 |  |
, |
Ch 9. Discussion
The present chapter highlights the major findings presented in Chapters 3 to 8 and discusses their implications in terms of the nature of legal need and access to justice.1 The final chapter, Chapter 10, argues that the findings suggest the merit of a multidimensional approach to legal service provision, which includes several concurrent strategies and allows for the tailoring of legal services to the varying needs of different individuals.
Incidence of legal events
The results of the present study suggest a high level of legal need across the six disadvantaged regions surveyed—legal events are a common feature of life, affecting many people and many aspects of life. Approximately two-thirds of participants (69%) reported experiencing one or more legal events in the previous 12 months. Furthermore, the legal events experienced related to a broad range of civil, criminal and family law issues. In particular, considerable proportions of participants reported general crime (27%),2 housing (23%), consumer (22%), government (20%), accident/injury (19%), wills/estates (15%), employment (12%), credit/debt (12%), family (9%) and education (7%) events.
The incidence of legal events reported in the present sample across six disadvantaged areas of NSW is considerably higher than those reported in recent overseas studies conducted in general population samples. In the United Kingdom, Genn (1999), Genn and Paterson (2001), and Pleasence et al. (2004b) reported incidence rates between 26 and 40 per cent over periods of between 3.5 and 5.5 years. In New Zealand, Maxwell et al. (1999) reported a yearly incidence rate of 41 per cent in their general population sample. However, as noted earlier, the lack of harmonisation in the methodologies used across different surveys of legal needs severely limits the ability to compare the findings from such surveys. Jurisdictional, population and measurement differences may have contributed to the different incidence rates. It is worth noting, however, that the higher incidence rate in the present study cannot be attributed to the different reference periods used for the recall of legal issues. The reference period of one year used in the present study was identical to that used by Maxwell et al. (1999) and shorter, not longer, than the reference periods used in the British studies.3
One possible measurement difference between the present study and the British studies that may have contributed to the higher incidence rate in the present study is the broader range of legal events covered by the present survey. The present study included criminal law events, which were not a focus of the British studies, and a larger number of events overall.4
A possible population difference that may have contributed to the higher incidence in the present study is the more disadvantaged nature of the present sample compared with the British and New Zealand samples. This argument is consistent with the evidence that socioeconomically disadvantaged people are particularly vulnerable to experiencing legal problems (e.g. Dale 2000; Pleasence et al. 2004b). It is also consistent with the tendency to find higher incidence rates in studies surveying disadvantaged populations. For example, the survey of temporary accommodation residents conducted in parallel to the LSRC general population survey in the United Kingdom reported an incidence rate of 84 per cent over 3.5 years (Pleasence et al. 2004b). Surveys in the United States focusing on lower income samples have reported yearly incidence rates ranging between 43 and about 87 per cent (ABA 1994; Schulman et al. 2003; Spangenberg Group 1989; Task Force 2003). In Australia, Cass and Sackville (1975) reported a five-year incidence rate of 69 per cent in their disadvantaged sample.5
The high incidence rates in the present survey of disadvantaged areas underline the importance of having appropriate services to resolve legal events in these areas. As other authors have noted (e.g. Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b), the broad nature and ubiquity of legal events suggest they should be of general concern—they are central to physical and social well-being. The findings from recent studies that legal events can have adverse effects on health and economic circumstances, can trigger further legal problems, and can reinforce and initiate social exclusion (Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b) further underline the importance of having quick, effective and inexpensive means of resolving legal problems. In particular, where there are evident high rates of legal need in areas such as those sampled in the present study, the importance of appropriate legal service provision cannot be underestimated.
Incidence of multiple legal events
Supporting recent studies (e.g. Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b), the present study suggested that legal events are not experienced randomly across the population or in equal numbers across individuals. In the present study, approximately one-third of participants reported no legal events, another third reported one or two events, and the remaining third reported three or more events. The third of participants who reported at least three events accounted for the vast majority (79%) of events reported by the sample. Thus, a relatively small percentage of individuals disproportionately accounted for the majority of legal events. This finding suggests that some individuals are particularly vulnerable to legal problems and that legal services are likely to be disproportionately needed by these individuals. Parallel findings have been reported in other fields such as health and crime. For example, small proportions of families are over-represented among those who have medical and social problems and those who use health and welfare services (e.g. ABS 2003a; Vinson & Homel 1975). Similarly, relatively few criminal offenders account for a disproportionately large number of criminal offences, arrests and convictions (e.g. Coumarelos 1994; Farrington 1983; Wolfgang, Figlio & Sellin 1972).
The present study also found that certain types of legal events tend to recur. For example, of the people who experienced an employment event within the one-year period, about one-third experienced two or more different types of employment events. Other legal event groups that had a high rate of recurrence were the family, human rights, general crime, credit/debt, government, consumer and education legal event groups.
Similarly to the United Kingdom studies by Genn (1999) and Pleasence et al. (2004b), the present study also found that some event types tend to appear in clusters. It is worth noting that the present study showed overlaps in occurrence not only between issues within the same broad area of law (e.g. between different types of civil law issues), but also between various types of civil, criminal and family issues. The present study, like the United Kingdom studies, identified a family cluster dominated by family and domestic violence events (Pleasence et al. 2004b).6 A connection between domestic violence, relationship breakdown, and problems with contact or support arrangements for children is not at all surprising, and Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that where domestic violence was reported in combination with divorce or children-related problems, it tended to occur first.
Like the British studies, the present study also identified a broad, general cluster which included events related to consumer matters, housing, accident/injury, employment, neighbours and welfare benefits (e.g. Pleasence et al. 2004b).7 It is not surprising that the composition of the broad cluster was not totally identical across the three studies given that the legal events covered by the different studies were not identical.8 In the British studies, an economic grouping consisting of money and debt problems was an additional element of the broad cluster, whereas in the present study, a similar economic grouping formed a separate cluster. In addition to including credit/debt events, the economic cluster in the present study included business events, which were not a focus of the overseas studies. However, it is notable that in all three studies there was a strong link between consumer events, which contributed to the broad cluster in each case, and money or credit/debt problems.9
As Pleasence et al. (2004b) note, there are a number of reasons why certain legal problems tend to occur in clusters. Firstly, different problem types might have coinciding defining circumstances. For example, numerous consumer transactions provide the opportunity to experience consumer problems and credit/debt problems. Secondly, individuals might have coinciding characteristics of vulnerability for different problem types. The sociodemographic characteristics associated with vulnerability to legal events are discussed in the next section. Thirdly, the experience of one legal problem might trigger or increase the risk of experiencing additional problems. Pleasence et al. (2004b) argue that the trigger effect of justiciable problems can have a dramatic impact on people’s lives. For instance, Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that relationship breakdown can lead to downward mobility in the housing market, a loss of income and adverse effects on children’s education, while Genn (1999) found that injury and ill-health can lead to unemployment, which in turn can lead to problems relating to welfare benefits, debt and compensation. Pleasence et al. maintain that
vulnerability to justiciable problems is .... cumulative. Each time a person experiences a problem the likelihood of experiencing an additional problem increases; not just as a consequence of initial vulnerability, but also as a consequence of the increased vulnerability brought about by the impact of initial problems (p. 107).
