 |  |
, |
Ch 8. Satisfaction with the outcome of legal events
The previous chapter examined whether the events that participants experienced in the 12 months prior to the survey had been resolved by the time the survey was conducted. The present chapter describes participants’ level of satisfaction with the status of their legal events at the time of the survey. It also examines the factors related to participants reporting satisfaction with the outcome of legal events that had been resolved. Information on satisfaction with the status of legal events at the time of the survey was sought in relation to participants’ three most recent legal events, that is, in relation to 3024 events. This information was obtained for 1735 resolved events and for 1109 events that were either unresolved or in the process of being resolved.
Level of satisfaction with the status of legal events
As already noted, there is no consensus about the definition and measurement of satisfaction. The present participants were asked to choose between the following three options regarding their level of satisfaction with the outcome of events that they reported had been resolved at the time of the survey: ‘satisfied’, ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ and ‘dissatisfied’. In the case of events that were either unresolved or in the process of being resolved at the time of the survey, participants were asked about their satisfaction with this situation. It is worth noting that these questions concerning satisfaction with the outcome or lack of outcome of legal events were asked in addition to, and separately from, a question concerning satisfaction with the assistance received for legal events.1
Figure 8.1 presents participants’ level of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events, while Figure 8.2 presents participants’ level of satisfaction with the status of other legal events at the time of the survey. Figure 8.1 shows that participants reported satisfaction with the outcome of more than three-quarters of the events that had been resolved at the time of the survey. In contrast, Figure 8.2 shows that participants reported being satisfied with the status of only about one-fifth of the legal events that were either unresolved or in the process of being resolved at the time of the survey.
Figure 8.1: Satisfaction with the outcome of resolved legal events, all six LGAs, 2003
Notes: N=1735 events. Information on satisfaction with outcome was missing for six of the 1741 resolved events.
Figure 8.2: Satisfaction with legal events that were not resolved,a all six LGAs, 2003
a Includes unresolved events and events in the process of being resolved at the time of the survey.
Notes: N=1109 events. Information on satisfaction with the status of legal events that were unresolved or in the process of being resolved was missing for 23 events.
Where participants reported dissatisfaction with the status of their legal events at the time of the survey, they were asked to provide the reason for their dissatisfaction. Table 8.1 presents the reasons for dissatisfaction with the outcome of resolved events, while Table 8.2 presents the reasons for dissatisfaction with the status of other events.
Table 8.1: Reasons for dissatisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events, all six LGAs, 2003
| Reason |
Resolved events where dissatisfied with outcome
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
|
| Negative financial impact |
45
|
20.9
|
| Unfair/unsatisfactory result |
43
|
20
|
| Lack of helpful assistance/poor services |
33
|
15.3
|
| Objective not achieved |
18
|
8.4
|
| Too expensive to resolve |
15
|
7
|
| Negative impact on life/family |
9
|
4.2
|
| Took too long to resolve |
8
|
3.7
|
| Difficult/upsetting/stressful situation |
7
|
3.3
|
| Treated badly/discriminated against |
6
|
2.8
|
| Didn’t get a say |
4
|
1.9
|
| Could happen again to me or others |
4
|
1.9
|
| Other |
23
|
10.7
|
| Total |
215
|
100
|
Table 8.2: Reasons for dissatisfaction with status of events that were not resolved,a all six LGAs, 2003
| Reason |
Events that were not resolveda where dissatisfied with status
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
|
| Matter not resolved/ongoing |
244
|
36.5
|
| Lack of helpful assistance/poor services |
117
|
17.5
|
| Unfair/unsatisfactory situation |
81
|
12.1
|
| Negative financial impact |
58
|
8.7
|
| Would take too long to resolve |
31
|
4.6
|
| Too expensive to resolve |
31
|
4.6
|
| Difficult/upsetting/stressful situation |
31
|
4.6
|
| Negative impact on life/family/health |
30
|
4.5
|
| Treated badly/discriminated against |
23
|
3.4
|
| Didn’t get a say |
4
|
0.6
|
| Objective not achieved |
2
|
0.3
|
| Could happen again to me or others |
1
|
0.1
|
| Other |
15
|
2.2
|
| Total |
668
|
100
|
Notes: For 16 of the 684 events where participants reported dissatisfaction with the current status of events that were not resolved, the reason for this dissatisfaction was missing.
