it, often within a tight window on the day. Given the material only once the exercise starts, a candidate has to do their reading, their thinking, and their performance all within the same compressed slot, and for some candidates that combination genuinely disadvantages them compared to being able to read and process the material properly beforehand. Sharing it in advance separates the task of taking in the material from the task of reasoning through it live, so what’s assessed on the day is closer to a candidate’s actual analytical ability rather than their reading speed under pressure.

How to offer it

  • Send case study documents, scenario briefs, or exercise materials a few days ahead of the assessment
  • Apply this consistently to every candidate for the same exercise, so it doesn’t function as an individual favour
  • Where confidentiality or fairness genuinely requires the material to stay unseen beforehand, consider whether a shorter, simpler version could be shared instead, or whether more time could be given on the day
  • Be clear about what candidates are expected to have prepared, so advance access is used effectively rather than causing its own uncertainty

What it costs

Very little, mainly a small adjustment to when materials are sent out. It tends to produce more consistent, comparable performances across candidates, since everyone has had a genuine chance to engage with the material properly.

FAMILIARISATION WITH ASSESSMENT FORMAT

Giving candidates a practice run or clear walkthrough of what a test or exercise will actually involve, distinct from seeing the specific content itself.

Why it helps

Unfamiliarity with a format can be its own barrier, entirely separate from the skill being tested. A candidate facing an unfamiliar psychometric test layout, an unusual interview structure, or an unclear assessment centre exercise may spend real time and attention simply working out what’s expected of them, before they can properly engage with the actual task. That’s a particular problem for candidates who rely on predictability to manage anxiety, or who process new, unstructured situations more slowly than familiar ones. A practice version or clear walkthrough removes that first layer of difficulty, so what’s assessed is genuine ability, not how quickly someone can decode an unfamiliar format under pressure.

How to offer it

  • Provide a sample or practice version of any psychometric test in advance, using different questions from the real one
  • Send a clear, plain-language explanation of what each assessment day exercise will actually involve before the day itself
  • Offer a short walkthrough call or written guide explaining the format and structure of the interview or assessment
  • Avoid introducing genuinely new or surprise elements on the day that weren’t previewed in the format explanation

What it costs

Little to nothing, mainly the time to prepare a practice version or a short explanatory guide once, which can then be reused for every candidate. It benefits anyone who performs better once a format is familiar, not only those who specifically request it.

ALTERNATIVES TO GROUP AND NETWORKING EXERCISES

Offering a written or one-to-one equivalent for the informal, unscripted parts of an assessment day, rather than requiring every candidate to demonstrate the same thing through unstructured group interaction.

Why it helps

Group discussions and informal networking sessions are often treated as the lower-stakes, easier part of an assessment day, but for a meaningful number of candidates they’re actually the hardest part. Unscripted, fast-moving conversation with no clear turn-taking rewards a very specific style of social confidence, one that has little to do with legal ability, and it can disadvantage candidates who process spoken exchange more slowly, find sensory-heavy group settings genuinely difficult, or simply think and contribute better with structure and space rather than competing to be heard. What these exercises are usually meant to assess, collaboration, communication, judgement, can often be demonstrated just as clearly through a different, more structured format.

How to offer it

  • Offer a written contribution as an addition or alternative to a live group discussion
  • For networking sessions, offer a smaller, structured one-to-one conversation instead of open, unstructured mingling
  • Where a group exercise is retained, give it clear turn-taking structure rather than leaving it entirely open
  • Be transparent about what a group exercise is actually assessing, so an alternative format can be designed to test the same thing fairly

What it costs

Little beyond designing one additional format alongside the existing exercise. It benefits any candidate who finds unstructured group settings harder than the underlying skill the exercise is meant to measure.

PRIVATE FOLLOW-UP CONTRIBUTIONS FOR GROUP ASSESSMENTS

Giving candidates the chance to add to, clarify, or expand on a contribution individually after a group exercise, rather than relying solely on what came out in the moment.

Why it helps

Group exercises move quickly, and contributing in real time, over competing voices, on the spot, favours candidates who think fastest out loud, not necessarily those who reason most clearly. A candidate might have a genuinely strong point that simply didn’t find a natural opening to be raised, or might need a little more time to organise a contribution than the pace of the discussion allowed. A private follow-up gives that candidate a fair chance to add what they didn’t get to say, so the assessment reflects the quality of their thinking rather than how well they competed for space in a fast-moving conversation.

How to offer it

  • Offer a short one-to-one slot, or a written option, immediately after any group exercise, for every candidate
  • Ask a simple, open prompt: is there anything you didn’t get the chance to raise, or anything you’d like to add
  • Apply this consistently to all candidates, so it functions as a fair addition to the process rather than a special exception
  • Make sure assessors genuinely weigh this follow-up alongside the group exercise itself, rather than treating it as an afterthought

What it costs

Very little, usually a few minutes per candidate. It benefits anyone whose strongest contribution didn’t happen to land at the right moment in a fast-moving discussion, not only candidates who specifically requested the option.

