• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The Civil Applicants Survey 2013

February 2014

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 1 Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 5

Overall Experience 13

From information to outcome 14

Communication with Scottish Legal Aid Board 19

Satisfaction with solicitor 26

Equality of Experience 34

Conclusion and next steps 37

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 2 Executive Summary

Background

The Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) is a non-departmental public body responsible for managing legal aid in Scotland. Applications for legal aid are made on behalf of applicants by their solicitor, and SLAB has little direct contact with applicants.

The main aim of the 2013 civil applicants’ survey was to seek the views of legal aid applicants and recipients of advice & assistance on their experiences of civil legal assistance. The research excluded those who used a Civil Legal Assistance Office solicitor, since SLAB has a separate programme of research for this.

The research used a structured questionnaire (developed by SLAB). Professional fieldworkers undertook telephone interviews of people who had had advice & assistance, applied for legal aid or had dealings with SLAB’s Treasury Department. A total of 765 people took part in the research (the same as in 2009, as SLAB had specified).

Overview

Most respondents (83%) felt that their situation would have been worse without legal aid and were satisfied on key measures around using and understanding legal aid and the legal system. Amongst those who gave a view, 84% were satisfied or neutral regarding ‘overall experience of the full legal process’, 95% with ‘ease of starting to use legal aid’ and 90% with ‘ease of understanding of the whole legal aid system’.

Information gathering & access to legal help

The majority of respondents (88%) went to a private solicitor first for information on their problem, with 5% going first to a Citizen’s Advice Bureau. These results are very similar to those in 2009 and 2007. Those with non-family cases were more likely to contact a CAB first (10% did so), compared with 4% of those with family cases.

Although most respondents had no problems finding a legal aid solicitor, 5% of respondents (41 people) said that they had had problems. This is identical to 2009, and a slight improvement on 2007 when 8% said they had problems.

Views on legal aid processes

Most of those who had direct contact with SLAB were satisfied or neutral with how long it took to get an answer (83%), whether things were explained clearly (89%) and that the response answered their question (85%). There is no comparable data from earlier surveys.

Of those who had to pay a financial contribution during the course of their case, 83% were satisfied or neutral with how clearly SLAB had explained what they might have to pay. This is a very similar finding to the 2009 survey.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 3 Views on their Solicitor

Satisfaction with the solicitor and various aspects of the solicitor service is high, and has not changed significantly since the previous surveys (where comparisons are available).

Overall satisfaction with their solicitor is generally high, with 91% respondents satisfied or neutral with the service provided so far. When asked whether they would use the same solicitor again most people (83%) said that they would. Responses to both these questions were very similar to those received in 2009.

People who said they were given written information by their solicitor at their first meeting were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their solicitor than those who said they had not been given this. For instance, overall satisfaction with their solicitor was 92% amongst those who recalled having received information, compared with 69% amongst those who did not.

Demographics

The research explored whether respondents felt that anything to do with their demographic characteristics had made it more difficult for them to access legal aid. The characteristics covered were: disability, age, ethnic group, religious affiliation, gender, gender identity and sexual identity.

The responses to the demographic questions suggest that very few respondents felt that their membership of a particular demographic group made it more difficult for them to access legal aid. Amongst those who said they had a limiting long-standing illness, health problem or disability, 10% (18 people) thought that this had made it difficult to access legal aid. Where this was expanded on, the difficulty was most commonly attributed to ‘physical access (e.g. to buildings or places)’ (3 responses) or ‘access to information’ (e.g. problems with reading, writing or comprehension) (3 responses). Fewer than 0.5% of respondents thought that they had had difficulty accessing legal aid due to membership of any other demographic group.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 4 Introduction

This section introduces the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), outlines the research aims of the civil applicants’ survey and describes the methodology selected for this research, as well as discussing ethical issues around the work.

Background

The Scottish Legal Aid Board The Scottish Legal Aid Board is a non-departmental public body responsible for managing legal aid in Scotland. The purpose of SLAB is to provide access to justice for those people who are unable to afford to pay for it on their own. To support this SLAB has four strategic aims:  To facilitate access to a range of quality assured legal help in Scotland, when and where it is needed.

 To provide access to service providers that deliver services in ways that benefit the justice system.

 To obtain best value for the taxpayer from legal aid expenditure.

