US Defense Attorneys’ Views on Autism Reveal the Challenges Faced by Neurodiverse Clients

A recent academic study has taken a close look at how defense attorneys in the United States understand autism and how those views shape the legal representation of autistic defendants. The findings point to a legal system that is still catching up when it comes to neurodiversity, with many attorneys relying on a medicalized understanding of autism while simultaneously recognizing that the courts are not well equipped to meet the needs of autistic clients.

The study was conducted by Colleen M. Berryessa, an associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, and Carolina R. Caliman, a Ph.D. candidate at the same institution. It was published in the Journal of Social Issues and is among the first U.S.-based studies to explore how defense attorneys’ underlying thought processes influence their strategies when representing autistic defendants.

How the Study Was Conducted

To understand how autism is perceived within criminal defense work, the researchers carried out in-depth interviews with 31 defense attorneys from jurisdictions across the United States. These attorneys represented a range of professional backgrounds and geographic locations, allowing the study to capture a broad view of how autism is understood in different court systems.

The interviews focused on several key areas: how attorneys conceptualize autism, how they interpret the behavior of autistic clients, how autistic defendants experience the criminal-legal system, and how attorneys see their own role as advocates. Rather than relying on surveys or hypothetical scenarios, the study centered on real-world experiences from attorneys who had directly worked with autistic clients.

Autism Seen Through a Medical Lens

One of the most consistent findings was that defense attorneys tend to view autism primarily through a medical or diagnostic framework. In practice, this means autism is often understood in terms of symptoms, impairments, and clinical labels rather than as part of a broader neurodiversity spectrum.

This medicalized approach can be useful in certain legal contexts, particularly when attorneys rely on expert testimony from psychologists or psychiatrists to explain an autistic client’s behavior to judges or juries. However, the researchers noted that this framing may unintentionally reinforce the idea that autism is something “wrong” with the defendant, rather than a difference in communication, perception, and behavior.

At the same time, many attorneys acknowledged that a purely medical lens is insufficient for navigating courtroom dynamics. While diagnoses can open the door to accommodations, they do not automatically translate into fair treatment or understanding within legal proceedings.

Barriers Faced by Autistic Defendants in Court

The study highlights several distinct barriers autistic individuals face when they become involved in the criminal-legal system. Defense attorneys repeatedly pointed to how autistic traits are often misunderstood by legal professionals who lack training in neurodiversity.

For example, behaviors such as avoiding eye contact, responding slowly, speaking in a flat tone, or interpreting questions literally can be misread as signs of dishonesty, lack of remorse, or noncompliance. In a courtroom setting that places heavy emphasis on demeanor and social norms, these misunderstandings can have serious consequences for autistic defendants.

Another major issue identified was the lack of consistent and effective accommodations. While legal standards allow for accommodations in theory, attorneys described significant challenges in actually securing them. Courtrooms are often rigid environments, with fast-paced questioning, complex language, and sensory stressors that can overwhelm autistic individuals.

Defense attorneys noted that accommodations are frequently handled on an ad hoc basis, rather than through standardized procedures. This means autistic defendants may receive different levels of support depending on the judge, jurisdiction, or resources available in a particular case.

The Advocacy Role of Defense Attorneys

Despite these challenges, many attorneys in the study saw themselves as critical advocates for autistic clients. They described spending extra time explaining legal concepts, preparing clients for courtroom interactions, and intervening when misunderstandings arose.

Attorneys often relied on expert witnesses to contextualize autistic behavior and explain how autism might affect communication, decision-making, or emotional expression. In some cases, this expert input helped counter negative assumptions and provided judges or juries with a clearer understanding of the defendant’s actions.

However, the study also makes clear that advocacy has limits within a system that is not structurally designed for neurodiversity. Even well-informed attorneys may struggle to protect autistic clients from bias when legal procedures themselves are built around neurotypical expectations.

A Call for Structural Change

The authors emphasize that the challenges faced by autistic defendants are not simply individual issues, but systemic ones. The study calls for meaningful reforms in several areas, starting with legal education.

According to the researchers, law schools and continuing legal education programs rarely include training on autism or neurodiversity. As a result, many attorneys learn how to represent autistic clients through trial and error, rather than through structured guidance.

Beyond education, the study highlights the need for clearer courtroom accommodation protocols, improved screening for neurodivergence, and legal procedures that are flexible enough to account for different communication styles and cognitive processing differences.

Why Autism and the Legal System Often Clash

Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by differences in social communication, sensory processing, and behavior regulation. These differences can become especially pronounced in high-pressure environments like police interrogations, courtrooms, and attorney-client meetings.

Research outside this study has shown that autistic individuals may be more vulnerable during questioning, may misunderstand their legal rights, or may comply with authority figures even when doing so is not in their best interest. When these vulnerabilities intersect with a legal system that values quick responses and social fluency, the risk of unfair outcomes increases.

The Rutgers study adds an important perspective by showing how defense attorneys themselves navigate these tensions and where they feel unsupported by existing legal structures.

Broader Implications for Justice and Equity

This research arrives at a time when conversations about equity in the criminal-legal system are expanding beyond race and socioeconomic status to include disability and neurodiversity. Autistic individuals are increasingly recognized as a group that faces unique risks within legal processes, from arrest through sentencing.

By focusing on defense attorneys, the study sheds light on a group of legal professionals who are often on the front lines of these issues. Their experiences suggest that improving outcomes for autistic defendants will require coordinated efforts across education, policy, and courtroom practice.

Looking Ahead

The study by Berryessa and Caliman does not present simple solutions, but it does make one point clear: the current system places unnecessary obstacles in the path of autistic defendants. While defense attorneys play an essential role in advocating for their clients, they cannot compensate for systemic shortcomings on their own.

As awareness of neurodiversity grows, this research provides a valuable foundation for rethinking how justice systems can become more inclusive, accurate, and fair for everyone involved.

Research paper: https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.70034