Law Firm Websites and ADA Exposure: What Courts Look For

Law firm websites and ADA exposure: What courts actually look for

The number of website accessibility lawsuits filed against businesses has stayed high for years. In 2023, plaintiffs filed 2,794 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court. 77% of those were filed in New York .

Law firms are not immune. If you run a law firm website, you can be sued over whether blind or visually impaired people can use it. The question is what courts actually require and whether your site meets that standard.

The answer depends mostly on where you're located. Federal appeals courts disagree on whether the ADA even applies to websites. That split creates very different levels of risk depending on your state.

The circuit split that matters

The ADA was written in 1990. It doesn't mention websites. Courts have spent the last decade arguing about whether a website counts as a "place of public accommodation."

The Ninth Circuit, which covers California and eight other western states, said yes in a 2019 case. In Robles v. Domino's Pizza, the court held that if you have a physical store and a website that connects to it, the site has to be accessible . Domino's argued the DOJ had never issued formal rules for websites. The court didn't care. The ADA applies, they said, and Domino's was on notice that it needed to make its site work for people with disabilities.

The Eleventh Circuit, covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, went the other way. In Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores in 2021, they held that websites are not places of public accommodation under the plain text of the statute . The case got a lot of attention because it seemed to say websites were exempt. Winn-Dixie later settled and made their site accessible anyway, but the legal precedent stands in that circuit.

Other circuits land in between. The First Circuit suggested in a Netflix case that websites could be covered even without a physical store . The Second Circuit in New York hasn't clearly ruled, but federal courts there routinely let website lawsuits proceed.

For a law firm, this means your exposure depends on where you're located and where your clients are. If you're in California, the Ninth Circuit's Domino's ruling applies. Your website likely needs to be accessible. If you're in Florida, the Eleventh Circuit's Winn-Dixie ruling suggests you might have a defense. But that defense only works if you never leave the Eleventh Circuit.

A recent Southern District of New York case, Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, dismissed claims against a web-only business because there was no physical location connection . The court noted most other district courts require that nexus. If your firm is purely virtual with no physical office, that could matter. But most law firms have offices, so most law firms fall under Title III .

What plaintiffs actually allege

The typical lawsuit follows a pattern. A plaintiff, often someone who files many such suits, visits a law firm website using screen reader software. They claim they couldn't navigate the site, access information, or find what they needed. They sue under the ADA and, in states like California and New York, under state laws that allow money damages.

The complaints usually list technical problems. Missing alt text on images. Headings that aren't coded properly. Forms that screen readers can't interpret. Links that say "click here" instead of describing where they go. Color contrast too low for people with low vision .

The standard courts look to, even though it's not formally required, is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA . The DOJ has never issued website rules for private businesses, unlike the recent Title II rule for governments. But plaintiffs' lawyers argue WCAG is the de facto standard because the DOJ references it in settlements and because it's the only detailed accessibility guideline available.

Standing is the real battleground

The most successful defense strategy recently has been to challenge whether the plaintiff has standing to sue. Standing means the plaintiff must show they suffered an actual injury, not just that a website has technical problems.

In 2022, the Eleventh Circuit in Laufer v. Arpan held that a "tester" plaintiff who visited a hotel website just to check for ADA violations but never intended to book a room lacked standing . The Supreme Court later dismissed a similar case as moot before ruling on the merits, leaving the issue unsettled.

Courts have also dismissed cases where plaintiffs couldn't show they actually encountered barriers. In Brooke v. Super 8 Worldwide, the court found no evidence the plaintiff genuinely tried to use the site . In Lopez v. Arby's, the court said vague allegations about inaccessible features weren't enough .

What this means for law firms: If you get sued, your lawyer should scrutinize whether the plaintiff actually tried to use your site for a real purpose or just ran an automated scan looking for problems.

One firm that beat an ADA website lawsuit

In September 2025, a corporate wellness client represented by Chicago attorney Brian Hoppe got a class action website lawsuit dismissed with prejudice . The plaintiff claimed the client's site wasn't accessible. Hoppe showed the court documentation that the site complied with WCAG 2.1 Level AA and Section 508. The plaintiff dropped the case, and the court dismissed it permanently.

The key was documentation. The client had records showing they'd done the work. Courts are more sympathetic to businesses that can demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts .

What courts actually look for

When a case gets past the standing fight and into the merits, courts look at several things.

Whether the site follows WCAG 2.1 AA. Not because it's legally required, but because it's the only measurable standard available. In the Domino's case, the Ninth Circuit said the lack of formal DOJ rules didn't excuse noncompliance because WCAG provided clear guidance .

Whether barriers actually prevented access. Courts want to know if a real person with a disability couldn't do something a sighted person could do. If a screen reader user couldn't find your contact information or fill out an intake form, that's a problem. If the site has minor technical issues that don't block meaningful access, courts may be less impressed.

Whether the site connects to a physical location. In circuits that require a nexus, plaintiffs need to show your law office is a physical place of public accommodation and the website is a gateway to its services. For a law firm with an office where clients meet lawyers, that's usually easy to show.

Whether you've made good-faith efforts. Courts are less hostile to defendants who tried. Documentation of audits, remediation plans, and staff training helps .

The specific technical problems courts see

Jessica Pasquale at the University of Michigan Law Library ran an informal test of randomly selected law firm websites using an automated accessibility checker. 100% of the sites she checked were rated noncompliant with WCAG standards .

The problems she found are typical. Sites that don't work with keyboard navigation. PDFs that screen readers can't parse. Forms that don't label fields properly. Heading structures that make no sense when read aloud .