The fact that legal events recur, occur in clusters and act as triggers for further problems suggests the critical role that could be played by quick and effective legal resolution in the prevention of flow-on effects. That is, appropriately targeted, efficient legal services would not only have an immediate role in resolving existing legal problems, but also a longer-term effect in preventing existing legal problems from escalating and in preventing new, related legal problems from occurring. Appropriate early, pre-court intervention not only has potential benefits for individuals who experience multiple or recurring legal problems, but also potential cost savings for government in avoiding expensive court resolution (e.g. MacDonald 2005).
The clustering of different types of legal events also suggests that legal services need to have the capacity for resolving the complex situations faced by some individuals involving multiple, concurrent, interconnected legal problems. The present study indicated that these co-occurring legal issues may be quite disparate and may impact on many aspects of people’s well-being, including their finances, employment, health, housing and welfare. Thus, the results suggest that, for some individuals, legal service provision needs to be sufficiently coordinated to deal with multiple, disparate legal issues. Furthermore, given the impact of legal needs on many areas of everyday life, there may also be benefits in coordinating the provision of legal services with the provision of other human services. The current level of coordination among legal and human services, and possible approaches for enhancing this coordination are discussed further in Chapter 10.
Sociodemographic factors related to the incidence of legal events
Consistent with past research, the present study suggests that people from particular sociodemographic groups have an increased likelihood of experiencing particular types of legal problems. There were some differences in the experience of legal events according to gender, age, Indigenous status, country of birth, disability status, personal income and education. In particular, age, disability and income were generally consistent predictors of the 10 most frequently reported types of legal events, that is, accident/injury, consumer, credit/debt, education, employment, government, housing, wills/estates, general crime and family events. These findings are discussed in further detail below. To assist with the discussion of the results from the regression analyses, Table 9.1 provides a quick reference summarising the significant predictors in each regression.
Table 9.1: Summary of significant predictors in the 15 regression models conducted
| Outcome variable |  |
Gender
|
Age
|
Indigenous status
|
Country of birth
|
Disability status
|
Personal income
|
Education level
|
Legal event group
|
Recency
|
Resolution status
|
Action taken
|
Method of resolution
|
|
1
| Reporting legal events of any type | |
√
| |
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
| | | | | |
|
2
| Reporting accident/injury events |
√
|
√
| |
√
|
√
|
√
| | | | | | |
|
3
| Reporting consumer events | |
√
| | |
√
|
√
| | | | | | |
|
4
| Reporting credit/debt events | |
√
|
√
| |
√
| | | | | | | |
|
5
| Reporting education events | |
√
| | |
√
| | | | | | | |
|
6
| Reporting employment events | |
√
|
√
| |
√
| | | | | | | |
|
7
| Reporting government events | |
√
| | |
√
| |
√
| | | | | |
|
8
| Reporting housing events | |
√
| | |
√
|
√
| | | | | | |
|
9
| Reporting wills/estates events | |
√
|
√
|
√
| |
√
|
√
| | | | | |
|
10
| Reporting general crime events | |
√
| |
√
|
√
|
√
| | | | | | |
|
11
| Reporting family events | |
√
|
√
| |
√
|
√
| | | | | | |
|
12
| Action taken | |
√
|
√
| | | |
√
|
√
| | | | |
|
13
| Satisfaction with assistance | | | | | | | |
√
| |
√
| | |
|
14
| Resolution status | |
√
| | |
√
| | |
√
|
√
| |
√
| |
|
15
| Satisfaction with outcome | | | | | | | |
√
|
√
| |
√
| |
Gender
In keeping with much of the literature, the present results suggest that the likelihood of experiencing legal events does not reliably vary according to gender (e.g. Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; LJF 2003; Maxwell et al. 1999; NCC 1995; Pleasence et al. 2004b). In the present regression analyses, gender was not related to the overall reporting of legal events and was only related to one of the 10 most frequent types of legal event groups (see Table 9.1). Specifically, males reported higher rates of accident/injury events. Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that gender was only associated with three of their 18 problem types.
When gender differences are found, there is some convergence in terms of the types of legal events showing gender differences. Similarly to the present study, Fishwick (1992) reported higher rates of accident events for males. Fishwick (1992), the Task Force (2003) and Pleasence et al. (2004b) all reported higher rates of domestic violence or family problems for females.10
Age
In the present study, age was related to reporting events overall, and to reporting each of the 10 most frequent types of events examined (see Table 9.1). Supporting past research, the age groups with the highest incidence rates varied according to the type of legal event, suggesting that different stages of life tend to expose people to different types of legal problems (Dale 2000; Fishwick 1992; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Schulman et al. 2003).
Consistent with past research, older people (65 years or over) tended to report lower rates of legal events than other people. The only exception to this trend was that the oldest age group had the highest incidence of wills/estates events. It is not surprising that wills/estates issues may become more of a priority as people get older. The extent to which the lower reporting rates by older people truly reflect a lower incidence of legal need is unclear. Older people have been identified as a disadvantaged group who may have specialised legal and access to justice needs as a result of their particular life circumstances (Ellison, Schetzer, Mullins, Perry & Wong 2004). For example, older people tend to have relatively low income, and increased risk of health and disability problems (Ellison et al. 2004).
If older people actually experience fewer legal problems, then this may be because their life circumstances are less likely to expose them to legal problems, or because they are better able through past experience or familiarity to prevent issues from becoming serious legal problems (Pleasence et al. 2004b). However, it has been argued that the lower reporting rates by older people may also in part reflect a failure to identify legal needs or problems for a variety of possible reasons, such as a decrease in the importance placed on problems or an increased ignorance of personal circumstances due to increased isolation with old age (Pleasence et al. 2004b). A recent qualitative study of the legal needs of older people in NSW by Ellison et al. (2004) suggests that older people sometimes ignore their legal problems and demonstrate a reluctance to complain about their circumstances and legal problems. A number of studies have also found that many older people do not understand their legal rights or the available avenues for redressing their legal problems (Ellison et al. 2004; Tilse, Setterlund, Wilson & Herd 2002).
Given the ever increasing older population, the reason behind the lower reporting rates of legal issues by older people warrants future investigation. If the lower reporting rates do not actually reflect fewer legal problems, but an increased failure to identify legal problems, specialised information strategies for older people may be useful in helping them to recognise and deal effectively with legal problems (e.g. Ellison et al. 2004).
The three youngest age groups (15 to 24, 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 year olds) reported the highest incidence of legal events overall, with the peak occurring in the 25 to 34 year age group. This finding is consistent with prior research showing that the experience of legal problems tends to peak in the 20s, 30s or 40s (e.g. Genn 1999; LJF 2003; Pleasence et al. 2004b).
