1.36 In addition to utilising existing quantitative research, the research team also generated original quantitative data from five surveys. These surveys contributed to both stages 2 and 3 of the project.
Public online survey
1.37 The primary source of quantitative data for this phase was the LETR online survey. Between 30 April and 16 August 2012, the LETR research team conducted a large-scale open survey of individuals with an interest in matters relating to legal education. The survey was designed using the proprietary online research utility SurveyMonkey, and promoted through the LETR website, by the commissioning regulators and both social and print media. By the closing date the survey achieved a broad and statistically robust sample of 1,128 persons (see further Appendix D).
1.38 The survey was designed to obtain both demographic and quantitative attitudinal data from respondents on a range of issues, including the necessary knowledge, skills and attributes required of legal service providers. A number of the attitudinal questions linked directly to issues explored in Discussion Paper 01/2012, and thus provided data that could be contrasted to the formal stakeholder responses. All quantitative data were analysed using the SPSS statistical package. The survey also gave respondents scope to add free text comments, which were separately analysed as part of the qualitative data.
1.39 Respondents came from a wide range of occupations in the sector (Table 1.3). Solicitors narrowly constituted the largest group (326 respondents, or 28.9%), followed by barristers (312 respondents, or 27.7%) and CILEx members (162 respondents, or 14.4%). Based on these figures the Bar and CILEx are proportionately over-represented and solicitors under-represented in the sample, relative to their total populations. Consequently, an exercise was undertaken to assign weighting factors to the responses of the three largest professions.
This has the effect of adjusting responses so that, when compared, the data better reflect the actual population as a whole (Table 1.4). For transparency, responses from these groups are presented in both unadjusted and weighted form. The weighting methodology is explained more fully in Appendix D.
1.40 There was also a strong response from academics and public sector law teachers (64 respondents, or 5.7%), and a high response rate from notaries public (43 respondents, or 3.8%). Thirty-four paralegals (3.0%, two-thirds of whom worked in regulated entities) also responded to the survey. The remaining regulated legal professions were relatively poorly represented, with no responses from either patent attorneys or licensed conveyancers.16 Of
16 As a result full, specific interviews and focus groups were held with IP attorneys, costs lawyers and licensed conveyancers.
17 Responses in the ‘weighted survey’ result from the application of a weighting function to the responses of barristers, CILEx members and solicitors to the LETR online survey - see Appendix D for explanation.
Table 1.3: Survey respondent occupation clusters (unweighted data)
Table 1.4: Comparison of ‘responses’ in the unweighted and weighted surveys17
FREQUENCY
WEIGHTED SUR
VEY VALID % OF RESPONDENTS
UNWEIGHTED SUR
VEY RESPONDENT OCCUPATION (CONDENSED)
Solicitors (including trainees) 28.9 326
Barristers (including pupils) 27.7 312
CILEx members (including trainees) 14.4 162
Other Legal Practitioners 8.7 98
Legal Academics/Training Providers 7.4 84
Other Occupations 7.0 79
Law Students 5.9 67
TOTAL 100.0 1128
Barristers (including pupils) 312 312
Solicitors (including trainees) 326 652
CILEx members (including trainees) 162 486
Notaries Public (including trainees) 43 0
Paralegals 34 0
Legal Academics/Training Providers 84 0
Law Students 67 0
Other Interested People 100 0
TOTAL 1128 1450
1.41 Demographically the survey cohort matches its target population quite well with near parity of gender overall; the stronger male bias of the Bar and significant female bias in CILEx membership are also reflected in the data. BME respondents appear to be a little under-represented, though it should be noted that over 8% of respondents declined to disclose their ethnicity. Nearly 7% of the sample declared a disability or long-term illness, although, again, there was a relatively high non-response to this item (7.4%).18 Further analysis of the sample demographics can be found in Appendix D.
BDRC Consumer survey
1.42 Following discussions in the autumn of 2011 between the research team and the Legal Services Board (LSB), it was agreed that the research team would be granted advance access19 to the consumer data produced for the LSB by the research consultancy BDRC Continental through an online survey (see also BDRC, 2012).
