Search or view whole report

View PDF

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

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 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

Notes: Information on satisfaction with outcome was provided for 1735 resolved events. Where the total for a given sociodemographic factor is less than 1735, data were missing on that factor.

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

Note: Information on recency was missing for 81 of the 1735 resolved events that had information on satisfaction with outcome.

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

Note: Information on action taken was missing for nine of the 1735 resolved legal events that had information on satisfaction with outcome.

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

Note: x2=143.46, df=4, p=0.000.