 To contribute to an efficient justice system in Scotland by providing an efficient legal aid system. Consulting with applicants, assisted persons and others with an interest in legal aid and access to justice is fundamental to SLAB’s approach to delivering access to justice, and supports the Scottish Government in delivering its National Outcomes. In line with these aims, SLAB undertakes a range of different research activities (both internally and using external partners) to inform policy development, implementation and evaluation. The applicant survey is an important project within the overall research programme.

Legal Aid Legal aid allows people who would otherwise not be able to afford it, to get help for their legal problems. There are two main types of help funded by legal aid: advice and assistance (A&A) and legal aid. Together these are called legal assistance. Legal assistance is available for both civil and criminal problems. This research focusses on civil legal assistance, research on criminal legal assistance was undertaken in 2011 and 2012. Advice and assistance covers a wide range of matters, so long as they are matters of Scots law. It pays for advice from a solicitor but, apart from a few exceptions under assistance by way of representation (ABWOR), it will not cover 'representation' – that is, putting the case in court. Legal aid provides funding for a solicitor to put the case in court and some tribunals. It covers the preparation work, as well as the hearing itself, and can provide funding for advocates, experts and other costs (cases often begin with advice and assistance, and legal aid may be the next step if necessary). In the process of providing legal assistance SLAB has very little or no direct contact with most applicants. For those assisted under A&A, SLAB has no direct contact. The solicitor assesses eligibility and provides advice, before intimating this to SLAB for payment. The chart overleaf illustrates this.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 5 Channels of communication in the Advice & Assistance process

Assisted person

Solicitor

SLAB

SLAB typically does not have direct contact with those who apply for civil legal aid. Their solicitor applies, and SLAB will liaise with the solicitor about the application. The applicant is kept informed about progress and SLAB’s decisions on their civil legal aid application. The exceptions are: applicants who require a detailed financial assessment of eligibility (Form 2), SLAB may contact them directly about this and; those who are required to make a financial payment towards the cost of their legal aid. Those who contribute financially will have contact with SLAB’s Treasury Department. The chart below illustrates communication channels in an application for civil legal aid.

Channels of communication in the civil legal aid application process

Applicant

Limited to financial assessment & Solicitor payment towards legal aid

SLAB

The decision on whether an application for legal assistance is granted is based on the merits of their case and the financial circumstances of the applicant. Eligibility for advice & assistance is assessed by the applicant’s solicitor, whilst applications for civil legal aid are assessed by the Board. The financial assessment of eligibility for civil legal aid is called the ‘means test’. Depending on their financial situation applicants will be asked by their solicitor to fill in either a Financial Form 1 or a Financial Form 2. The Financial Form 1 is for those who receive income support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance, payments from the national asylum support service or who are applying on behalf of a child. The Financial Form 2 is for all other applicants for civil legal aid. Depending on their circumstances at the time of application, or review, applicants can either be refused legal aid (if it appears that they can afford to pay for legal aid themselves), granted legal aid with a financial contribution or granted with no contribution. Those who are granted legal aid with an income

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 6 based contribution will usually have to pay a set amount monthly towards it. If they miss their first payment their legal aid will be stopped (terminated). If an applicant misses a monthly payment towards their contribution they are classified as having gone into arrears. SLAB’s Treasury Department is responsible for collecting legal aid debt, and communicating with applicants about debt related issues. Failure to pay can lead to withdrawal of legal aid but SLAB can, and does, reassess circumstances and amounts to be paid. People who have won or kept money or property as a result of their legally aided civil case may also be due to repay some or all of the costs of their case, if they can afford to. This can apply to those who have already paid a financial contribution, as well as those who have not been asked to. SLAB follows set guidelines in calculating whether people can afford to repay some or all of the cost of their case. The money that people are asked to pay from money or property won or kept through their case is called ‘clawback’. People who win their legally-aided case may also have part or all of the costs of the case paid for by their opponent. The court may order this, or the winning party can ask their opponent to do so. Further information on legal aid is available on SLAB’s website www.slab.org.uk.