Consider a potential client with a broken arm who can't use a mouse. They rely on keyboard navigation. If your site's menu doesn't work with the tab key, they can't get past your homepage. They'll go to another firm .

Or consider a blind person using screen reader software. If your PDFs don't have tagged headings, the screen reader just reads a wall of text with no structure. Finding your phone number becomes a guessing game.

What happens when you update your site

One overlooked risk is that routine website updates can break accessibility. Falcon Rappaport & Berkman LLP documented how privacy policy updates, consent modals for California privacy laws, and new analytics scripts often introduce barriers .

The pattern is predictable. You add a new cookie consent popup. It works fine for sighted users. But keyboard focus gets trapped in the modal, and screen reader users can't get past it. Or you update your privacy policy and post it as a PDF without proper tags. Suddenly a page that worked stops working .

Courts don't care that you didn't mean to break it. They care that barriers exist.

The overlay problem

Some law firms use accessibility overlays, widgets that claim to fix accessibility with one line of code. They're marketed as quick solutions.

They don't work.

The European Commission has explicitly stated overlays are not an acceptable compliance solution under the European Accessibility Act . In the US, overlays often create more problems than they solve. They can conflict with users' assistive technology, remap keyboard commands, and hide content from screen readers .

One law firm's site noted they've adapted their site in accordance with WCAG guidelines and used an "Accessibility Wizard" to find and fix issues . That's better than an overlay but still not a substitute for proper development and testing.

The DOJ has filed statements of interest in lawsuits against overlay companies, signaling they don't consider overlays a valid fix. If you're relying on an overlay, you're probably not compliant.

State laws add damages

The ADA itself only allows injunctive relief. That means a plaintiff can force you to fix your site, but they can't get money damages under federal law.

State laws change that calculation.

California's Unruh Civil Rights Act treats ADA violations as violations of state law and provides statutory damages of at least $4,000 per violation . That's why so many website lawsuits end up in California courts.

New York state and city human rights laws allow compensatory damages for emotional distress and, in New York City, punitive damages . Plaintiffs' lawyers in New York typically assert both federal and state claims to unlock those damages.

If your firm has clients in California or New York, or if your site is accessible there, you face exposure under those state laws regardless of where you're physically located.

What serial plaintiffs and their lawyers look like

The Karlin Law Firm, which has defended over 4,000 ADA cases, maintains a list of plaintiffs' lawyers filing these suits in California . The list includes dozens of names: Potter Handy LLP (also known as the Center for Disability Access), the Morse Mehrban firm, Lynn Hubbard III, and many others.

Some of these lawyers have faced scrutiny. In 2022, the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys sued Potter Handy, alleging fraudulent lawsuit practices . Beverly Hills attorney Kousha Berokim was indicted for allegedly demanding settlements from businesses without ever filing lawsuits. The Karlin firm says they handled over 100 claims from Berokim and their clients never paid anything .

The pattern, defense lawyers argue, is exploitation. Demand letters go out. Small businesses settle for $5,000 to $15,000 because fighting would cost more. The lawyers move to the next target.

What defense lawyers recommend

If you're sued, your lawyer should challenge standing immediately. Did this plaintiff actually try to use your site? Do they have a real injury or did they just run an automated scanner?

They should demand specificity. Vague complaints about "inaccessible features" shouldn't survive. A motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) can force the plaintiff to detail exactly what barriers they encountered .

They should consider expert testimony. An accessibility expert can test your site and provide evidence about whether it actually meets WCAG standards.

They should document your good-faith efforts. Courts are more sympathetic to defendants who tried .

And they should know the law in your circuit. If you're in the Eleventh Circuit, you have Winn-Dixie on your side. If you're in the Ninth, you don't.

What law firms should do now

The Oklahoma Bar Journal published an article in September 2025 advising law firms to treat accessibility as both a legal obligation and a professional opportunity . Angie Barker, an accessibility rights attorney, wrote that law firms should strive for WCAG 2.1 compliance to mitigate legal risk.

Her advice: Don't wait for a lawsuit. Start with an audit. Use automated tools to find technical issues, but don't stop there. Automated tools miss things. You need manual testing with real assistive technology .

Fix the highest-priority issues first. Forms people use to contact you. Pages that describe your services. Your attorney biographies. Make sure screen reader users can actually find and use them.

Train your content people. If your staff doesn't know how to write alt text or structure headings, you'll keep creating inaccessible content even after you fix the old stuff .

Document everything. Keep records of audits, fixes, and testing. If you're sued, that documentation is your best evidence of good faith.

Put an accessibility statement on your site. Make it clear you're committed to accessibility and provide a way for people to report problems . It won't prevent lawsuits, but it shows effort.

The bottom line

The legal standard for law firm websites is unsettled. The DOJ hasn't issued rules. The circuits disagree. Plaintiffs file thousands of suits anyway.

Courts look for three things. Does the site follow WCAG 2.1 AA? Do barriers actually prevent access? Did the firm make good-faith efforts to comply?

If you're in the Ninth Circuit, your website almost certainly needs to be accessible. If you're in the Eleventh, you have a stronger defense but not a guarantee. If you're anywhere else, you're in a gray area where plaintiffs file suit and judges decide case by case.

Karlin Law Firm claims to have resolved over 6,000 ADA claims nationwide . That number alone tells you the scope of the exposure. Law firms are not being targeted specifically, not yet, but they're businesses with websites. They're not immune.

The safe approach is to treat your website like the Ninth Circuit is the only circuit that matters. Build it to WCAG 2.1 AA. Test it with real assistive technology. Document your work. Because even if you win a lawsuit on standing or jurisdiction, you'd rather never get sued in the first place.