Commentary
I'm a lawyer, and I'm Deaf. I write to compliment Attorney William Mattar for his television advertising of his firm’s legal services. Mattar's ads are funny, endearing and most importantly, they are open captioned and therefore accessible for Deaf and hard of hearing viewers. The ads demonstrate Mattar’s inclusion of, and respect for, members of this community.
Under federal law, television commercials less than five minutes in length are not required to be captioned, so despite not being compelled by law to caption his commercials, William Mattar is to be applauded for doing the right thing.
Not only are they accessible, Mattar’s commercials offer a model to legal providers who wish to advertise their services on television. His ads humanize him. He is shown in various contexts familiar to the viewers: a bowling alley where he gets only two points on a roll of the ball; a bar where he tells a joke that falls flat; watching TV with his mother; and writing a check in his office that brings smiles to his clients.
Captioning, however, is only a part of the story. More important is whether and how the lawyer complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, both which require the lawyer to provide effective communication access to the Deaf client. This usually means a sign language interpreter if that is what both parties need to communicate with each other. Think of the interpreter as serving both parties. Think of the interpreter as a bridge between lawyer and client.
By the way, the ADA requires the lawyer to pay for the interpreter. Think of it as the cost of doing business.
That’s not all. Typically, to avoid the cost of providing an interpreter, lawyers offer two alternatives: exchanging written notes, or using the “Chat” feature in the Zoom platform. The law does give the lawyer the final say about what appropriate accommodation will be provided the client. But legal consultation using either alternative may not be effective because the native language of many Deaf people is American Sign Language, not English, whether written or spoken. The complexity of legal communication cannot be adequately explored by passing notes. Questions demanding detailed responses from the lawyer will remain unanswered or partially answered. Lawyers don’t have the time it would take to conduct an adequate interview by exchanging written notes. Clearly, ineffective accommodations are not appropriate accommodations. If that happens, the lawyer can be held liable for violating the ADA.
Here's an idea for not only lawyers, but also doctors and other service providers: go beyond compliance with the law. Why not treat the legal obligation to provide effective communication access (e.g., qualified sign language interpreters) as a floor, not a ceiling? Why not consider going beyond the minimum required by adopting a new attitude, one that says the Deaf client is the expert in what the parties need to communicate effectively with each other? That sounds reasonable, given that the Internal Revenue Service provides some tax relief for providing accommodations for clients with disabilities, including those with hearing loss.
William Mattar, “the firm with the focus,” points us in the right direction by making his television commercials accessible to the Deaf community. In that spirit, the legal community should take it a step further and provide sign language interpreters to their Deaf clients when needed.
Michael A. Schwartz
113 Buffington Road
Syracuse NY 13224
(315) 560-4846 (text only)