General crime and accident/injury events peaked in the youngest age group. These results are consistent with the high criminal offence rates, high crime victimisation rates and high rates of risk-taking behaviour for young adults, particularly for young men (e.g. ABS 2004a; Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies 2005; NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2004; Palamara & Stevenson 2003). Consumer and housing legal events were also common in the youngest age group. The high rates of these legal events are likely to partly reflect the fact that young people are relatively less economically independent and tend to live in poorer-standard accommodation. For example, national survey data show that relatively high percentages of Australians in this age group have personal incomes below the poverty line, experience financial stressors such as being unable to raise money quickly for something important, and live in rented accommodation (ABS 2004b; Lincare 2005; Schneider 1999).11
Credit/debt, government and housing events peaked in the 25 to 34 year age group, and rates of consumer, education and family events were also relatively high in this age group. Similarly, Pleasence et al. (2004b) found high rates of immigration, consumer, money/debt and domestic violence problems in this age group. The high rates of consumer, credit/debt and housing events probably echo, to some extent, the increasing personal expenditure and use of debt as people become economically independent and commence acquiring major assets such as houses (e.g. Pleasence et al. 2004b).12 In keeping with this argument, national Australian survey data show a substantial increase in household income for this age group compared with the 15 to 24 year age group (ABS 2005). National survey data also show relatively high rates of cash flow problems, dissaving actions13 and first home buyers for the 25 to 34 year age group (ABS 2004b; Trewin 2003). The high rate of family events in this age group tended to reflect people of this age group either facing problems related to raising children or facing relationship breakdowns.14
Family events peaked in the 35 to 44 year age group. This finding is consistent with that of Pleasence et al. (2004b) who note that the high rates of these problems reflect the high rates of people of this age who live with a partner and have dependent children.15 Credit/debt, consumer and education events were also relatively high in this age group.
The incidence rates for wills/estates and employment events peaked in the 45 to 54 year age group. The incidence of all other types of events tended to decline progressively after the mid-forties or mid-fifties. Family and education events showed considerably large declines after the mid-forties. These declines probably reflect the fact that as people move into their late forties and fifties, their children start to leave home (e.g. Pleasence et al. 2004b) and finish their formal education.
The present results suggest that there may be benefits to tailoring legal service provision according to the different types of legal issues experienced at different life stages. Similar strategies have been adopted in other areas, such as banking, investment and insurance, where savings, superannuation and insurance schemes are tailored to the typical financial needs experienced by different age groups (e.g. Datamonitor Market Briefing 2003; Department of Family and Community Services 2005; MostChoice 2005; Urban Institute 2000).
Indigenous Australians
According to the present results, Indigenous Australian status was not related to the overall incidence of legal events, but Indigenous respondents were more likely than non-Indigenous respondents to report credit/debt, employment and family events, and less likely to report wills/estates events. While the relationship between ethnicity and the incidence of legal events has been examined by some past research studies (e.g. Cass & Sackville 1975; Fishwick 1992; Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Task Force 2003), few of these studies have specifically examined the relationship between Indigenous status and the incidence of legal events. In New Zealand, Maxwell et al. (1999) found a relationship between Indigenous status and the incidence of legal problems, indicating that Maoris were more likely than other ethnic groups to report experiencing a number of legal problems.
The present relatively high rates of credit/debt, employment and family legal events among Indigenous people is not surprising given nationwide survey data showing that Indigenous Australians as a group suffer multiple types of economic and social disadvantage (ABS 2004c). For example, the present high rates of credit/debt and employment events among Indigenous participants are consistent with data showing lower average gross income, higher levels of financial stress, lower levels of labour force participation and higher levels of unemployment among Indigenous Australians than among non-Indigenous Australians (ABS 2004d; ABS & AIHW 2005). The high rate of family events among Indigenous people in the present study is also consistent with national survey data showing that Indigenous children are over-represented in statutory child protection services (ABS & AIHW 2005).
The higher incidence of employment and family events among Indigenous participants is of particular interest given present and past evidence suggesting that these problems tend to endure and can trigger further problems. For example, Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that family problems tend to be long lasting and Genn (1999) reported that unemployment can trigger further problems relating to welfare benefits, debt and compensation. The present study found that employment and family events are among the event types that are less likely to be resolved (see section entitled Factors related to resolution of legal events).
The lower incidence of wills/estates events for Indigenous people is also of note because, unlike many other types of legal events, wills/estates events do not usually constitute legal problems. Rather, wills/estates events involve a basic form of planning in relation to major assets and usually indicate taking positive legal action to put one’s affairs in order. Thus, the lower rate of wills/estates events for Indigenous Australians is consistent with a higher level of unmet or unrecognised legal need among this group.16
Non-English speaking background
In the present study, the relationship of ethnicity to reporting legal events was also examined in terms of country of birth.17 People born in an English speaking country reported a higher overall incidence of legal events, and a higher incidence of accident/injury, wills/estates and general crime events more specifically. Fishwick (1992) similarly reported that people of English speaking background in NSW were more likely than those from a non-English speaking background to report experiencing legal events, while Cass and Sackville (1975) found that Australian-born respondents were more likely than migrants to report multiple legal problems.
As was the case with the oldest age group, it is not clear whether the lower reporting rates of people born in a non-English speaking country reflect actual lower incidence rates. The lower reporting rates may also reflect a failure to identify legal problems for whatever reason. This possibility is in keeping with past research findings suggesting an ignorance of legal rights and avenues for legal resolution among people from a non-English speaking background. For example, the Australian Law Reform Commission (1992) found that people of non-English speaking backgrounds faced a lack of information about the law, a lack of access to suitable interpreters, and the perception that there is cultural insensitivity in the operation and administration of the law. Cass and Sackville (1975) reported that many legal problems were exacerbated for non-British migrants in Sydney because of their poor English, poor understanding of their legal rights and poor knowledge of the existence and scope of legal services including legal aid schemes.
As with the oldest age group, the reason behind the lower reporting rates of people from non-English speaking background in the present study warrants further investigation. If the lower reporting rates reflect a failure to recognise legal problems for whatever reason, specialised information strategies targeting this group may be warranted.
It is interesting that, once again, the present results indicate that the minority group is the group with a lower incidence of wills/estates events. Again, this finding is consistent with a failure to take legal action to put one’s affairs in order.
Disability
The present findings indicate that people who have a chronic health or disability problem report relatively higher rates of a wide range of legal problems. The present study found higher overall rates of legal events, as well as higher rates for all 10 of the most common types of legal events with the exception of wills/estates events (see Table 9.1).18 However, as mentioned earlier, the occurrence of wills/estates events, unlike the occurrence of other types of events, frequently signifies taking positive action to meet legal need rather than a legal problem. Thus, people with a chronic illness or disability had higher incidence rates for all the frequently occurring legal event groups where the experience of legal events tends to indicate legal need or legal problems.
These findings are in keeping with past surveys showing a high level of legal need among people with a disability or illness (Dale 2000; LJF 2003; Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Task Force 2003), and are not particularly surprising given statistics showing that Australians with poor or only fair health have increased risk of multiple types of social and economic disadvantage (ABS 2004c).
As noted elsewhere, the association of chronic ill-health and disability with legal problems may well be bi-directional: chronic ill-health/disability may not only increase vulnerability to legal problems, but may also be brought about or worsened by such problems (Pleasence et al. 2004b). In any case, the consistent relationship between chronic illness or disability and a wide range of legal problems indicates the importance of ensuring that legal services meet the needs of this disadvantaged group.
