The IDAP Interviews: Justice David S Tatel of the US Court of Appeals

The second interview in the IDIA Disability Access Programme (IDAP) Interview Series is with distinguished judge, David S Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. It is a court that is often referred to as the second most important court in the United States of America..Judge Tatel graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1966, and has had a diverse career trajectory ever since. Blind since 1972 due to the degenerative eye disease Retinitis Pigmentosa, the judge has taught at the University of Michigan and Stanford, and also worked with law firms including Sidley & Austin and Hogan and Hartson..Judge Tatel was nominated to the bench in 1994 by then President Bill Clinton, to a seat vacated by Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg..This interview was conducted by Rahul Bajaj and Anusha Reddy, members of the IDAP Team..IDAP: When you started serving on the DC Circuit in 1994, adaptive technology was in its infancy. Over the last 22 years, much has changed. In what way has adaptive technology altered your modus operandi?.David S Tatel: There are, I’d say, three basic improvements. First of all, almost everything we have is now digital. We basically don’t need to use paper, which means that there is much more I can do with computers and iPhones. In other words, I can read on my own..Number two, I type braille and I’ve been able to move from an older braille computer called ‘N Speak’ which had limited ability to a much more advanced computer device called ‘Voice Note’. The advantage is that it has email and I can use it for reading documents as well as typing..And the third biggest improvement for me, and may be the most dramatic, is the new iPhone and the Voice Over technology, which allows me to read basically anything I want on the iPhone. I should mention there is a fourth, which is the HumanWare Victor Reader..With these three things and with virtually everything being digital, I can do dramatically more on my own that I could 22 years ago..IDAP: In our engagement with employers in the legal profession, we have often noticed that, while most of them are well-intentioned, accessibility often gets sacrificed at the altar of efficiency. Does your own experience bear this out, and how would you react to this concern of employers?.David S Tatel: Well, that’s a hard question, because the fact is that it does take longer. I mean, it takes me longer to do things than my sighted colleagues. I don’t have any doubt about that. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t work just as well or better but it does take longer. That said, there is a wide perception that blind people even with accommodation can’t do the work as quickly or as effectively as other people..I think my experience has been that once the institution the blind person is working in realizes that a blind lawyer is doing good work, that kind of disappears. It’s overcoming a sort of this initial [perception]; I don’t think it is prejudice, but I think it’s lack of knowledge and not understanding what blind people with proper technology can actually accomplish..IDAP: What should a lawyer with a disability take into consideration while choosing their employment?.David S Tatel: Well, I think the major one is that you make sure you go to work for an institution, whether it is a law firm or government agency or a university, that has the resources to provide the technology that you need..This technology is not very expensive any more. That’s the nice thing about it. It is much more likely that a large law firm or a government agency will be able to easily purchase the equipment that you need..That said, my braille computer doesn’t really cost any more than an Apple computer. My iPhone does not cost anything extra. The only thing I would not do as a lawyer and maybe this is my own ignorance, [is a jury trial]. It would be hard for me to do a jury trial because you couldn’t see the faces of the jurors. Now, someone can tell you what they are saying and looking like. But I don’t think that is the same as seeing them yourself. So, just for myself, I wouldn’t do a jury trial but as I said, there may be blind lawyers who have figured out how to do it. I can’t think of any limitations at all. I think blind lawyers can do whatever they want..I can’t think of any limitations at all. I think blind lawyers can do whatever they want..IDAP: In India, some of the problems are the problems lack of knowledge regarding assistive technology, and the perception that it is an added financial burden to provide for reasonable accommodation. How do you think we can address these concerns?.David S Tatel: Because of technology, the cost of hiring blind people is much smaller than what it used to be. I mean, I have a full time reader but the government pays for that..But the fact is that if I were thirty years younger and better on the computer, I wouldn’t need a reader..IDAP: There must be times when you would be required to deal with graphs, charts and other forms of visual information. How are you able to utilize that and meaningfully process the information?.David S Tatel: I don’t; I use my law clerks for that and my reader. I operate in a very rare situation for a blind person. I have four law clerks, a reader and a secretary. Most people do not have that..But, I gather from talking to people that screen readers are perfectly capable of using tables and charts. You just have to know how to do it..You know, I’m not very good with technology. I operate with a disadvantage because I never learnt how to type. I use a braille keyboard, which is much slower than a regular keyboard. If I could type, like most young blind lawyers who have no trouble typing, I would be much faster..IDAP: Justice Zak Yacoob of the South African Constitutional Court told us that he was forced to go the self-employment route in the initial phase of his career because most employers refused to employ him under some or the other pretext. .David S Tatel: I think it is ridiculous. I mean, I don’t think lawyers should be expected to perform only in the office. Lawyers can argue cases just as effectively as anybody else. I told you the one limitation at least I have imposed on myself: I would have trouble during a jury trial. I’ve argued cases and I think it is not fair and it is not accurate to impose low expectations on what blind lawyers can do..I’ve argued cases and I think it is not fair and it is not accurate to impose low expectations on what blind lawyers can do..IDAP: In an interview you gave to the NY Times, you said that you prefer being identified as a judge who happens to be blind as opposed to a blind judge. Would you, therefore, say that a lawyer with a disability should actively strive to de-emphasize his/her disability, in order to ensure that their disability does not become their defining characteristic?.David S Tatel: I think once a lawyer performs well in the institution where he/she is, then the blindness will no longer identify the lawyer. I don’t think lawyers should say “Oh, I’m blind, hire me!”.They should say, “I’m a really good lawyer who happens to be blind.” And “I can do the work just as well as anybody else if I have a braille computer and an iPhone.”.IDAP: As someone who was sighted for a large part of your life, how important a role do you think the sense of sight plays in augmenting the abilities of a person? In India, many people not only refuse to acknowledge the competency of a person with a disability but also have patronizing attitude towards the person. .David S Tatel: I agree. I experience it all the time. I just ignore it. In social events people don’t know who I am and they think I’m just a blind person and they don’t talk to me. I just ignore people like that..Once they find out that I’m a federal judge on the DC Circuit, they are very interested in me. You know what I hate the most, I’ll bet you have this all the time. When I’m with my wife, you know like at the airport, about half the people when they want to speak, they speak to her and not me. My wife always says, “Well, he talks! Talk to him”..People who work with me in my institution right now, who know me and know my work, they don’t do that. They don’t even remember that I’m blind. So, the best thing is, the only thing I can suggest is that institutions change in response to capable people and blind lawyers can change institutions by performing well. And when they perform well the entire institution changes and the entire attitude of the institution changes..But we all have to overcome that perception of sighted people that blind people cannot function as effectively as anybody else..The audio transcript of the interview can be accessed here..The IDAP team would would like thank Sy Hoekstra for suggesting that we get in touch with Judge Tatel. This is an edited version of an interview that was first published here.