Search or view whole report

View PDF

Level of satisfaction with assistance

As noted in Chapter 1, there is no consensus about the definition or measurement of the concept of satisfaction. In the present study, participants were simply asked to report their level of satisfaction with the assistance they received from their sole or most useful adviser by choosing between three alternatives: ‘satisfied’, ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ and ‘dissatisfied’.

As shown in Figure 6.1, participants reported being satisfied with the assistance they received from their sole or most useful adviser in over three-quarters (78.7%) of the legal events where help was sought. They reported being dissatisfied with the assistance they received from the sole or most useful adviser in 13.4 per cent of the events.

Figure 6.1: Satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser, all six LGAs, 2003

Notes: N=1307 events. Information on satisfaction with the assistance received from the sole or most useful adviser was missing for 189 of the 1496 events where help was sought.

Table 6.1 presents the level of satisfaction with the assistance received from the sole or most useful adviser broken down by the type of adviser. A chi-square test was conducted to examine whether this relationship was significant.¹ Satisfaction with the assistance received varied significantly according to the type of adviser used. The highest rates of satisfaction with the assistance received were reported by participants whose sole or most useful adviser was a personal contact who was a lawyer (92.6%) or another personal contact (92.2%). The lowest rates were reported for government sources (61.4%) and for some types of advisers falling within the ‘other’ category, namely companies/businesses/banks (55.3%) and employers (60.0%). Participants reported that they were satisfied with the help they received for four-fifths of the events where their sole or most useful adviser was a traditional legal adviser such as a private lawyer or a local court.²

It is important to note, however, that participants tended to choose different types of advisers for different types of events (see Table 5.4), and that some events are apparently slower or more difficult to resolve (see Figure 7.2). Thus, the apparent greater satisfaction with the assistance received from some types of advisers may reflect the nature of the legal events for which they provided assistance.

Table 6.1: Satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser by type of adviser, all six LGAs, 2003

Type of adviser	Satisfied % of events	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events	Dissatisfied % of events	No. of % of events
LEGAL ADVISER
Traditional legal:	80.7	7.4	11.9	135
Private solicitor/barrister	82.4	6.9	10.8	102
Local courta	81.3	6.3	12.5	16
Legal Aid NSWa	63.6	9.1	27.3	11
LawAccess NSW	-	-	-	2
Aboriginal legal services	-	-	-	1
CLCs	-	-	-	3
Laywer friend/relative	92.6	6.2	1.2	81
Published:	88.9	4.8	6.3	63
Internet	87.7	5.3	7	57
Self-help source	-	-	-	6
NON-LEGAL ADVISER
Other friend/relative	92.2	6.3	1.6	128
Government:	61.4	13.5	25.1	215
Government organisation	61.3	13.7	25	168
Local council	57.9	15.8	26.3	38
Member of parliament	-	-	-	9
Police/complaint handling:	76.3	5.3	18.4	38
Police	76.5	5.9	17.6	34
Industry complaint handling bodyb	-	-	-	4
Other:	78.9	7.2	13.9	639
Other professionalc	84.6	6.6	8.8	272
School/school counsellor/teacher	70.7	8.6	20.7	58
Non-legal community group	82.1	12.8	5.1	39
Private agency/organisationd	78.7	8.5	12.8	47
Company/business/bank	55.3	2.1	42.6	47
Insurance company/broker	89.8	0	10.2	59
Trade union/professional body	80.9	11.8	7.4	68
Library	-	-	-	2
Employer	60	11.1	28.9	45
Other tribunal	-	-	-	2
Total	78.8	7.9	13.3	1299

a Due to small numbers, the percentages may be unreliable.
b Includes Banking Ombudsman, Insurance Complaints Scheme.
c Includes doctor, accountant, psychologist, counsellor, etc.
d Includes debt collection agency, employment agency, real estate agent.

Notes: The type of adviser used was not specified or was unclassified for eight of the 1307 events where participants provided information on satisfaction with assistance. Percentages have been omitted where the number of events for a given adviser is 10 or fewer because they may be unreliable.

x2=72.88, df=12, p=0.000. So that there were sufficient numbers in each cell for the chi-square test, the test was based on the grouped categories of adviser (i.e. traditional legal, lawyer friend/relative, published, other friend/relative, government, police/complaint handling, other) rather than on individual types of adviser (i.e. private solicitor/barrister, local court, Legal Aid NSW, etc).