2.Main Content
An Anatomy of Access
a Brief Summary
May 2004
This independent research report, dating from December 2002, has recently been published on the website of the Legal Services Research Centre. It was written by Richard Moorhead of Cardiff Law School and Professor Avrom Sherr of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, and evaluates access, signposting and initial advice within the Community Legal Service. Here is a brief summary of some of the main findings, but this is no substitute for reading the detailed commentary in the report.
Methodology
The research looked at how providers with a Specialist Quality Mark and a legal aid contract handled enquiries outside of their specialist areas of law. The findings are therefore relevant to generalist as well as specialist advice agencies, in the sense that providers were not being assessed as specialists.
The research used trained 'model clients' (sometimes called 'mystery shoppers' who visited a sample of 189 solicitors' firms and 105 not-for-profit (NfP) advice agencies. 175 visits were made in-person and 119 by telephone. Model clients were given a scenario involving a debt, education or housing problem (in broadly equal proportions). The three scenarios were designed so as "to suggest to a competent generalist adviser that the client has reasonably pressing needs which need specialist attention in an area that the lawyer/adviser does not hold a specialist contract."
A sample of model client reports on advice received were analysed by peer reviewers - practitioners with significant levels of current practical experience in the relevant area of law.
Access
The research findings show significant differences between the two sectors in relation to access.
In 43.6% of telephone 'visits' to NfP agencies, the model client had to call 3 or more times before getting through, and in 27.3% of visits, the model client failed to get through at all after a minimum of 5 calls. By contrast, in 92.2% of telephone visits to solicitors, the model client got through on the first attempt.
Model clients visiting NfP agencies in-person faired better. They reported that it was easy or fairly easy to contact the agency in 86.0% of visits. The corresponding figure for solicitors was 74.4%, but this difference is not statistically significant. However, model clients visiting solicitors faced a different type of access problem. In 9.5% of all visits to solicitors, contact was made but the model client was neither signposted nor advised by the firm. No NfP agency took this approach.
Overall, model clients reported that it was difficult to access the provider in 24.5% of visits.
Outcome of visits
The following table summarises the outcomes of visits.
| NfP % | Solicitor % | Total % | ||
| Severe access problems | 14.3 | 10.6 | 11.9 | |
| Mild access or logistical probems | 5.7 | 5.3 | 5.4 | |
| Signposting with or without advice | 50.5 | 73.5 | 65.3 | |
| Advice and no signposting | 29.5 | 10.6 | 17.4 | |
| Number of visits | 105 | 189 | 294 |
In this table, 'severe access problems' means inability to contact the provider (largely NfP agencies over the telephone) or failure to receive advice or signposting having made contact (entirely solicitors). 'Mild access or logistical problems' covers model clients who were asked to attend an interview at a time when they were conducting another visit.
In 57% of the 277 visits resulting in contact, the provider told the model client that they could not help, but in 92% of these cases, the model client was given a suggestion of an alternative form of assistance.
95 visits proceeded to an interview (in-person or over the telephone). NfP agencies were more likely to provide an interview (57% of visits) than were solicitors (19% of visits). In more than half of interviews, the model client did not have to wait more than 2 minutes, although in 20% of interviews they had to wait for an hour or more. Worryingly, in 57% of interviews, the adviser did not give their name (75% of NfP interviews and 31% of solicitor interviews)
Signposting
No supplier carried out a referral as defined by the Quality Mark. However, the researchers had concluded prior to the research that using model clients is not a suitable methodology for analysing referrals, as these normally arise after work has been undertaken for the client.
In nearly two thirds of visits, the model client was signposted (see table above). Solicitors were more likely to signpost than NfP agencies and were less likely to give advice alongside signposting, providing advice in only 4% of signposts, compared to 41.5% in the case of NfP signposts. Solicitors were more likely than NfP agencies to signpost to another solicitor (46% of solicitor signposts compared to 7.5% of NfP signposts).
The researchers identified signposting that was probably inappropriate:
- 8% of signposts were to unnamed CABx (almost entirely by solicitors)
- 4% of solicitor and 15% of NfP signposts were back to the source of the problem, which in the absence of clear advice could be damaging to the interests of clients
- a random sample of 21 solicitor and 21 NfP signposts showed that 38% from each sector were to organisations without the Specialist Quality Mark, although there were SQM providers in the area.
The researchers concluded that 40-50% of signposts were not to the most appropriate local provider, although 80% of signposts were compliant with the relevant SQM requirements.
Quality of Advice
In 88.4% of the 95 interviews, the model client considered that the provider was very helpful (53.7%) or fairly helpful (34.7%). In 73.7% of interviews, the model client considered that they had been given clear advice on how to proceed with their problem. The raw figures suggest that NfP agencies scored better than solicitors, but the differences are not statistically significant.
Peer reviewers examined 50 of the 51 cases in which the model client received advice but was not signposted (a greater proportion of these cases were from NfP agencies, as they were more likely than solicitors to provide advice only).
Peer reviewers were far less complementary than model clients about the performance of providers. They considered that:
- in 70% of cases, the adviser was inadequately aware (54%) or completely unaware (16%) of all legal issues raised
- in 72% of cases, the adviser was inadequately aware (62%) or completely unaware (10%) of the practical steps that could be taken now or in the future
- in 70% of cases, the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the advice given was inadequate (52%) or poor (18%)
- in 64% of cases, the plan of action given to the client was neither useful nor counterproductive (16%), counterproductive (8%) or damaging to the client’s interests (40%)
- in 66% of cases, the adviser’s decision to advise rather than signpost was probably unjustified (26%) or unjustified (40%).
Although the raw figures suggest that solicitors performed more poorly than NfP agencies, the differences are not statistically significant. A more detailed analysis suggests that solicitors performed less poorly when advising in-person and NfP agencies performed less poorly when advising over the telephone. The researchers concluded that solicitors and NfP agencies giving advice outside of their specialist contract areas were probably equally poor.
The report contains some interesting examples of the advice given for each of the three scenarios, with comments from model clients and peer reviewers. These indicate some differences in the approach taken by solicitors and NfP agencies. They also highlight how poor advice can be positively damaging to clients.
End of Section Back to top