Methodology

Research Aims The main aim of the 2013 civil applicants’ survey was to seek the views of legal aid applicants and recipients of advice & assistance on their experience of civil legal assistance. Specifically the research aimed to:  Measure knowledge of, and levels of satisfaction with, SLAB, the profession, and the legal aid system as a whole  Explore how applicants try to resolve their legal problems (advice seeking behaviour)

 Identify any problems in accessing justice (i.e. problems in accessing a solicitor, types of cases, distance, representation)  Identify how and where the legal aid system can be improved

 Identify any differences in opinion between groups of applicants

 Provide comparisons with previous applicant surveys to give an indication of changing views over time.

Method

The 2013 civil applicants’ survey follows on from previous research with applicants. A telephone survey was chosen as the method, since this was successful in the past (2009 and 2007). This required specialist equipment and fieldwork resource not available in-house and was contracted out to Progressive Partnership, a specialist research company. This helps to assure respondents that the research is independent of SLAB which can be important in getting a good response rate.

The survey questionnaire was developed in-house. It was based on that used in 2009. However various questions were added, removed and changed, and there were also some alterations to the structure of the questionnaire. Input to the questionnaire was received from the Project Board, as well as from individual managers and directors subsequent to this. A script for introducing the survey, and to be used

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 7 at other stages throughout the interview, was provided to the contractor alongside the questionnaire, along with a Research Briefing sheet to help answer questions that respondents may have had about the research.

There are obviously limitations with any research work. For this project, one of the main limitations is that only those with a telephone could be contacted to take part. This means that the views of those without a telephone were not collected. According to a 2012 Ofcom report , 85% of individuals in Scotland have a mobile phone and 82% of households a landline. There will be some overlap with these groups; some households will have mobile phone but no landline and vice versa. The decision to use telephone surveys was made based on past experience, and was made as it has been demonstrated to be the most effective way of getting large amounts of information from enough respondents to enable analysis.

In 2013 there was a reduced budget for the work compared with 2009, however efficiencies were achieved by taking more work in-house (primarily analysis and report writing) and combining the commission with that for the civil solicitors survey. This meant we were able to achieve the same number of interviews and ask a similar number of questions, as was achieved in 2009. Doing the analysis in-house also meant we were able to be more responsive and speedy in asking and answering questions about the results, since we had direct access to the data.

Sampling strategy & fieldwork.

The sample for this survey was taken from records held by SLAB. Cases were selected because they either had advice & assistance, applied for legal aid or had dealings with SLAB’s Treasury Department during a particular timeframe. During, or outwith, this time they may also have seen a solicitor (including privately) about the same or another problem, or applied for criminal legal assistance.

The sampling strategy was broadly in line with that used in 2009, in order to facilitate comparability over time. However for 2013 we also included an additional sample of applicants who had been granted legal aid with a financial contribution. In 2009 the Treasury sample represented this group. In 2013 we felt that the Treasury sample would be able to tell us about their experiences with paying towards their legal aid, but that they might have difficulties recollecting back to the early stages of their case, since this could have been two or more years ago. The ‘granted with a contribution’ sample would be better able to recall their experiences of finding a solicitor and accessing legal aid. Although some of this group might have had dealings with our Treasury Department, only the Treasury sample were asked the Treasury questions in the survey.

There were a number of blanket exclusions, where SLAB considered it would be inappropriate to make contact. This comprised those aged under 17, as well as certain case types, including mental health and adults with incapacity. This was in line with the sample data in the previous survey. However this data was not always available for the Treasury sample. Given the small size of the sample it was decided to proceed without this assurance.

This sample was provided to the contractors to allow them to undertake telephone interviews. The data that was eventually provided consisted of three main samples: A&A; civil legal aid applications & Treasury.

The civil legal aid applications sample was made up of the following sub-samples:

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 8  Abandoned – the application has been abandoned during the process i.e. an initial application was made, but the further information that is needed to progress the application has not been provided.

 Refused – this group of applicants have been refused legal aid either because they did not meet the financial eligibility criteria, there was no legal basis for their case, financial help was available elsewhere or it was not deemed reasonable to grant legal aid.

 Granted legal aid and pay no financial contribution based on means towards their legal aid

 Granted legal aid and pay a financial contribution based on means towards their legal aid.

The five subsamples for the Treasury dataset were:

 No arrears – these applicants had not been in arrears on their financial contribution in the timeframe that was used to take data from our system. This does not however mean that they have never been in arrears, either before or after this time.

 Arrears – these applicants have gone into arrears with the regular payments of their financial contribution.

