CPD in Action: Neurodiversity in law with Adam Richardson
The BSB spoke with Adam Richardson, a neurodivergent barrister on how tailored CPD can provide the vital tools to unlock professional growth.
What is one assumption about neurodivergence that you would like to debunk?
That neurodivergence is inherently a deficit or makes someone “less equipped” for the demands of the Bar. In truth, it frequently delivers powerful strengths, hyperfocus, exceptional pattern recognition, meticulous attention to detail and creative problem-solving, which can give a real edge in advocacy and complex legal analysis.
What drew you to the Bar, and how has neurodivergence shaped the journey, if at all?
I was drawn to the Bar by a deep passion for advocacy, justice and making a difference in real time. Early in practice, I masked heavily. I assumed the profession required conformity in style and temperament. Over time, I realised that my ability to hyperfocus, interrogate inconsistencies and prepare meticulously were not things to dilute; they were strengths.
From your experience, what CPD training or courses have you found genuinely useful as a neurodivergent barrister?
Specialist CPD has been particularly valuable where it translates insight into practical application, structured advocacy training, resilience programmes grounded in real professional scenarios, and training that explores different cognitive styles within legal practice. That has not only strengthened my own performance but improved how I supervise, mentor and work with others.
How do you approach CPD throughout the year?
I approach CPD as a deliberate investment in professional development rather than a regulatory obligation to be satisfied. At the outset of each CPD cycle, I identify priority themes aligned to my practice, substantive legal developments, advocacy refinement, ethics and regulatory standards, and leadership or governance where relevant. I diarise training early so that it is integrated into the year’s workflow rather than treated as an administrative afterthought.
For me, the value of CPD lies in deepening capability and sharpening judgement. It provides structured exposure to emerging risks, evolving legal frameworks and perspectives that challenge one’s assumptions. It is only through engaging meaningfully with CPD that we begin to understand what we do not know, and in a profession built on precision and risk management, that awareness is critical.
Were there points early in your career where being neurodivergent felt like an advantage, a challenge or both?
The advantage lay in preparation. I have always been able to immerse myself deeply in cases, mapping arguments, spotting inconsistencies and anticipating difficulties well in advance.
The challenge was not the law itself but the environment around it. The unpredictability and sensory intensity of practice can be more cognitively demanding than the advocacy. Early on, I did not frame this in terms of neurodivergence; I assumed I simply needed to work harder to match the professional style around me. With time, I recognised that much of that effort was compensatory. Small adjustments, clear timetables, advance documentation, and structured communication significantly reduce cognitive load.
How can chambers and courts better recognise neurodivergent strengths?
Chambers and courts can better recognise neurodivergent strengths by prioritising substance over stylistic conformity and extending a general understanding. The profession has traditionally favoured a particular mode of presentation, but analytical depth, meticulous preparation and sustained focus are equally valuable attributes. Recognition begins by explicitly valuing those strengths. Practically, predictable systems make a significant difference. Clear timetables, advance circulation of materials, and transparent expectations reduce unnecessary cognitive load for everyone.
To read more on good CPD practices at the Bar click here.