Income
According to the present regression analyses, people with the highest personal incomes generally reported higher overall rates of legal events and higher rates for six of the 10 most frequent types of legal events (see Table 9.1).19 It is worth noting that this relationship between reporting legal events and income is in fact independent of any association between income and education. Thus, the higher reporting rates for high-income earners cannot be fully explained by higher levels of education among high-income earners.
The higher incidence of legal events among high-income earners in the present study is contrary to the expectation that socially and economically disadvantaged groups will have higher levels of legal need. However, although past research has reliably shown a relationship between economic indicators and the incidence of legal needs, the relationship appears to be complex and is not always in the same direction. Some studies have found higher incidence rates among low-income groups. For example, Dale (2000) reported relatively high incidence rates for homeless people and Pleasence et al. (2004b) reported high incidence rates for persons in the lowest income bracket, lone parents and persons in rented or high-density housing. On the other hand, similarly to the present study, other studies have found high overall incidence rates for those with higher incomes (ABA 1994; Fishwick 1992; LJF 2003). Furthermore, although Pleasence et al. found that those in the lowest income bracket had the highest overall incidence of justiciable problems, those in the highest income bracket had the second highest overall incidence.
In considering the different relationships between incidence rates and income evidenced across studies it should be remembered that studies have differed in their measurement of both income and legal needs. While the present study, like some previous studies, used personal income to identify low-income groups (Cass & Sackville 1975; Curran 1977; LJF 2003; Maxwell et al. 1999), other studies used household income (e.g. ABA 1994; Dale 2000; Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; NCC 1995; Rush 1999; Schulman et al. 2003; Spangenberg Group 1989; Task Force 2003), and sometimes studies identified specific low-income groups such as the homeless (e.g. Dale 2000).20 Furthermore, studies have differed considerably in the number, range, type and severity of legal events they covered.
There are a few possible explanations of the varying relationship between incidence rates and income. Firstly, it is simply possible that, in some populations, low-income earners do in fact experience a smaller number of legal events than high-income earners. Note that a smaller number of legal events may or may not reflect a lower level of legal need since the number of events does not take into account the seriousness or intractability of those events.
Secondly, it is possible that low-income groups generally do have a high level of legal need, but that, in some studies, whether due to cultural or other factors, they are relatively less likely than high-income earners to recognise their legal issues or relatively more reluctant to complain about them. Or, if low-income groups do have more serious legal needs, they may be less likely to identify relatively trivial matters as legal problems and may tend to identify as problems only the more serious of their legal needs.
Thirdly, it is possible that low-income groups have different legal needs to high-income groups. If this were the case, the inconsistent relationship between income and the overall incidence of legal events across studies would partly depend on the number, range and types of legal events included in different surveys.
Some support for the argument that low- and high-income groups tend to experience different types of legal events is provided by the fact that there was some commonality between the present study and the Pleasence et al. (2004b) study in the types of events reported by high-income earners. In both studies, high-income earners reported high rates of events that are consistent with having relatively high levels of disposable income, assets and possessions. Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that high-income earners had high incidence rates for consumer, investment and owned housing problems, and suggest that these rates most likely reflect higher levels of consumer activity and home ownership among high-income earners.21 Similarly, in the present study, high-income earners had relatively high incidence rates of consumer and housing events, and the high incidence of housing events was largely a result of a high incidence of buying or selling a home.22 The present study also found a high incidence rate of general crime events among high-income earners, which is consistent with high-income earners having valuable possessions, given that this high rate was largely due to high rates of stolen or vandalised property.23 National crime victimisation survey data similarly show high crime victimisation rates among individuals with high household income (Johnson 2005).24 Finally, the high incidence of wills/estates events among high-income earners in the present study may also reflect a greater need to take care of valuable assets.25 The Task Force (2003) similarly found that moderate-income households were more likely than low-income households to report legal issues related to estates and trusts.26
It is important to note that the various possibilities presented above for the varying relationship between the incidence of legal events and income are not mutually exclusive. For example, it is possible that, compared with high-income earners, low-income earners have more serious legal needs, are less able to recognise or less willing to complain about their legal needs, and tend to experience different types of legal needs. Identifying the reasons behind the particular incidence rates reported by different income groups is an important question for future research that would assist in the appropriate tailoring of legal services to the needs of different income groups.
Education
The present study found that, compared with those who had completed schooling only as far as Year 10, university graduates were more likely to report legal events overall and more likely to report government and wills/estates events (see Table 9.1). It is worth noting that the present relationship between reporting legal events and education is independent of any relationship between education and income. A few other studies have also reported a link between academic qualifications and increased likelihood of reporting legal events (Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b). However, as with the present study, Pleasence et al. (2004b) did not find education to be a significant predictor across most legal problem types.27
Again, it is not clear whether the lower overall reporting rates of legal events by people with lower academic qualifications reflect a lower actual incidence rate or a failure to recognise or admit to legal problems. To the extent that the latter is the case, legal education and information strategies may be useful in helping this demographic group to identify and face their legal problems.
Response to legal events
Type of response
The present study found that a common response to legal events was to do nothing—respondents reported taking no action in response to about one-third of the legal events they experienced. They reported seeking some sort of help, advice or information for just over half of the events they experienced, and they attempted to handle the remaining 16 per cent of events on their own. Past research consistently shows that a considerable proportion of respondents do not seek advice from legal sources for their legal problems (e.g. ABA 1994; Cass & Sackville 1975; Dale 2000; Fishwick 1992; Rush 1999; Spangenberg Group 1989; Task Force 2003).
However, the percentage who took no action at all in the present study was considerably higher than the corresponding figures of 3 to 19 per cent reported in the recent studies in the United Kingdom (Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; Pleasence et al. 2004b). The difference is likely to be due in part to the fact that the United Kingdom studies only examined responses to events that were deemed by respondents to be non-trivial, that is, ‘important enough to warrant action’. However, even when only non-trivial legal events are considered in the present study, the percentage of events where no action was taken is still relatively high at 26 per cent.28
The higher rate of inaction in the present study might also reflect the possibility that people from disadvantaged areas are less likely than others to respond to the legal problems they experience. The present study surveyed residents of disadvantaged areas whereas the United Kingdom studies surveyed the general population. Consistent with this argument, Pleasence et al. (2004b) found a higher rate of inaction among their sample of temporary accommodation residents than among their general sample (28% versus 19%).
Among those who took no action in response to non-trivial events in the present study, the most common reason given for not taking action was that it would make no difference or would make things worse.29 This finding is very similar to that of the Task Force (2003) and Pleasence et al. (2004b) who both found that the most common reason provided for inaction was that nothing could be done.
The present high rate of inaction in response to legal events and the common accompanying belief that taking action would make no difference suggest that there is clearly a role for improved education and information about legal rights and legal remedies in the disadvantaged communities surveyed. Genn (1999), Genn and Paterson (2001), and Pleasence et al. (2004b) similarly advocate the need to raise levels of awareness and understanding about legal rights, obligations and remedies.
Factors related to response to legal events
Not surprisingly, the present study found that the type of legal event was a significant predictor of whether or not people sought help. Past research also suggests that problem type is important in determining whether or not people seek advice (ABA 1994; Cass & Sackville 1975; Curran 1977; Genn 1999; Fishwick 1992; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Schulman et al. 2003; Task Force 2003). Furthermore, Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that the likelihood of seeking advice increased with the seriousness of the problem faced—respondents were more likely to describe problems for which they sought advice as being ‘very important to sort out’.