 Legal aid terminated –by SLAB (applicant had not paid the first instalment on their contribution),

 Legal aid terminated - because the applicant had decided not to proceed.

 Clawback – these are cases where the case has concluded, money / property has been won or kept, and an amount of this is due to SLAB to help cover the cost of the case. The assisted person will deal with the Treasury Department over this.

Table 1 overleaf shows how the sample was broken down. The quota number of interviews is the number of interviews that Progressive were asked to try and complete for each sub sample. Some of these we were aware would be very difficult to achieve, due to the small sample size available (for example, those terminated for non payment of their first instalment). The quotas for civil legal aid are loosely based on proportion of application outcomes. The figure of 765 was selected since this was what was achieved in 2009. For the Treasury sample they take into account the prevalence of each sub category, as provided. Those with clawback cases may or may not have also had a financial contribution based on income/capital on their case and this may, or may not, have been in arrears at some stage.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 9 Table 1: Structure of samples provided for telephone interviews.

Main category Sub categories Time frame Number of Suggested records quota supplied number of interviews

Civil legal aid Abandoned Application 230 25 (3%) applications received by Board Refused 710 75 (10%) between 1st Granted without a November 2011 – 2015 220 (29%) contribution 31st October 2012

Granted with a contribution 452 75 (10%)

Total civil legal aid applications 3407 395 (52%)

Treasury clients No arrears on payment of Had interaction 660 65 (8%) contribution with the Board’s Treasury Arrears on payment of Department 2211 65 (8%) contribution during 2012 Terminated – non payment 13 10 (1%) of first contribution installment

Terminated – not 56 20 (3%) proceeding

Subject to clawback 153 45 (6%)

Total Treasury 3093 205 (27%)

Civil advice & n/a Intimation of 1800 165 (22%) assistance only A&A received from solicitor between 1st July 2012 – 31st January 2013

TOTAL ALL SAMPLES 8300 765

The fieldwork took place in a four week period between 20th March – 18th April 2013. Telephone calls were made in the mornings, afternoons and evenings (finishing at 9pm) from Monday – Saturday (excluding Good Friday and Easter Monday which fell within the fieldwork period).

Data Protection & respondent confidentiality.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 10 When signing the civil legal aid application form, or the client mandate form for A&A, the legal aid client agrees to the Board using their personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and for SLAB’s functions under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (this includes research).

The introductory script for the interview covered anonymity of response, as well as consent to take part with the following: “you are free to choose whether or not to take part in the survey. No one but yourself and staff at Progressive will know whether you have taken part in the survey, so what you decide will have no bearing on legal aid, either now or in the future”.

Applicants aged under 17 were taken out of the samples. In addition, in line with the advice from the 2009 Project Board, certain types of cases that could be considered to be more sensitive in nature were also taken out of the final sample. These cases included ABWOR, as well as mental health and adults with incapacity. This follows what was done in the previous survey, making for more accurate comparisons between the years.

Applicant data was supplied to the contractor securely and in line with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. It was also returned anonymised to SLAB for analysis. This means that whilst there were details on the answers provided there was no indication of who had provided them. The Briefing Sheet for the contractors ensured there were clear instructions on what to do in case of questions, concerns or complaints.

Before the fieldwork began, solicitors received a mailshot which mentioned the applicant research (as well as the parallel solicitor survey) and a news item was put on SLAB’s website.

All of these activities contribute to confidence in the integrity of the research, and enable us to reassure those who may have concerns about the work.

Response rates

The fieldwork achieved the 765 interviews specified, and the broad sample quotas requested, as Table 2 below shows. We were assured that the quotas for the sub samples (Table 1) were largely met. Due to the small size of some of the sub samples this information was not included in the data that was returned to us for analysis, as this might have made identifying individual respondents possible (based on membership of a sub sample, plus characteristics such as gender and location).

Table 2: Telephone interviews achieved.

Sample type Number of interviews Quota number of achieved interviews

Civil legal aid applications 395 (52%) 395 (52%)

Treasury 206 (27%) 205 (27%)

Civil advice & assistance 164 (22%) 165 (22%)

TOTAL ALL SAMPLES 765 765

The data returned for analysis was anonymised and contained each respondents’ answers to the survey questions, plus some additional information that SLAB had provided on each case. This included: The Scottish Legal Aid Board 11 whether they had been in the A&A, civil or Treasury sample , geographic location of respondent, whether they had filled in a Form 1 or Form 2 (the civil legal aid and Treasury samples, where available), whether they had been refused on means or merits (only those recorded as refused), whether the case had begun under special urgency and what the case type was.

