Why Neurodiversity May Be the Legal Profession’s Future Advantage
The legal profession has long celebrated traits like precision, analytical thinking, deep focus, pattern recognition, and the ability to work under pressure. But what if many of the very qualities firms value most are actually neurodivergent strengths?
That was the central question explored in Coaching Advocates’ recent webinar, Different Minds, Better Law: Why Neurodiversity May Be the Legal Profession’s Future Advantage, moderated by Lara Wentworth and featuring UK-based lawyer and coach Hannah Beko, neurodivergent coach and occupational therapist Justine McKeogh, and Travis Schultz & Partners CEO Kelly Phelps.
What unfolded was not a conversation about lowering standards, creating special treatment, or “managing problems.” Instead, it became a rich discussion about human potential, workplace design, burnout, belonging, and what the future of legal practice might look like if firms truly embraced cognitive diversity.
Rethinking Neurodiversity in Law
Early in the discussion, Justine McKeogh reframed neurodiversity in a way that shifted the entire tone of the conversation. Neurodiversity, she explained, is simply the natural variation in how human brains process information, communicate, learn, and interact with the world.
“There is no single correct way for a brain to function,” she said.
Rather than approaching neurodivergence through a deficit lens, Justine challenged the audience to think differently. Many of the traits often associated with neurodivergence — hyperfocus, systems thinking, pattern recognition, creativity, precision, strong ethics, and deep analytical ability — are exactly the traits the legal profession actively rewards.
And yet, despite neurodivergent individuals gravitating toward law in significant numbers, many struggle quietly within environments that were never designed with them in mind.
The Hidden Cost of “Masking”
One of the webinar’s most striking themes was the concept of “masking.” Both Hannah and Justine spoke candidly about the emotional and cognitive exhaustion that comes from constantly suppressing natural behaviours in order to appear “professionally acceptable.”
For some lawyers, masking looks like rehearsing conversations before speaking in meetings, forcing eye contact despite discomfort, over-preparing to avoid criticism, or silently pretending to understand instructions out of fear of appearing incapable.
Others compensate by working excessively hard.
“They become these incredible high performers,” Justine explained, “but they’re not actually being true to themselves.”
Over time, that disconnect can become deeply damaging. Burnout, anxiety, perfectionism, loss of identity, emotional exhaustion, and withdrawal from personal relationships can all emerge when someone spends years trying to fit a mould that fundamentally doesn’t fit them.
The panel also touched on the connection between masking and imposter syndrome — something many lawyers already experience regardless of neurotype. For neurodivergent professionals, the pressure to constantly appear capable, composed, and “lawyer-like” can become even more intense.
The “Perfect Storm” Facing the Profession
Hannah Beko brought a particularly powerful perspective to the discussion through what she described as the “perfect storm” currently unfolding within the profession.
Having worked in the burnout and wellbeing space in law for over a decade, Hannah reflected on how dramatically the conversation has shifted since the pandemic. Ten years ago, she said, stress and mental wellbeing were often dismissed as individual weakness within legal culture. Today, firms are beginning to recognise the cumulative impact of chronic stress, relentless connectivity, and increasing workplace demands.
But Hannah believes the rise in conversations around neurodiversity is not necessarily because there are suddenly “more” neurodivergent people.
Instead, she suggested that modern legal practice may be stripping away people’s ability to cope.
“We have much higher stress levels and much more dysregulated nervous systems right now than we’ve ever had,” she explained.
Constant emails, Teams notifications, Slack messages, smartphones, and the expectation of permanent availability are creating environments where the brain never truly rests. For neurodivergent professionals already working hard to regulate attention, emotion, and executive functioning, the pressure can become overwhelming.
The result, Hannah argued, is that many people who may have unknowingly masked their neurodivergence for decades are now reaching breaking point.
So Where Are the Neurodivergent Lawyers Going?
The discussion also explored an uncomfortable but important question: where are neurodivergent lawyers going?
Justine referenced a 2023 Bloomberg study showing that 28% of law students identified as neurodivergent, while only 7% of practising lawyers reported the same.
“So where did they go?” she asked.
The question hung heavily in the discussion.
Are lawyers masking so effectively that firms simply don’t know they are neurodivergent? Or are talented people quietly leaving the profession because the environment becomes unsustainable?
For the panel, this was one of the clearest signs that the profession may need to rethink not only how it supports neurodivergent people, but how legal workplaces are designed altogether.
What Happens When Firms Start the Conversation?
For Kelly Phelps, the conversation became very real inside Travis Schultz & Partners when the firm began exploring neurodiversity more intentionally through workshops and sensory profiling work with Justine McKeogh.
Initially, there was uncertainty. Like many firms, leadership wondered what accommodations might be required and whether supporting different working styles would create operational challenges.
But what unfolded was something very different.
“It really normalised it,” Kelly explained. “It wasn’t pointing out people in the room who were neurodivergent. It was opening the communication up and learning more about ourselves and each other.”
Rather than expensive interventions, many of the changes were surprisingly small:
more detailed meeting agendas distributed in advance, respecting uninterrupted focus time, reducing unnecessary interruptions, giving people more context before networking events, and focusing less on how work gets done and more on the quality of outcomes.
One particularly powerful insight emerged around sensory awareness. Kelly laughed as she shared that her team now jokingly notices when she starts bumping into doorframes or objects — something she learned can happen when she becomes dysregulated or overloaded.
“It’s just become normal,” she said. “We joke about our barriers and our weird little intricacies.”
That normalisation, the panel agreed, may be one of the most important cultural shifts firms can make.
Supporting Neurodiversity Is Not About Lowering Standards
Again and again, the discussion returned to one central idea: supporting neurodivergent professionals is not about lowering standards.
“It’s about removing unnecessary barriers,” Justine said, “so people can actually be their best without sacrificing who they are or their wellbeing.”
Hannah echoed the point by noting that most adjustments that help neurodivergent people are actually beneficial for everyone. Clear communication, psychological safety, flexibility, reduced cognitive overload, trust-based leadership, and genuine curiosity improve workplace performance across the board.
The panel also discussed the strategic opportunity for firms willing to embrace neurodiversity proactively. In a profession facing burnout, elevated turnover, and ongoing talent shortages, neurodivergent professionals may represent an untapped competitive advantage.
As Kelly noted, retention and productivity continue to be among the profession’s biggest challenges.
“We can’t ignore it,” she said simply.
A Different Future for Law
By the end of the webinar, the conversation had shifted well beyond neurodiversity itself. It became a broader reflection on the future of legal workplaces, human sustainability, and what happens when firms stop trying to force everyone into the same professional mould.
Perhaps the most powerful takeaway came not from a statistic or framework, but from a subtle shift in perspective.
What if neurodivergent lawyers are not the outliers?
What if they have been part of the profession all along — quietly masking, over-performing, and trying to survive systems never designed for the way they think?
And what if the future advantage for law firms lies not in asking those people to change… but in finally creating environments where they no longer have to?