FLEXIBILITY AROUND COMMUNICATION STYLE

Not scoring candidates on eye contact, tone of voice, pace of speech, or other surface delivery traits that have no bearing on the substance of what’s actually being said.

Why it helps

Interviewers often read confidence and competence through a small set of instinctive cues, steady eye contact, a warm tone, fluent, unhesitating delivery, and score candidates accordingly, usually without realising they’re doing it. Those cues are unreliable. Sustained eye contact can be genuinely uncomfortable and distracting for some candidates. A flatter tone, a stammer, a slower or more literal way of answering, or a longer pause before responding can all be entirely disconnected from the strength of the underlying answer. Research consistently shows that these surface traits are judged, and judged harshly, well before the actual content of a response gets a fair hearing, which means a genuinely strong candidate can be marked down for something that has nothing to do with their legal ability.

How to offer it

  • Train interviewers specifically on this point, that delivery style and legal competence are not the same thing
  • Use structured scoring criteria focused on the content and substance of an answer, not the manner of delivery
  • Don’t require eye contact, and don’t read its absence as evasiveness or disengagement
  • Don’t read a pause, a stammer, or a flatter tone as a sign of weaker knowledge or lower confidence

What it costs

Nothing beyond interviewer training and a more disciplined scoring approach. It directly addresses one of the most consistently documented sources of bias in interview-based recruitment.

REVIEWING PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING

Considering whether psychometric testing, or specific components of it, is genuinely necessary for the role, and offering alternatives or exemptions where it isn’t.

Why it helps

Psychometric tests are often applied as a standard, unquestioned early filter across every role, regardless of how closely the skills they measure actually match what the job requires. A numerical reasoning component tests something largely irrelevant to a family lawyer’s day-to-day work. A verbal reasoning test that rewards reading speed as much as comprehension can filter out a candidate with excellent legal judgement simply because processing dense text quickly isn’t their particular strength. Some firms have gone further and abolished timed cognitive testing altogether, replacing it with untimed, strengths-based alternatives, after recognising that the format itself was disadvantaging capable candidates for reasons unrelated to legal ability. The underlying question worth asking for any test in use is simple: is this measuring something the role actually needs, or is it simply the stage every candidate has always gone through.

How to offer it

  • Review each testing component against the actual demands of the role it’s screening for
  • Where a numerical or verbal component isn’t genuinely necessary for a particular role, offer an exemption rather than requiring every candidate to sit it regardless
  • Where testing is retained, offer extra time and, where practical, an untimed version as standard
  • Provide a written alternative for any test component delivered by audio or requiring a spoken response

What it costs

Little beyond the time to review existing tests against actual role requirements. Firms that have made this change report seeing more of what a candidate can genuinely do, rather than how well they handle a specific, often unnecessary, testing format.

STRUCTURE AND TIMETABLE ADJUSTMENTS

Giving candidates a clear, detailed schedule for an assessment day in advance, and building genuine, predictable structure into how the day actually runs.

Why it helps

Uncertainty is its own source of difficulty, entirely separate from the content of any individual exercise. Not knowing what’s coming next, how long each part will last, or when a break might happen can be genuinely draining, and for some candidates it triggers real anxiety that has nothing to do with their ability to perform well once they know what’s expected. A clear, predictable schedule removes that layer of uncertainty, letting a candidate direct their energy toward the actual exercises rather than toward managing the unknown shape of the day itself.

How to offer it

  • Send a detailed schedule ahead of the assessment day, timings, locations, what each exercise involves, and when breaks will happen
  • Stick to the schedule as closely as possible, and communicate clearly if something changes
  • Avoid introducing surprise exercises or unannounced changes to the day’s structure
  • Where an assessment day runs long, build in real recovery time between exercises rather than tight, back-to-back transitions

What it costs

Very little, mainly the effort of planning and communicating a schedule that likely already exists internally. It benefits every candidate’s ability to manage a demanding day well, not only those who specifically need predictability.

CV AND APPLICATION FLEXIBILITY

Assessing a candidate’s experience in years rather than requiring exact employment dates, and treating a gap in someone’s CV as a neutral fact rather than a concern to be explained away.

Why it helps

A visible gap on a CV is consistently read unfavourably by default, regardless of what actually caused it. Time away from work for health reasons, mental health, treatment, or simply managing a difficult period is common, and yet candidates are routinely required to account for it in a way that puts genuinely strong applicants at an immediate disadvantage before their actual ability has been considered at all. UK research into this specifically has found that removing exact employment dates from a CV, in favour of years of relevant experience, measurably improves callback rates, clear evidence that the gap itself, not its cause, is what’s quietly working against candidates.

How to offer it

  • Ask for years of relevant experience rather than exact start and end dates on application forms
  • State plainly, in job adverts or on the careers page, that gaps for any reason, including health, are treated as a neutral fact
  • Where a gap is mentioned or explained, judge the application on the substance of the candidate’s skills and experience, not on the presence of the gap
  • Train those reviewing applications not to read a visible gap as a red flag by default

What it costs

Nothing beyond a small change to how application forms are worded and how applications are reviewed. It removes one of the most consistently documented, and most avoidable, sources of bias in the entire recruitment process.