Where relevant, the analytical strategy used respondents’ answers to the survey, rather than information from SLAB’s systems (which was not provided to the fieldwork contractor). This includes information on: age group, gender, case type and case status. One reason for this is because these details may have changed between the time the data was extracted and the time the fieldwork takes place. For example, a case with no previous arrears on the contribution may have gone into arrears.

The analysis explores differences by:

 Geographic area (this was based on applicant postcode data held by SLAB. The analysis was limited to those living in Scotland (95% of the sample), with 3% living outwith Scotland and 1% data unavailable);

 Demographic indicators (using information collected in Section H of the questionnaire. These were: disability, age group, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual identity and religious affiliation);

 Outcome/stage of case (based on applicant assessment in Q81);

 Whether the case began under special urgency (supplied by the Board);

 Whether the respondent was a pursuer or defender (supplied by the Board).

Where differences are statistically significant this is reported.

Comparisons from the 2009 and 2007 surveys are discussed in the text, where questions are comparable. However, caution should be used in assuming these are directly comparable. The main reason for this is that the rules on financial eligibility for civil legal aid were changed substantially in 2009 (after the previous survey took place). This means that a greater proportion of the population is eligible for civil legal aid in 2013 than was the case in 2009, with the increase coming from those in higher disposable income groups. All of this group would have to pay a contribution if they went ahead under legal aid. This affects the civil legal aid and Treasury samples.

Top line answers to each question are provided in the topline findings, published on the Research pages of our website (www.slab.org.uk) .

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 12 Overall Experience

Key points

 Most respondents (83%) felt that their situation would have been worse without legal aid.

 Most respondents were satisfied on key measures around using and understanding legal aid and the legal system.

Section Findings

The majority of people (83%) felt that without legal aid their situation would be worse (Q54 & Q79). This is an increase on the figures in both 2009 (69%) and 2007 (75%), although not a statistically significant one. Only 3% of respondents considered that their situation would be better without legal aid.

Most respondents were satisfied or neutral with key aspects of using legal aid and the justice system, in particular, ease of starting to use the justice system. Amongst those who gave a response 84% were satisfied or neutral regarding ‘overall experience of the full legal process’ (Q80A), 95% with ‘ease of starting to use legal aid’ (Q.80B) and 90% with ‘ease of understanding of the whole legal aid system’ (Q.80C)). Although in 2013 people are somewhat more likely to be dissatisfied in all three areas covered in Q80, the only significant difference between 2013 and 2009 is in ‘overall experience of the full legal process’. However, as reported above, satisfaction is still high on all these measures. This is a very positive response, especially considering that people almost invariably use the justice system at a time of stress, for example when there are disputes around money or family issues.

For most of the different groups that we looked at there was no significant difference in satisfaction levels. These groups were: gender, age group, disability status, type of aid (A&A, civil or Treasury sample), applicant interest (limited to pursuer, defender & ‘other’), case type (family vs non-family) and whether the case began under special urgency. Although small numbers are involved (29 respondents) those in Aberdeen had lower levels of satisfaction with the ease of starting to use the legal aid system.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 13 From information to outcome

Many respondents had not reached the outcome stage when they were interviewed. However they had all had experience of seeking information and advice. This section gives an insight into the experiences and choices made by applicants as they attempt to deal with legal problems. Most of the questions in this section were addressed to all respondents. Those in the ‘day in court’ sub section were only addressed to the Treasury sample, and those from the civil sample who were granted legal aid and went ahead.

Key Points

 Most people will turn to a solicitor for help with a legal problem, as well as for information about legal aid (including first learning about legal aid).

 95% of respondents found a solicitor without difficulty. Higher proportions reported difficulty finding a solicitor in Edinburgh (7 of 37 respondents) and Aberdeen (4 of 25 respondents) than other places in Scotland.

