Michael Chen is a 67-year-old client who is legally blind due to advanced macular degeneration. He contacts a mid-sized law firm to finalize and sign his will after weeks of preparation with his lawyer.
Prior to the appointment, Michael informs the receptionist that he is visually impaired and asks whether the document can be provided in an accessible format, such as large print or an electronic version compatible with screen-reading software. He is told that the firm will “see what they can do,” but no follow-up is provided.
When Michael arrives at the office, he encounters several challenges. The reception area has no clear signage or staff available to guide him, and he struggles to navigate the space independently. After a delay, he is escorted to a boardroom where a printed copy of the will—standard font size—is placed in front of him.
Michael again requests an accessible format or for the document to be read aloud. The lawyer, appearing rushed, offers only a brief verbal summary rather than a full reading. Michael expresses concern about signing a legal document he cannot independently review. The lawyer reassures him that “it’s the same document we discussed” and encourages him to proceed to avoid rescheduling delays.
Feeling pressured and increasingly frustrated, Michael signs the will but leaves uncertain about its contents and dissatisfied with the experience. He later questions whether he truly provided informed consent and considers filing a complaint about the firm’s lack of accessibility and accommodation.
Discussion Questions:
- What accessibility barriers did Michael encounter throughout his experience?
- How did the firm fall short of its duty to accommodate?
- How could the lawyer and staff have better supported Michael to ensure informed consent?
- What systemic changes could the firm implement to prevent similar situations in the future?