As shown in Table 8.1, the two most common reasons for dissatisfaction with the outcome of resolved events were that the event had a negative financial impact (20.9%) and that the participant felt the result was unfair or unsatisfactory (20.0%). Participants also expressed dissatisfaction with a lack of helpful assistance (15.3%), their objectives not being achieved (8.4%) and the issue being too expensive to resolve (7.0%).
As evident in Table 8.2, the most common reason for dissatisfaction with events that had not been resolved was precisely that the matter was still ongoing (36.5%). The second and fourth most common reasons for dissatisfaction with events that had not been resolved related to a lack of helpful assistance (17.5%) and the negative financial impact of the event (8.7%). These two reasons were also among the most frequently reported reasons for dissatisfaction with the outcome of resolved events. The third most common reason for dissatisfaction with events that had not been resolved was that the participant felt the current situation was unfair or unsatisfactory (12.1%).
Factors related to satisfaction with the outcome of legal events
A mixed-effects logistic regression was conducted to determine the significant, independent predictors of satisfaction with the outcome of legal events that participants reported had been resolved.2 In the regression, satisfaction with outcome was a binary variable such that resolved events where the individual was satisfied with the outcome were contrasted with all other resolved events.3 Potential predictor variables were the sociodemographic variables, the type of legal event, the recency of the legal event, the action taken in response to the legal event and the method used to resolve the legal event.
Table 8.3 provides a summary of the regression results and Appendix Table C32 presents the full results of the regression. As can be seen from Table 8.3, the type of legal event, the recency of the event and the action taken in response to the event were significant, independent predictors of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events. The results of the regression are further discussed below, with reference to the relevant descriptive statistics.
Table 8.3: Summary of mixed-effects binary logistic regression for satisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events
| SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES | ||
| Variable | Comparison |
Odds ratioa
|
| Legal event groupb | Civil |  |
| Accident/injury versus average |
3.4
|
| Business versus average |
0.3
|
| Consumer versus average |
0.6
|
| Credit/debt versus average |
ns
|
| Education versus average |
ns
|
| Employment versus average |
ns
|
| Government versus average |
0.3
|
| Health versus average |
ns
|
| Housing versus average |
ns
|
| Human rights versus average |
ns
|
| Wills/estates versus average |
9.4
|
| Criminal | |
| Domestic violence versus average |
ns
|
| General crime versus average |
0.4
|
| Traffic offences versus average |
ns
|
| Family | |
| Family versus average |
ns
|
| Recency of event | 7–12 months ago versus 0–6 months ago |
0.7
|
| Action taken | Handled alone versus sought help |
1.7
|
| Did nothing versus sought help |
0.5
|
| NON-SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES | Gender, age, Indigenous status, country of birth, disability status, personal income, education level, method of resolution | |
An odds ratio less than 1.0 indicates the first category in the comparison had lower odds than the second.
b Each legal event group was compared to the average effect for all legal event groups (rather than to any specific legal event group).
Notes: N=1357 events and 879 participants. Data on one or more potential predictor variables were missing for 378 events where information was provided on satisfaction with outcome of resolved events.
‘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 8.4 presents the percentage of participants who were satisfied with the outcome of their resolved events broken down by each sociodemographic characteristic. According to the regression, satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events was not significantly related to any of the sociodemographic characteristics examined (see Table 8.3).