Section Findings

Finding information & support The majority of respondents (88%) went to a private solicitor first for information on their problem, with 5% going first to a Citizen’s Advice Bureau (Q2). These results are very similar to those in 2009 and 2007. There is a difference between those with family cases and those with non-family; 10% of those with non-family cases contacted a CAB first, compared with 4% for family cases. Just 6 people went to an online source first. Of those that did, 3 did a general internet search and 2 used a specialist advice source (such as the Scottish legal Aid Board or law society website), whilst one used both these sources (Q3). By contrast, findings from the 2007 survey showed that 9% of respondents had used the internet to get legal advice and information – although this may not have been where they went to ‘first’, as was specified in 2013.

5% of respondents (41 people) said that they had problems finding a legal aid solicitor (Q12). This percentage figure is identical to 2009, and a slight improvement on 2007 when 8% had problems. Amongst these 41 people, 11 had their case taken on by the first solicitor they contacted. It is not clear what their difficulties were in finding a solicitor, although their answers may reflect difficulty in identifying an appropriate solicitor to contact in the first instance.

Although the numbers involved are small, there is some suggestion that experience of difficulty in finding a solicitor is influenced by location. For instance, a higher than average proportion of people in the City of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, reported difficulties finding a solicitor. Those in the 65+ age group were most likely to report having difficulties. There were no significant differences on other indicators such as gender, disability, case type and so on.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 14 Amongst those who did have problems finding a solicitor the most commonly mentioned was ‘finding a legal aid solicitor in my area / locally’ (19 of the 41 responses), with ‘finding a legal aid solicitor who specialised in the area of law I needed/specialist experience’ mentioned 13 times (Q13).

The majority of people (80%) contacted only one solicitor in order to find someone to take on their case (Q14). As noted earlier, those in Edinburgh and Aberdeen were most likely to report difficulties in finding a solicitor. In Aberdeen 61% found a solicitor on their first attempt, whilst in Edinburgh the figure was 67%. The Board has a long-term project monitoring the supply of solicitors throughout Scotland, and this work will contribute to this. However the figures do indicate that, even for those areas where people are most likely to have difficulty finding a solicitor, the majority will only need to contact one firm in order to find one.

The most common reasons given by respondents for why they chose their solicitor were ‘had a good reputation’ (25%) and ‘recommended by family and friends’ (21%), with a further 12% choosing a solicitor who had ‘done work for me in the past’ and 9% because ‘the firm were specialists in the area of law I needed’ (Q15). This shows that quality is a factor people seek for when selecting a solicitor, with personal recommendations being important to them. In 6% of cases respondents were referred by a professional, although this is only a small proportion it may be an important quality indicator to people who do not have other ways of assessing this. Only 2% of respondents chose their solicitor from a business directory (such as Yellow Pages).

Just over three-quarters (76%) of respondents had access to the internet at home (Q39a). With fewer than half having access to a printer (Q39b) or a scanner (Q39c). Those with a disability and those in older age groups (55 and over) were significantly less likely to have access to the internet at home than those without a disability and those in younger (less than 55) age groups. For instance, fewer than 50% of those aged 55 plus (the two oldest groups taken together due to small numbers in these groups) had access to the internet at home, compared with between 78% and 86% of other age groups. There is a strong correlation between age and disability, with those in older age groups more likely to declare themselves disabled. More research could be undertaken to explore how easily those who do not have access to the internet at home could access it elsewhere. If necessary, this could be a supplementary question for the next applicant survey.

9% of respondents used the Scottish legal Aid Board’s website before or during their experience of legal aid (Q84). The most common reasons for using it was in order to find general information about legal aid (30 responses), with 15 people using it to get contact information / opening hours / a map for the Board (Q85). 9 people used the website to help them work out whether they could get legal aid (including using the eligibility calculator) and 9 used it to help them find someone to help them (including looking for a solicitor or a support project, such as housing). Almost all of those who used the website were able to find what they wanted without difficulty (Q86), only 4 people found it difficult (6% of responses).

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 15 Knowledge of legal aid The majority of respondents (71%) had never used the Scottish legal aid system prior to their current or recent case (Q8). This question covered the entire legal aid system, including criminal. The responses are very similar to those in 2009, where 69% had not used it. Those with previous experience of legal aid were no more or less likely to be satisfied with aspects of SLAB’s or their solicitors service than other groups. They were somewhat more likely to have begun their case under special urgency procedure; 30% of previous users of legal did so, compared with 20% of those who had not had legal aid before in Scotland. Men were also significantly more likely to have had legal aid previously (38%), compared with 22% of female respondents. Those with a disability were also somewhat more likely to had had legal aid before their current case (34%), compared to 26% of those without a disability.

