Note: the original hard copy of this report is 350 pages. Would you like to order a hard copy?

Justice made to measure: NSW legal needs survey in disadvantaged areas

, 2006 Six disadvantaged areas were surveyed by telephone interviews: three suburban areas within Sydney (Campbelltown, Fairfield, South Sydney), one major provincial centre (Newcastle) and two rural/remote areas (Nambucca and Walgett)...

Ch 6. Satisfaction with the assistance received for legal events

Chapter 5 focused on the 1496 events where participants sought help, describing the advisers approached for assistance, the type of assistance received and the barriers to accessing assistance.

The present chapter also focuses on those events where participants sought help, but focuses on the level of satisfaction with the assistance received and the factors related to satisfaction with this assistance. Where participants had approached more than one adviser for help in relation to a given legal event, they were asked about their satisfaction with the assistance they received from the adviser they judged to be the ‘most useful’. Although participants used only one adviser in relation to the majority of legal events where they sought help, more than one adviser was used in response to 21.6 per cent of these events (see Chapter 5).

Valid information on satisfaction with assistance from the sole or most useful adviser was obtained for 1307 of the 1496 events where help was sought. The present chapter is based on these 1307 events.

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 court^a	81.3	6.3	12.5	16
Legal Aid NSW^a	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 body^b	-	-	-	4
Other:	78.9	7.2	13.9	639
Other professional^c	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/organisation^d	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).

Factors related to satisfaction with assistance

A mixed-effects logistic regression was conducted to determine the significant, independent predictors of reporting satisfaction with the assistance received for legal events. This regression was based on events where participants provided information on their satisfaction with the assistance from the sole or most useful adviser.³ In the regression, satisfaction with the assistance received was a binary variable such that events where the individual was satisfied were contrasted with all other events.⁴ Potential predictor variables examined in the regression were the sociodemographic variables, the type of legal event, the recency of the legal event and whether the event had been resolved.⁵

A summary of the regression results is provided in Table 6.2, while the full results are presented in Appendix Table C30. Only two of the variables examined, namely the type of legal event and the resolution status of the event, were significant predictors of satisfaction with the assistance received from the sole or most useful adviser. The results of the regression are described more fully below, with reference to the relevant descriptive statistics.

Table 6.2: Summary of mixed-effects binary logistic regression for satisfaction with assistance

SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES
*Variable*	*Comparison*	*Odds ratio*^a
Legal event group^b	Civil
	Accident/injury versus average	2
	Business versus average	ns
	Consumer versus average	ns
	Credit/debt versus average	ns
	Education versus average	ns
	Employment versus average	ns
	Government versus average	ns
	Health versus average	ns
	Housing versus average	ns
	Human rights versus average	ns
	Wills/estates versus average	5.4
	Criminal
	Domestic violence versus average	ns
	General crime versus average	ns
	Traffic offences versus average	0.1
	Family
	Family versus average	ns
Resolution status	Being resolved versus resolved	ns
	Unresolved versus resolved	0.2
NON-SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES:	Gender, age, Indigenous status, country of birth, disability status, personal income, education level, recency of event

a An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates the first category in the comparison had higher odds than the second.
An odds ratio less than 1.0 indicates the first category in the comparison hadlower odds than the second.
b Each legal event group was compared to the average effect for all legal eventgroups (rather than to any specific legal event group).

Notes: N=1033 events and 698 participants. Data on one or more potential predictor variables were missing for 274 events where information was provided on satisfaction with assistance.
‘ns’ indicates the odds ratio was not statistically significant, that is, the odds for the first category in the comparison were not statistically different from the odds for the second (even though the overall variable was significant).

Sociodemographic factors

Table 6.3 presents the percentage of participants who were satisfied with the assistance they received from the sole or most useful adviser broken down by each sociodemographic characteristic. According to the regression, satisfaction with the assistance received was not significantly related to any of the sociodemographic characteristics of participants that were examined (see Table 6.2).

Table 6.3: Satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser by each sociodemographic factor, all six LGAs, 2003