Table 8.4: Satisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events by each sociodemographic factor, all six LGAs, 2003
| Sociodemographic factor |
Satisfaction with outcome
| |
No. of events
|
||
| |
Satisfied % of events
|
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events
|
Dissatisfied % of events
| |
| Gender | Female |
76.3
|
9.9
|
13.7
|
837
|
| Male |
80.6
|
7.8
|
11.6
|
898
|
| Total |
78.6
|
8.8
|
12.6
|
1735
|
| Age (years) | 15–24 |
75.7
|
10.3
|
14.1
|
370
|
| 25–34 |
78
|
11
|
11
|
391
|
| 35–44 |
77.5
|
7.5
|
15
|
374
|
| 45–54 |
78.5
|
9.3
|
12.2
|
311
|
| 55–64 |
82.5
|
4.5
|
13
|
154
|
| 65+ |
86.6
|
6
|
7.5
|
134
|
| Total |
78.5
|
8.8
|
12.6
|
1734
|
| Indigenous status | Indigenous |
76.5
|
5.9
|
17.6
|
51
|
| Non-Indigenous |
77.9
|
9.1
|
13
|
1491
|
| Total |
77.9
|
8.9
|
13.2
|
1542
|
| Country of birth | English speaking |
78.6
|
9.1
|
12.3
|
1533
|
| Non-English speaking |
78.4
|
6.5
|
15.1
|
199
|
| Total |
78.6
|
8.8
|
12.6
|
1732
|
| Disability status | Disability |
80.3
|
7.5
|
12.2
|
361
|
| No disability |
78.1
|
9.1
|
12.8
|
1369
|
| Total |
78.6
|
8.8
|
12.7
|
1730
|
| Personal income ($/week) | 0–199 |
77.8
|
10.9
|
11.3
|
284
|
| 200–499 |
79.5
|
7.1
|
13.3
|
533
|
| 500–999 |
77.9
|
9.1
|
13
|
584
|
| 1000+ |
80.8
|
8.9
|
10.3
|
213
|
| Total |
78.8
|
8.7
|
12.5
|
1614
|
| Education level | Didn’t finish/at school |
83.3
|
5.6
|
11.1
|
162
|
| Year 10/equivalent |
82.2
|
7
|
10.7
|
428
|
| Year 12/equivalent |
76.6
|
9.6
|
13.8
|
376
|
| Certificate/diploma |
74.3
|
10.3
|
15.4
|
331
|
| University degree |
78.3
|
9.9
|
11.8
|
433
|
| Total |
78.6
|
8.8
|
12.6
|
1730
|
Type of legal event
According to the regression, the type of legal event was a significant predictor of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events. The odds of satisfaction with the outcome of events were about three times higher than average for accident/injury events and about nine times higher than average for wills/estates events (see Table 8.3). Resolved business, consumer, government and general crime events all had lower odds of satisfaction with the outcome when compared with the average for all resolved events (see Table 8.3). Figure 8.3 shows that participants were satisfied with the outcome of 96.8 per cent of resolved wills/estates events and 88.8 per cent of resolved accident/injury events, but only around two-thirds of resolved business, consumer, government and general crime events.
Figure 8.3: Satisfaction with the outcome of resolved legal events by legal event group, all six LGAs, 2003
Notes: N=1733 events. Two unclassified events were excluded.
Recency of legal event
The odds of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events were lower for events that occurred seven to 12 months prior to the survey than for more recent events (see Table 8.3). Table 8.5 shows that participants reported being dissatisfied with the outcome of approximately 12 per cent of the resolved events that occurred in the six months prior to the survey, but with 13.1 to 15.5 per cent of the resolved events that occurred seven to 12 months prior to the survey.
Table 8.5: Satisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events by recency of legal events, all six LGAs, 2003
| Recency of event: no. of months prior to survey |
Satisfaction with outcome
|
No. of events
|
||
|
Satisfied % of events
|
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events
|
Dissatisfied % of events
| |
| 0–3 |
78.8
|
9.2
|
12
|
567
|
| 4–6 |
80
|
8.1
|
11.9
|
445
|
| 7–9 |
77.6
|
9.3
|
13.1
|
397
|
| 10–12 |
75.5
|
9
|
15.5
|
245
|
| Total |
78.4
|
8.9
|
12.8
|
1654
|
Action taken
According to the regression, the odds of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved legal events were lower for events where participants did nothing than for events where participants sought help (see Table 8.3). In addition, the odds of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events were higher for events that participants handled alone than for events where participants sought help (see Table 8.3). Table 8.6 shows that participants reported being satisfied with the outcome of 85.1 per cent of the resolved events that they handled alone, 81.0 per cent of the resolved events for which they sought help, but only 69.4 per cent of the resolved events for which they took no action.