In the present study, respondents were more likely to seek help for accident/injury, employment and wills/estates events than other events on average, and less likely to seek help for consumer and human rights events. In keeping with the present study, some past studies have found that accidents (ABA 1994; Cass & Sackville 1975; Genn 1999) and matters related to wills, advance directives and estate planning (ABA 1994; Curran 1977; Fishwick 1992; Schulman et al. 2003; Task Force 2003) are relatively likely to result in seeking legal advice. Although these legal issues are not necessarily serious or long-lasting problems, it has been suggested they are probably recognised by the public as areas that are traditionally addressed by lawyers in private practice (Cass & Sackville 1975).
Although family and domestic violence issues have reliably been reported in past research as legal problems that are relatively likely to result in seeking advice (e.g. ABA 1994; Cass & Sackville 1975; Curran 1977; Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Schulman et al. 2003; Task Force 2003), the present findings did not replicate these results.
Present findings that the type of legal issue influences the action taken, coupled with past findings that people tend to seek advice for more serious problems, are heartening because they suggest that the decision to seek advice is not completely haphazard, but tends to be measured against the nature, perceived importance and likely impact of the legal problem. However, given that the present survey did not measure the perceived seriousness of legal events, it is possible that respondents to the present study sometimes failed to seek help for serious problems.
The present results also showed that various sociodemographic characteristics of individuals were associated with their response to legal events. The youngest and oldest respondents, Indigenous Australians and people with low levels of education tended to be less likely to seek help than other people. Again there is some overlap with prior research. For example, Fishwick (1992) reported that young people were less likely to seek help. Genn (1999) found that 18 to 34 year olds were less likely than others to obtain advice, while 45 to 64 year olds were more likely than others to obtain advice. Pleasence et al. (2004b) reported that black and minority ethnic respondents were less likely than white respondents to take action. The Task Force (2003) found that Native Americans were amongst the demographic groups least likely to seek attorney assistance. Genn (1999) found that people with no academic qualifications were less likely to obtain advice. However, Pleasence et al. (2004b) reported that people with no academic qualifications were more likely than others to seek advice when they acted.
The present results suggest that when young people, older people, Indigenous Australians and persons with low levels of education experience legal problems, these problems have a greater chance of escalating into serious problems or triggering related problems. Thus, in addition to raising the general public’s awareness and knowledge about legal rights and remedies, it may be useful to further target legal education and information strategies towards these groups of individuals who tend to be less likely to seek help.
It is also worth noting that although some past studies have found a relationship between economic circumstances and the likelihood of seeking assistance (e.g. Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; Pleasence et al. 2004b), income was not significant in the present regression analysis for seeking help. However, the relationship between economic indicators and seeking assistance in past studies has not always been straightforward or in the same direction. Genn (1999) found that high-income earners were relatively more likely to obtain advice, whereas Genn and Paterson (2001) found middle-income respondents (£8000–£14 999) were more likely to seek advice than both those on lower incomes and those on higher incomes. Pleasence et al. (2004b) found the relationship between economic circumstances and inaction was complicated. Those in work were less likely than others to act, but those who owned their own home were more likely than others to act. In addition, respondents in low-income occupations were particularly unlikely to take action.
Type of legal advice and assistance
In line with recent overseas research (Genn 1999; Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b), the present findings indicate that individuals who do seek help in response to legal problems by no means limit themselves to traditional legal sources of advice, but use a wide range of legal and non-legal advisers. In the present study, traditional legal advisers, such as private solicitors and barristers, local courts, Legal Aid NSW, LawAccess NSW, Aboriginal legal services and CLCs, were only used in 12 per cent of cases where help was sought. Even when less formal legal advisers such as friends or relatives who are lawyers and published sources are included, legal advisers were used in only one-quarter of cases where help was sought. Thus, when people did seek advice in response to events that had legal implications, in the majority of cases, they only used non-legal advisers. The most common non-legal advisers were professionals such as doctors, accountants, psychologists and counsellors (25%). The next most frequently used non-legal advisers were friends or relatives who are not lawyers (16%), government organisations (15%), trade unions or professional bodies (6%), insurance companies/brokers (6%), school staff (6%) and the police (5%). The use of non-legally trained friends and family for advice in response to legal issues is also a common finding of previous studies (e.g. Genn 1999; LJF 2003; Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Scott et al. 2004).
Furthermore, the present results also indicated that the type of help obtained in response to issues that have legal implications is not always of a legal nature. Participants reported seeking only non-legal types of help, such as medical advice or assistance, in relation to at least one-quarter of the legal events where they sought help. This finding highlights the fact that in some instances where help was sought for events with legal consequences, participants prioritised non-legal help over legal help and did not address any legal needs raised by these events.
However, the present findings also suggested that, even when non-legal advisers are used, by and large, people’s choice of adviser generally appears to be appropriate to the type of event experienced. For example, school staff were commonly approached for education events, medical/health professionals for health and accident/injury events, government organisations for government events, trade unions for employment events, private lawyers for wills/estates events and the police for general crime events.
Thus, in line with recent findings in other jurisdictions, the present study suggests the limited use of traditional legal advisers and the even rarer use of formal legal proceedings to resolve legal issues. As Genn (1999) notes, there is little evidence of any ‘rush’ to law.
The widespread use of advisers outside the traditional legal sphere also indicates that the conventional definition of legal services, which is restricted to legal information, advice, assistance and representation obtained from a lawyer, only covers a fraction of people’s advice-seeking behaviour in response to issues that have legal consequences. Therefore, a comprehensive view of legal services must extend beyond traditional legal services to include all individuals and organisations to whom people routinely turn to for advice in response to legal issues (Pleasence et al. 2004b). In particular, it is important to recognise that non-legal professionals may be the first, and in many cases, the only point of contact with professionals for people in legal need.
The widespread use of advisers outside the traditional legal sphere also suggests that information and education about resolution of legal issues should stress the many methods that can be used for resolution and that traditional legal process tends to be a rare and last resort (Pleasence et al. 2004b).
Barriers to legal advice and assistance
Past studies have identified a number of different types of barriers to obtaining legal advice, including barriers to accessibility, financial barriers, language barriers and psychological barriers (ABA 1994; Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; LJF 2003; MacDonald 2005; Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b). In the present study, almost two-fifths of those who sought help for a legal issue reported some type of barrier to obtaining that help. The most frequent types of barriers identified in obtaining advice from all sources were difficulty getting through on the telephone (18%), delays in getting a response (17%), difficulty getting an appointment (11%), the lack of local or easily accessible services (8%) and problems with opening hours (8%). Similar barriers were identified by respondents who only used traditional legal advisers, suggesting that there is room for improvement in the delivery of legal services. The present study also found that the distance respondents travelled to access services was sometimes considerable in the rural/remote regions surveyed (Nambucca and Walgett). One-quarter of respondents residing in these regions reported that they travelled over 20 kilometres to seek help in response to legal events.
