THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 56 | SEPTEMBER 2025 recently held that a web-only business was not subject to Title III requirements.48 The key fact in the court’s decision was that the business in question did not maintain a physical space; the court acknowledged that a majority of other district courts have held that a website is a place of public accommodation only if it is connected to a physical location. This is an important point to consider if your firm is purely virtual, but it should not be used as an excuse to ignore accessibility compliance. The majority of law firms maintain both physical spaces and publish websites and, therefore, fall under the requirements of Title III. Regardless, maintaining ADA-compliant websites is the prudent decision, and all law firms should strive to achieve and maintain WCAG 2.1 compliance to mitigate legal risk. CONCLUSION ADA Title III compliance represents both a legal obligation and a professional opportunity for law firms. By creating accessible facilities, services and websites, law firms demonstrate their commitment to equal justice and expand their ability to serve all members of their staff and communities. Effective compliance requires ongoing attention to both technical specifications and practical usability. Law firms should view accessibility not only as a legal requirement but as an integral part of professional excellence. The investment in accessibility pays dividends in terms of employee and client satisfaction, risk management and professional reputation. As the legal profession continues to evolve, accessibility must remain at the forefront of facility planning, technology adoption and service delivery. Law firms that embrace this challenge will find themselves better positioned to serve their staff and communities and fulfill our profession’s commitment to accessible justice for all. The path to full accessibility may seem complex, but the destination is clear: law offices that welcome all clients with dignity and provide equal access to legal services. This goal is not only required by state and federal law but is demanded by the principles of justice that define the legal profession itself. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Angie Barker is an accessibility rights attorney, consultant and adjunct professor with over 20 years of ADA compliance and fair housing advocacy experience. Her practice spans employment, premises liability, housing law, construction compliance, veterans’ rights, elder law and education law – anywhere the ADA touches. Ms. Barker’s unique experience as both a legal practitioner and an ADA consultant enables her to identify architectural barriers, policy failures and regulatory violations. She teaches real estate and property law at Rose State College. ENDNOTES 1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (1990). 2. 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. 3. 42 U.S.C. §12182(a). 4. 42 U.S.C. §12182(a). 5. 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(F). 6. Consent Decree, U.S. v. LeHouillier, 1:09-cv-02582-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. April 5, 2010) [hereinafter Consent Decree (LeHouillier)]. 7. 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(F); 28 C.F.R. §36.104. 8. 28 C.F.R. §36.104. 9. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 40 P.S.G. 5673 (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., 2010). 10. 28 CFR 36.304(a). 11. 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 12. 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). 13. 2010 ADA Standards §208.2. 14. Id. at 2.4. 15. Id. at §502.2. 16. Id. at §502.2. 17. Id. at §502.3.3. 18. Id. at §502.4. 19. Id. at §502.6. 20. Id. 21. Id. at §208.3.1. 22. 28 C.F.R. §36.304(a) and (b). 23. 2010 ADA Standards §404.2.3. 24. Id. at §404.2.3-404.2.4.3. 25. Id. at §309.4. 26. Id. 27. Id. at §404.2.5. 28. Id. 29. Id. at §404.2.4.1. 30. Id. at §302.1. 31. Id. at §204.4.1. 32. 28 C.F.R. §35.151(b)(4)(ii)(A). 33. 2010 ADA Standards §904.1. 34. Id. at §603.2.3. 35. Id. at §305.3. 36. Id. at §600. 37. Id. at §604.2. 38. Id. at §604.4. 39. Id. at §609. 40. Id. at §609.8. 41. Id. at §606.3. 42. Id. at §606.5. 43. Id. at §603.3. 44. Id. at §604.7. 45. Id. at §902.3. 46. W3C World Wide Web Consortium, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, (May 31, 2025, 4:32 p.m.), www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21. 47. Id. 48. Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., No. 1:2022cv03667 – Document 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==