Table 8.6: Satisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events by action taken in response to legal events, all six LGAs, 2003
| Action taken |
Satisfaction with outcome
|
No. of events
|
||
|
Satisfied % of events
|
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events
|
Dissatisfied % of events
| |
| Sought help |
81
|
7.1
|
11.9
|
886
|
| Handled alone |
85.1
|
7.4
|
7.4
|
350
|
| Did nothing |
69.4
|
13.1
|
17.6
|
490
|
| Total |
78.6
|
8.9
|
12.6
|
1726
|
Method of resolution
Table 8.7 shows the percentage of resolved events where participants were satisfied with the outcome broken down by the method used for resolution. According to the regression, the method used for resolution was not a significant independent predictor of whether or not participants were satisfied with the outcome of resolved events (see Table 8.3).
Table 8.7: Satisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events by method of resolution, all six LGAs, 2003
| Method of resolution |
Satisfaction with outcome
|
No. of events
|
||
|
Satisfied % of events
|
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events
|
Dissatisfied % of events
| |
| On own |
78.4
|
9.3
|
12.3
|
1268
|
| Through legal proceedings |
76.1
|
4.3
|
19.6
|
138
|
| Some other way |
80.2
|
8.8
|
10.9
|
329
|
| Total |
78.6
|
8.8
|
12.6
|
1735
|
Satisfaction with assistance
Table 8.8 is based only on the 774 resolved events where participants sought help, and presents a breakdown of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events by satisfaction with the assistance received for these events from the sole or most useful adviser.4 Not surprisingly, the chi-square test conducted revealed a significant relationship whereby participants who reported being satisfied with the outcome of resolved events also tended to report being satisfied with the assistance they received for these events. Participants reported being satisfied with the outcome of 87.9 per cent of the resolved events where they were satisfied with the assistance they received, but only 41.2 per cent of the resolved events where they were dissatisfied with the assistance they received.
Table 8.8: Satisfaction with outcome of resolved legal events by satisfaction with assistance from sole or most useful adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| Satisfaction with assistance |
Satisfaction with outcome
|
No. of events
|
||
|
Satisfied % of events
|
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied % of events
|
Dissatisfied % of events
| |
| Satisfied |
87.9
|
4.8
|
7.3
|
668
|
| Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied |
39.5
|
21.1
|
39.5
|
38
|
| Dissatisfied |
41.2
|
13.2
|
45.6
|
68
|
| Total |
81.4
|
6.3
|
12.3
|
774
|
Summary: satisfaction with the outcome of legal events
This chapter examined the level of satisfaction with the outcome or lack of outcome of 2844 legal events.5 It also examined the factors related to satisfaction with the outcome of 1735 legal events that had been resolved at the time of the survey. The main findings were as follows.
Participants reported satisfaction with the outcome of more than three-quarters of the events that had been resolved at the time of the survey. In contrast, participants reported being satisfied with the status of only about one-fifth of the legal events that were either unresolved or in the process of being resolved at the time of the survey.
The most common reasons for dissatisfaction with the outcome of resolved events related to the negative financial impact of the event (20.9%), the participant feeling that the outcome was unfair or unsatisfactory (20.0%), and a lack of helpful assistance (15.3%).
The most common reasons for dissatisfaction with the status of events that were unresolved or in the process of resolution related to the matter being still ongoing (36.5%), a lack of helpful assistance (17.5%), the participant feeling that the current situation was unfair or unsatisfactory (12.1%), and the negative financial impact of the event (8.7%).
The logistic regression analysis revealed that the type of legal event, the recency of the event and the action taken in response to the event were significant, independent predictors of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved legal events. The odds of satisfaction with the outcome of resolved events were:
- higher than average for accident/injury and wills/estates events, and lower than average for business, consumer, government and general crime events
- lower for events that occurred earlier rather than more recently
- higher for events that participants handled alone and lower for events where participants did nothing, when compared with events where participants sought help.
According to a chi-square test based on resolved events where participants had sought help, satisfaction with the outcome of the event was significantly and positively related to satisfaction with the assistance received.