These findings suggest that there is considerable scope to improve the accessibility of legal services. Difficulty in getting through on the telephone and making an appointment suggest that the existing services may require increased resources in order to respond efficiently to the current demand. Difficulty in finding local services and problems with opening hours suggest that extensions to current service provision may be warranted, both in terms of operating hours and in terms of the number of readily accessible physical locations where legal advice is available. In short, as has been suggested elsewhere, there may be benefit in legal advice services mirroring the behaviour of those who wish to use them, and being available when and where people wish to seek legal advice (Pleasence et al. 2004b).
Although some past studies have found that financial factors were common barriers to obtaining legal advice (e.g. ABA 1994; Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001), these did not emerge as frequently reported barriers in the current study. In the present study, financial barriers were identified in 6 per cent of cases across all types of advisers, including both legal and non-legal advisers. Pleasence et al. (2004b) similarly found that cost was reported as a reason for inaction in only a small percentage (4%) of cases. It is not surprising that cost was not an issue for many of the present respondents given that the majority of present respondents sought help from friends, relatives, and non-legal professionals and organisations, who do not usually charge legal fees. In addition, only a small percentage of the present legal events involved legal resolution through court or tribunal proceedings, where the cost of legal representation can be substantial. It is worth noting, however, that financial barriers in the present study were reported slightly more frequently (in 10% of cases) when only traditional legal advisers were used, suggesting that the issue of cost needs to be addressed for some people in some cases.
Not understanding the advice provided (5%) and English language problems (2%) were also not common barriers in the present study. Thus, although ensuring that legal advice and information are framed in the clearest possible language is necessarily an important goal in any legal service provision, the present results do not suggest that a major overhaul in the quality of written and oral communication is necessary. However, it is important to note here that the present sample was not representative of all disadvantaged populations in NSW, and hence, that English language problems may still be significant obstacles to accessing justice for some groups of disadvantaged populations in NSW. Although interviews in the present study were offered in three languages other than English, they were not offered in all non-English languages, and there may well have been a bias toward inclusion in the sample of people with a good command of English. Furthermore, in the Fairfield LGA, which was chosen partly because of its cultural and linguistic diversity, the proportion in the sample who were from a non-English speaking background appears to be somewhat lower than that in the population.30
Although psychological factors have been reported as important barriers in some studies (e.g. Maxwell et al. 1999), psychological barriers such as feeling embarrassed were identified in only 2 per cent of cases in the present sample. Again, however, given the limited representativeness of the present sample, the possibility that psychological barriers may be significant obstacles to accessing justice for some groups of disadvantaged populations in NSW cannot be ruled out. People who tend to be easily embarrassed about legal problems may have been relatively unlikely to agree to being interviewed about their legal problems.
The present study also assessed whether respondents required special services in order to obtain help for their legal issues. Such services were only required in 5 per cent of cases where respondents sought help, and they obtained these services in the majority of cases (71%). The special services that participants reported requiring included medical or counselling help or assistance, home visits or special transport, financial help or assistance, help reading or understanding complex information, wheelchair access, an interpreter, a place for children to play and access to an outreach service. These findings suggest that, while there is always room for improvement, the respondents’ needs with respect to such special services were generally met.
Thus, the present findings suggest that the main barriers in terms of seeking help for legal events in the surveyed areas relate to the easy access of services, and that improvements to the efficiency, resourcing and extended availability of services are likely to be beneficial.
Satisfaction with the assistance for legal events
Satisfaction with client services is used as an indicator of the quality of those services and as a yardstick for improving and regulating services (Armytage 1996; Oliver 1997). While, as discussed earlier, obtained satisfaction rates across different studies are likely to be influenced by the precise definition and measurement of satisfaction used (Oliver 1997), it is nonetheless notable that the present study found relatively high rates of satisfaction with the assistance received for legal events. Across all types of legal and non-legal advisers, almost four-fifths of those who sought help, advice or information for legal events in the present study were satisfied with that help, and only 13 per cent were dissatisfied. High satisfaction with the assistance received was also reported for traditional legal advisers such as private lawyers and local courts (81%). Pleasence et al. (2004b) similarly found that just over three-quarters of advisers were rated as either helpful or very helpful. The LJF (2003) pilot study reported a somewhat lower percentage of respondents who were satisfied with the help they received (69%).
The high rates of satisfaction with the assistance received from traditional legal advisers in the present study are notable, particularly given the low rate of use of such advisers.31 The rare use of traditional legal advisers is consistent with anecdotal reports of public scepticism towards the legal profession in Australia (Evans 1995), and with Cass and Sackville’s pioneering Australian study in 1975, which concluded that ‘Australians may be more cynical than the British in their attitudes towards lawyers and legal institutions’ (p. 84). However, the present high rate of satisfaction with the help obtained when people do actually seek help from lawyers and local courts suggests that any lack of confidence in the legal profession may in part be misplaced. Similarly, a number of recent Australian studies have reported reasonably high rates of satisfaction with lawyers (e.g. Evans 1995; Firth & Munday 2003; James & Associates 1998).
Factors related to satisfaction with assistance for legal events
The present study found that the type of legal event was a significant predictor of satisfaction with assistance. Respondents were less likely than average to report being satisfied with the help they received for traffic offence events and more likely than average to report being satisfied with the help they received for accident/injury and wills/estates events. This finding may partly reflect that it is easier or more straightforward to provide clear and helpful advice for some types of events than others. It may also in part be due to the tendency for participants to report being satisfied with the assistance they received for events where they were satisfied with the outcome. The latter explanation is consistent with participants being particularly likely to report satisfaction with the outcome of accident/injury and wills/estates events and is discussed further in the section Factors related to satisfaction with the outcome of legal events, below.
Respondents also reported being less satisfied with the advice they received for unresolved rather than resolved events. This finding stresses the value people place on legal services that provide quick and satisfactory resolution of legal issues. Sociodemographic characteristics were not significant predictors of satisfaction with assistance.
In keeping with past findings (Pleasence et al. 2004b), satisfaction with assistance also appeared to vary somewhat according to the type of adviser used. For example, satisfaction with the assistance received was reported in over nine-tenths of the events where the main adviser was a friend or relative (regardless of whether the friend/relative was a lawyer), in about four-fifths of the events where the main adviser was a private lawyer or local court,32 but in only about three-fifths of the events where the main adviser was a company, business or bank, a local council, an employer or a government organisation. This finding may in part be an artifact of the different types of legal problems handled by different types of advisers.33 That is, the apparent greater satisfaction with the assistance received from some advisers may partly be due to these advisers providing advice on problems that are relatively easier to resolve.
Resolution of legal events
As noted earlier, the present study measured participants’ perceptions about whether or not their legal events had been resolved. The advantage of this approach is that it allows participants to report whether or not they feel that a given legal event has concluded and is no longer an issue for them. Events that were perceived to be unresolved could have included events where no action was taken towards resolution, events where attempts at resolution were abandoned for whatever reason (e.g. due to legal advice, cost, difficulty) and events that were in fact concluded in some way but were not resolved in the respondent’s favour.