*Sociodemographic factor*		*Satisfied % of events*	*Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events*	*Dissatisfied % of events*	*No. of events*
Gender	Female	77.7	9	13.3	656
	Male	79.7	6.8	13.5	651
	Total	78.7	7.9	13.4	1307
Age (years)	15–24	83.3	6.7	10	209
	25–34	79	9.5	11.4	315
	35–44	76.1	8.1	15.9	309
	45–54	74.5	7.6	17.9	263
	55–64	84	6.7	9.2	119
	65+	82.4	6.6	11	91
	Total	78.8	7.9	13.3	1306
Indigenous status	Indigenous	58.1	16.1	25.8	31
	Non-Indigenous	79.8	7.6	12.6	1142
	Total	79.2	7.8	13	1173
Country of birth	English speaking	78.2	8.3	13.5	1148
	Non-English speaking	82.6	5.2	12.3	155
	Total	78.7	7.9	13.4	1303
Disability status	Disability	74.3	8.4	17.3	335
	No disability	80.4	7.6	12	969
	Total	78.8	7.8	13.3	1304
Personal income	0–199	74.6	9.9	15.5	213
($/week)	200–499	79.8	7.2	13	401
	500–999	77.9	8.7	13.4	448
	1000+	83.6	5	11.3	159
	Total	78.7	7.9	13.3	1221
Education level	Didn’t finish/at school	78.2	6.9	14.9	101
	Year 10/equivalent	76	7.3	16.7	288
	Year 12/equivalent	80.5	8.1	11.4	272
	Certificate/diploma	77.4	7.9	14.7	279
	University degree	80.7	8.5	10.7	363
	Total	78.7	7.9	13.4	1303

Note: Where the total for a given sociodemographic factor is less than 1307, data were missing on that factor.

Type of legal event

According to the regression, satisfaction with the assistance received for an event was related to the type of legal event. In particular, the odds of satisfaction with assistance were higher than average for accident/injury and wills/estates events, but lower than average for events related to traffic offences (see Table 6.2). Figure 6.2 shows that participants were satisfied with the assistance received from the sole or most useful adviser for 94.2 per cent of wills/estates events and 88.5 per cent of accident/injury events, but only half of the events related to traffic offences.⁶

Figure 6.2: Satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser by legal event group, all six LGAs, 2003

Notes: N=1304 events. Three unclassified events were excluded.

Recency of legal event

Table 6.4 presents the percentage of participants who were satisfied with the assistance received for their legal events from the sole or most useful adviser cross-tabulated by the recency of events. This relationship was not significant in the regression (see Table 6.2).

Table 6.4: Satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser by recency of legal events, all six LGAs, 2003

*Recency of event: no. of months prior to survey*	*Satisfaction with assistance*			*No. of events*
	*Satisfied % of events*	*Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events*	*Dissatisfied % of events*
0–3	78.8	9	12.2	491
4–6	82.6	6.8	10.6	310
7–9	76	6.8	17.2	279
10–12	76	7	17	171
Total	78.7	7.7	13.6	1251

Note: 56 of the 1307 events with information on satisfaction with assistance had missing information on recency.

Resolution of legal event

Participants were asked if the legal events they had experienced over the previous 12 months had been resolved.⁷ The odds of satisfaction with the assistance received for a legal event were significantly lower for unresolved events than for resolved events (see Table 6.2). Figure 6.3 shows that participants were satisfied with the assistance received for 86.3 per cent of resolved events, 80.2 per cent of events that were in the process of being resolved, but only 61.6 per cent of unresolved events.

Figure 6.3: Satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser by resolution status of legal events, all six LGAs, 2003

Notes: N=1291 events. Information on resolution status was missing for 16 of the 1307 legal events where participants provided information on satisfaction with assistance.

Summary: satisfaction with the assistance received for legal events

This chapter examined the 1307 legal events where participants who sought help provided information on their satisfaction with the assistance received from the sole or most useful adviser.⁸ The chapter focused on the level of satisfaction with the assistance received and the factors related to satisfaction with assistance.

Participants were satisfied with the assistance received in 78.7 per cent of the legal events, but dissatisfied with the assistance received in 13.4 per cent of events.

According to the regression analysis, the sociodemographic characteristics of participants and the recency of the legal event were not significantly related to satisfaction with the assistance received for the legal event from the sole or most useful adviser. However, the type of legal event and whether or not the event was resolved were significant, independent predictors of satisfaction with assistance. In particular the odds of satisfaction with the assistance received for legal events were:

higher than average for accident/injury and wills/estates events but lower than average for traffic offence events
lower for unresolved events than for resolved events.

¹ 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).

² The percentages for local courts and Legal Aid NSW are based on fewer than 20 events and could be unreliable.

³ A mixed-effects regression was appropriate because some individuals had more than one event for which information was available on satisfaction with the assistance received from the sole or most useful adviser.

⁴ That is, the satisfaction with assistance variable was recoded into two categories. One category included the events where participants were satisfied. The second category included both the events where participants were dissatisfied and the events where participants were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

⁵ Chapter 7 discusses the resolution of legal events in detail, presenting resolution rates and information on factors related to resolution.

⁶ Note that the percentage for traffic offences could be unreliable due to small numbers.

⁷ Chapter 7 discusses the resolution of legal events in detail, presenting resolution rates and information on factors related to resolution.

⁸ Participants sought help in response to 1496 of the 3024 events that constituted participants three most recent events in the 12 months prior to the survey. Valid information on satisfaction with assistance from the sole or most useful adviser was obtained for 1307 of these 1496 events.