Autistic individuals encounter distinct barriers within the criminal-legal system, such as misinterpretations of their behaviors, a lack of accommodations, and systemic biases. Despite growing understanding of these challenges, research on how defense attorneys understand and advocate for autistic clients remains limited. This study explores how defense attorneys in the United States conceptualize autism and apply neurodiversity-informed strategies in their advocacy. Semi-structured interviews with 31 defense attorneys revealed that while most attorneys view autism through a medicalized lens, they acknowledge the need for better strategies to secure accommodations in court. Findings suggest that attorneys often rely on expert testimony and recognize the courtroom as primarily designed for neurotypical individuals. Gaps in training and understanding about neurodiversity may hinder effective defense strategies and limit access to justice for autistic defendants. This research highlights the urgent need for enhanced legal training and systemic reform to improve representation and legal experiences for autistic individuals.
From the article:
When applied to the representation of autistic clients, the assumptions underlying the adversarial model, such as a shared understanding of rational legal strategy, communication norms, and courtroom participation, can pose significant challenges. From a procedural perspective, defense attorneys must provide effective counsel by constructing the best possible defense strategy, negotiating plea deals when appropriate, and ensuring their clients are competent to stand trial. This requires legal expertise and an understanding of their clients’ ability to participate in legal proceedings (Smith 2013). Autistic individuals may experience sensory overload, difficulty with language, and distinct social communication styles that affect how they receive and process legal information (Faccini and Burke 2021; Taylor et al. 2009). For example, a client may nod in agreement while masking confusion or distress, leading attorneys to overestimate comprehension and proceed with legal strategies the client does not fully understand (Cooper et al. 2020).
In response to these limitations, alternative frameworks such as therapeutic jurisprudence have emerged to expand how legal professionals conceptualize their roles. Rather than focusing solely on legal outcomes and adversarial performance, therapeutic jurisprudence encourages attorneys to consider how legal processes and strategies affect their clients' emotional, psychological, and cognitive well-being (Wexler 2004; Winick 1999). For defense attorneys working with neurodivergent individuals, this might mean advocating for courtroom accommodations, using adapted communication techniques, or helping secure external supports that foster more accessible legal participation (Berryessa and Caliman 2026). However, the extent to which attorneys should actively intervene in shaping their clients’ legal experience remains a debated ethical issue.