Participants reported that 61 per cent of the legal events experienced had been resolved by the end of the study period, either through legal proceedings in a court or tribunal (5%), by the participant themselves (44%) or in some other way (11%). The remaining events were reported to be in the process of being resolved (11%) or to be unresolved (28%). It is worth noting that all of the events examined in the present study had occurred within the previous 12 months, so the resolution rate was examined no more than 12 months after these events had occurred. Given findings that some legal problems have a duration of longer than one year and a small proportion have a duration of more than five years,34 the resolution rate may well have been higher had the events been followed up over a longer period.
The present resolution rate is comparable to that of the pilot study (57%) which also used a 12-month reference period (LJF 2003). Interestingly, Pleasence et al. (2004b) achieved a similar resolution rate (64%) despite using a much longer reference period (3.5 years) and Genn (1999) achieved a somewhat lower resolution rate (48%) despite using an even longer reference period (5.5 years). The apparently higher resolution rate in the present study may indicate that the present sample was better equipped to resolve legal problems by, for example, being better at obtaining useful advice or being better at acting on such advice. However, the higher resolution rate may simply reflect the different range and nature of legal events covered in the present study, which may have included a higher proportion of easily solvable problems.35 Regardless, the present results nonetheless show that not all legal events were resolved quickly.
Factors related to resolution of legal events
The present study found that an important predictor of resolution status was the type of legal event, with relatively higher resolution rates for accident/injury and wills/estates events, and relatively lower resolution rates for business, employment, government, health and family events. Past studies have similarly found that some types of problems are easier to resolve than others (e.g. Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; LJF 2003; Pleasence et al. 2004b), but different studies sometimes report different resolution rates for apparently similar problems.36 These findings suggest that effective legal service provision must encompass the effective resolution of serious, complicated and more intractable problems. Thus, resource allocation for legal service provision needs to take into account the fact that some legal matters may require greater resources, time and expertise to resolve.
Some past studies have found that resolution rates depend on various sociodemographic characteristics of the individual, such as age, Indigenous status, income and education (Genn 1999; LJF 2003). In the present study, age and disability status were the only sociodemographic characteristics associated with resolution status in the regression analysis. Genn (1999) reported high resolution rates for 25 to 34 year olds and low resolution rates for those aged 65 or over. The present study found that 15 to 24 year olds had the highest resolution rate and 55 to 64 year olds had the lowest.37 These findings suggest that certain age groups may require particular assistance or support in order to resolve their legal issues.
People with a chronic illness or disability tended to have lower rates of resolution. These lower rates of resolution were found even though the type of legal issue experienced was taken into account. Furthermore, the lower resolution rates for people with a chronic illness or disability can also not be explained by a failure to take action. Such people sought help at similar rates to other people. The lower resolution rate for people with a chronic illness or disability may in part be due to the fact that, in addition to their legal needs, they have special health needs, which may complicate or strain the legal resolution process. For example, their illness or disability may mean that they sometimes require special, additional or broader support, including non-legal support, in order to address their legal issues effectively.
Another possible reason for the lower resolution rates for people with a chronic illness or disability may relate to the finding, reported earlier, that this group had a relatively high incidence of legal events overall, as well as a high incidence of a wide range of legal events. The lower resolution rate may in part reflect the difficulty of having to deal with multiple legal issues, either simultaneously or serially. Multiple legal issues may not only complicate the problems faced by the individual, but may also compound the stress experienced by the individual, provide additional strain on the individual’s available resources for resolving issues, and require additional or broader support.
Regardless of the explanation, the lower resolution rates for people with a chronic illness or disability, coupled with their relatively high incidence of a wide range of legal issues, emphasises the importance of ensuring that legal service provision for this group becomes a top priority.
The present study also found that people who sought help had higher resolution rates than those who did nothing, but lower resolution rates than those who handled the matter themselves. The lower resolution rate for people who did nothing is not at all surprising. However, the finding that people who dealt with the matter themselves were more likely to achieve resolution than those who sought help requires explanation. This finding may reflect the possibility that people are more likely to take on easier legal issues they think they can resolve themselves, but tend to seek help for more difficult legal problems. This explanation is consistent with the finding of Pleasence et al. (2004b) that the likelihood of respondents seeking advice increased with the seriousness of the problems they faced.
The lower resolution rates for people who take no action in response to legal issues suggests that mechanisms which encourage and empower people to take action either with or without assistance, such as legal education and information strategies, are likely to increase the chances of legal issues being resolved.
Satisfaction with the outcome of legal events
As noted above, many of the legal events reported by participants in the present study did not have sufficient time to be resolved within the one-year reference period. Not surprisingly, participants were not very satisfied with the status of events that were not fully resolved, reporting satisfaction with the status of only about one-fifth of such events.
However, a higher rate of satisfaction was reported for events that had been resolved. The present study found that participants reported being satisfied with the outcome of almost four-fifths of the events that had been resolved.
Similar or lower rates of satisfactory outcomes have been reported by respondents to a number of previous surveys. It is worth noting, however, that strict comparisons across studies are problematic because of differences between studies in the measurement of satisfaction and other outcomes. Genn (1999) reported that 41 per cent of participants had completely achieved their main objective, while Pleasence et al. (2004b) reported almost three-quarters of respondents who took action secured at least some of their objectives. The ABA (1994) study in the United States found that satisfaction with the outcome of legal issues was reported by 54 per cent of moderate-income households, but only 38 per cent of low-income households. The LJF (2003) pilot study examined satisfaction across both resolved and unresolved legal events and reported that 56 per cent were satisfied with the status of their legal events.
The relatively high rate of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events in the present study is heartening. The importance of people being satisfied with the outcome of their legal issues cannot be overstated. Such satisfaction indicates a vote of public approval for the existing avenues for resolving legal issues and accessing justice. Satisfaction with outcomes is also important as a likely incentive to taking steps to resolve legal issues that arise in the future. As already discussed, approximately one-quarter of those who ignored their legal problems thought that seeking help would either make no difference or would make things worse. Although the reason behind this belief was not explored in the present study, it is possible that previous dissatisfaction with the outcome of legal issues negatively impacts on the motivation to resolve new legal issues. As already noted, taking action significantly increases the likelihood that legal issues are resolved quickly.
The present respondents who were dissatisfied with the outcome of their resolved events stated that their dissatisfaction was due to the negative financial impact of the event (21%), the result being unfair or unsatisfactory (20%), a lack of helpful assistance (15%), their objective not being achieved (8%) and the matter being too expensive to resolve (7%).
The findings that dissatisfaction with outcome was sometimes reported as being due to poor services or advice, or to protracted resolution suggests that there may be room for improvement in the quality and efficiency of current service delivery. While the percentage of respondents who were dissatisfied due to the cost of legal resolution was not large (7%), it nonetheless suggests that cost is a barrier to legal resolution for some people.
The considerable percentage of dissatisfied people who perceived the result as unfair or unsatisfactory raises the question of the extent to which people’s expectations about the ease of attaining the desired outcome are realistic. It has been noted in the psychosocial literature that satisfaction is a complex response which is influenced by more than simply whether an individual’s needs have been fulfilled. Satisfaction is also shaped by whether the individual has appropriate expectations about quality and fairness, and by the extent to which these expectations are confirmed (Oliver 1997).