1.43 The purpose of the research was to examine how individual consumers identified and responded to legal needs, including exploring their advice-seeking behaviour, and their experience of and satisfaction with the legal services used. The survey is methodologically robust, and draws on a sample of 4,017 respondents. It covers a broader range of legal problems than the Civil and Social Justice Survey and explores in-depth respondents’
experiences of purchasing conveyancing, divorce and probate services. It does not explore issues of education and training with consumers, but adds significantly to the data on consumer needs discussed in Chapter 2.
Will-writer and careers adviser surveys
1.44 Two smaller surveys were also produced for specific purposes by the research team.
Between January and March 2012, a survey was conducted among law careers advisers in higher education. Careers advisers were selected because of their role as knowledgeable intermediaries between the legal services market and students, and hence as a relatively impartial source of triangulation for a range of issues being explored through the qualitative and quantitative data. They were asked in the survey about their perceptions of the skills, knowledge and behaviours sought by recruiters and the deficiencies in new recruits which appeared to be of most concern to prospective employers. Respondents also provided data on extra-curricular activities and the ‘social capital’20 sought by employers; on prospective changes in employers’ preferences, and possible trends in relation to the CILEx graduate entry programme. The survey was facilitated by convenors of a specialist online discussion list; it obtained 19 responses from a cross-section of institutions (out of a possible estimated 124 list: users = 15%). Further details of the range of institutions participating appear in Appendix D.
1.45 A survey of will-writers was piloted in paper form at the Institute of Professional Will-writers Annual Conference in February 2012, and subsequently circulated in electronic form to the wider membership of the Society of Wil-Writers and the Institute of Professional Willwriters.
It sought to examine attitudes amongst will-writers to the move to make will-writing a reserved activity. It also canvassed opinion on the form that any regulation should take.
Whether there ought to be a prior educational standard for will-writers and the adequacy of existing continuing professional development were also examined. A total of 139 responses
18 Further qualitative work was conducted in relation to issues of diversity, as set out in succeeding chapters.
19 The dataset has subsequently been made publicly available by the LSB at https://research.legalservicesboard.org.uk/reports/consumers-unmet-legal-needs/
20 Social capital is variously defined, but generally describes those resources and assets that an individual derives from and mobilises through their network of relationships and institutional affiliations.
were received. No claims are made as to the representativeness of this data, and it should particularly be noted that responses do not include will-writers operating outside the voluntary standards imposed by membership of these associations.
Solicitors and their skills
1.46 In advance of the development of the new Legal Practice Course (LPC) in 1990 the Law Society Research and Policy Planning Unit commissioned work to explore the viability of different research methods for collating and categorising the skills solicitors use in their work. The results were published in 1991 (Sherr, 1991). The review of the literature which accompanied the 1991 study showed how little empirical work had been conducted on what lawyers actually did and what their daily work consisted of. Almost all of the previous research was based on assumptions relating to activity rather than empirical observation or assessment. The 1991 study sought to narrow that gap by undertaking direct participant observation of the activities on which solicitors spent their time, thereby giving a quantitative indication of the work that solicitors do.
1.47 In considering what forms of legal services education and training will be most appropriate for the future, the research team compared the 1991 results with how solicitors spent their time in 2012. Twenty-one years later, the nature of lawyers’ work could have changed significantly. The balance of time spent on different tasks might be different. If so the necessary training for these functions would need to be revised to reflect those changes.
1.48 Time recording and time management have moved on and been computerised since 1991.
Many lawyers now use ‘smart timers’ which provide a much more accurate account of the exact time used on different elements of their work than the old time sheets, often filled in subsequently. A new approach to assessing the use of solicitors’ time was therefore implemented. Solicitors involved in the exercise were asked to review their ‘smart timers’ at the end of each day and at the end of each week in order to note down the different types of work in which they had been involved. Smart timers are likely to produce a fairly accurate assessment of time spent. A copy of the forms used for collating these assessments can be found in Appendix E. Within each of the entities researched, these ‘work diaries’ were collated, ensuring that all client information was removed and then passed to the research team for assessment and analysis. Thirty-six lawyers were involved in this part of the research, from a total of six firms: two of the largest commercial firms, a mid-range city firm, and three firms dealing more with personal plight work. Data from 34 of the participants were included in the final dataset. The results of this exercise are considered in Chapter 2.