If some of the present respondents had unrealistic expectations about potential outcomes, the provision of appropriate information about likely outcomes could be used to help individuals to more readily accept eventual outcomes (Genn 1999). For example, appropriate information about realistic outcomes can be provided by legal advisers, or via the dissemination of legal resource materials (e.g. websites, printed materials) or other legal information strategies. In fact, there is some evidence that clients value clear communications from their legal practitioners about the outcomes they should expect, suggesting the crucial impact of the effective management of client expectations (Armytage 1996). On the other hand, if expectations about achieving a fair outcome were realistic among the present respondents, then improvement in the quality of legal services and in their ability to achieve fair outcomes may be more appropriate.
Factors related to satisfaction with the outcome of legal events
The type of legal event experienced was a significant factor in whether respondents were satisfied with the outcome of legal events that had been resolved by the end of the reference period, again indicating the benefit of legal services being able to deal effectively with different types of problems. Respondents were more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of accident/injury and wills/estates events than other events, and less likely to be satisfied with the outcome of business, consumer, government and general crime events. Past studies have similarly found that problem type is an important factor in satisfaction with outcome and in achieving one’s main objectives, but the problem types associated with higher levels of satisfaction are not always apparently similar (ABA 1994; Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; LJF 2003).38
However, a relatively high level of satisfaction with the outcome of wills/estates events has been found in a few studies (ABA 1994; LJF 2003). The high satisfaction with wills/estates events in the present study is not surprising given that the majority of these events simply involved making or altering a will rather than a problem of some sort or a dispute between two parties.39 In contrast, business, consumer, government and general crime events were dominated by events that represented disputes, problems, disagreements or challenges, which by definition, involve the participant’s interests competing with another party’s interests. Clearly, achieving a satisfactory outcome for any one party will tend to be more difficult whenever there are competing interests. While this observation would be obvious to many practitioners, it highlights, once again, the importance of ensuring that individuals have realistic expectations about the likely outcomes of their legal issues.
The present study also found that people who sought help were more likely to be satisfied with the outcome than people who did nothing, but less likely to be satisfied with the outcome than people who handled the matter alone. The finding that seeking help results in greater satisfaction with the outcome than doing nothing is not surprising and in keeping with past findings. The ABA (1994) found that those who turned to a lawyer or some other part of the justice system were more likely to be satisfied than those who took no action. The Task Force (2003) similarly found that low-income respondents were more likely to be satisfied with the outcomes if they used attorney assistance than if they did not.
The finding that people who handled the matter themselves were more likely to be satisfied with the outcome than those who sought help was also reported by the LJF (2003) pilot study. This finding is also similar to the finding reported above that dealing with the matter oneself results in increased likelihood of resolution. Again, greater levels of satisfaction when dealing with the matter oneself may reflect that people seek advice for more serious or intractable legal problems that are more difficult to resolve in a satisfactory way for the individual concerned. Other factors that might contribute to higher reported satisfaction when handling legal issues alone include being less likely to blame oneself for negative outcomes and developing more realistic expectations about likely outcomes through greater first-hand familiarity with the issue.
The lower reported satisfaction with outcome when help was sought rather than when individuals handled the matter alone may also suggest a mismatch between people’s needs or expectations when seeking legal help and the services currently available for legal resolution. Such a mismatch could lie not only in the perceived quality or fairness of the outcomes, but also in the efficiency of the resolution, or in the methods or pathways currently available for legal service provision.
In terms of the currently available pathways for legal resolution, there has been considerable debate in recent years about various alternatives to traditional legal service delivery, including the possible value of ‘unbundling’ legal service provision (American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services (ABA SCDLS) 2002; Giddings & Robertson 2003a, 2003b; MacDermott 2003; Mosten 2000; Shirvington 2003). ‘Unbundling’ refers to breaking up legal service provision for a client into discrete legal tasks. Rather than providing the client with legal assistance for the entire package of tasks, the client is encouraged to choose the tasks for which they require legal assistance and to use self-help type strategies (e.g. do-it-yourself kits, self-help groups) for others of these tasks. There has been a trend in recent years towards legal consumers playing a larger part than ever before in their own legal service delivery (Giddings & Robertson 2003b). However, some authors have expressed ethical concerns with unbundling, and it is clear that self-help in any form simply cannot be a quality substitute for legal assistance for all legal tasks and for all people (ABA SCDLS 2002; Giddings & Robertson 2003b; MacDermott 2003; Shirvington 2003).
While determining the best pathways for legal service delivery is a matter for ongoing research and improvement, the high level of satisfaction with the outcomes of legal issues that individuals handled themselves in the present study suggests that, where appropriate and effective, unbundling legal service provision and promoting self-help strategies may be greeted favourably by some legal consumers. However, the legal tasks particularly suited to self-help strategies or unbundling, and the individuals or sociodemographic groups who would be particularly likely to benefit from self-help or unbundled services, are questions for future research. Giddings and Robertson (2003b) suggest that non-routine legal work involving the exercise of substantial discretions is unsuited to self-help. They also suggest that self-help or unbundled services are only suited to articulate, middle-class people and are likely to be a poor substitute for the services of experts in the case of disadvantaged people. This view is consistent with the notion that people with poor literacy, language or communication skills, and those with complex or serious problems, may require high levels of assistance and support in order to solve their legal problems (Genn 1999).
Some past studies have found that various sociodemographic characteristics, such as gender, age, ethnicity, social class, education, employment and income, were related to satisfaction with the outcome of legal problems, the perceived fairness of the outcome or the achievement of one’s objectives (e.g. Genn 1999; LJF 2003). None of the sociodemographic factors examined in the present study were significant predictors of satisfaction with outcome.
The present study found that participants who reported being satisfied with the outcome of their resolved events also tended to report being satisfied with the help, advice or information they received for those events. This result is not surprising and has been noted previously (e.g. Armytage 1996). Nonetheless, it highlights the inherent difficulty of interpreting consumers’ assessments of the adequacy of legal services without taking into account the perceived adequacy of the outcomes of the events for which legal services were used. While dissatisfaction with the legal advice or assistance received may reflect that inadequate service provision led to poor outcomes, it may also reflect the possibility that people are more likely to negatively evaluate appropriate legal service provision when they are unhappy with the outcomes. For example, two people who receive the same legal assistance may form diametrically opposed views of its adequacy depending on whether or not their objectives were achieved. Similar confounding has been reported in the health setting where satisfaction with the quality of care is affected by health status (Al-Mandhari, Hassan & Haran 2004). Although it is not entirely unreasonable to judge the adequacy of service delivery by the outcome it achieves, any such tendency again highlights the importance of individuals having realistic expectations about the likely outcomes of their legal issues. Negative assessments of legal service delivery based on inappropriate expectations about winning or achieving certain objectives presents a challenge for policy makers because such assessments may obscure the best methods of resolving legal issues.
Summary of results and implications
The present results demonstrate that residents of disadvantaged areas in NSW differ in the number and types of legal needs they experience, in their responses to those needs, and in the outcomes they achieve. The final chapter argues that this diversity of experience suggests the merit of a multidimensional approach to justice that allows the tailoring of legal services to the varying needs of different individuals.