Amongst those who had not had legal aid previously, most (71%) were aware of legal aid before they went to see a solicitor about their problem (Q9). Of this group, the most common way of hearing about legal aid was through family & friends (39%) or through a solicitor (not the one they went to see about their problem) (39%) (Q10). 22% had heard about legal aid in a newspaper, television or other media. Those with a family problem were more likely than those with a non-family problem to first become aware from family or friends (41% compared with 32%), and were most likely to have become aware through this source. The most common route to awareness of legal aid for respondents with non-family cases was though a solicitor (38%).

All respondents were asked whether they thought they would be eligible for legal aid before they spoke to anyone about it (Q11). There was a fairly even split in the responses to this question; the largest group thought they would be eligible (45%), however 36% had thought they would not be and 19% did not know/ could not remember. This is very similar to the responses given in 2009. Unsurprisingly, those who had previously had legal aid were far more likely to think that they would be eligible for legal aid (59%), compared with 39% of those who had not had legal aid before.

18% of respondents knew that SLAB has a searchable list of solicitors on their website (Q16). This is very similar to the findings in 2009. Of those who did not know, most (59%) thought they would have been likely to have used it if they had known (Q17). Earlier evidence (Q15) suggests that people often use personal recommendation to find a solicitor, when they have this resource. Those who cannot use this type of source may be new to the area, may have limited networks or may be looking for a particular area of legal expertise. For those who cannot use sources such as friends and family, for whatever reason, other sources of reliable information will always be important.

Knowledge of SLAB’s telephone helpline (Q18) was somewhat higher than for the online solicitor finder tool at 35% overall (29% knew all the types of information it could be used for, and 6% some of them). As with SLAB’s online information, the telephone helpline will not be relevant to all applicants.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 16 Day In Court This sub section was asked of the Treasury sample and those from the civil sample who had been granted legal aid and had gone ahead with their case (486 people in total).

The majority of these respondents (73%) felt that they were told about what might happen in court (Q47). This is an improvement on 2009, where 50% thought they had been, in response to a similarly worded question. However 21% of respondents (100 people) in 2013 felt that they had not been told what might happen in court.

Of those who were told about what might happen at court almost all (99%) were told this by their solicitor (Q48), identical to the response in 2009. Respondents who were told something were also very largely happy with what they were told; 98% thought what they were told was helpful, or were neutral about this (Q49).

5% of respondents thought that there was something they did not know about going to court that would have been useful to have known before they went (Q50). 25 people said general procedural information would have found useful; (Q51) for example, ‘process in court’, ‘briefed on the full thing’. 4 people said they would have liked more financial information. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who had not been told what might happen in court (at Q47 above) were far more likely than those who had been to answer ‘yes’ at Q50. 16% of this group thought there was something that would have been useful to have known, compared with 3% of those who had been told about what would happen.

Problem solving & outcomes 90% of respondents contacted a solicitor straight away when they realised they had a problem (Q4). This has risen from 2009, when only 76% did so. Those with family cases were more likely to contact a solicitor straight away when they realised they had a problem (92%, compared with 86% of those with non-family cases).

Among the 72 people who did not contact a solicitor straight away, over half (42 people) had contacted a solicitor within six months (Q5). The most common response when asked how long they waited to contact a solicitor was ‘less than a month’ (32%). However 24% waited more than a year before contacting a solicitor.

The most common reasons for waiting to contact a solicitor (Q6) were: ‘tried to resolve the problem another way’ (20 responses), ‘thought the process would be too expensive’ (20 responses), ‘hoped the problem would resolve itself’ (19 responses) and ‘did not know where to find a solicitor who specialised in that area of law’ (17 responses). The proportion of respondents who tried to resolve the problem in another way has fallen since 2009; whilst there has been an increase in all the other reasons mentioned above.

136 people were refused legal aid at some point in their application for civil legal aid. Amongst those who were refused, the majority (54%) asked for a review (Q43). Compared with 2009, respondents were somewhat less likely to ‘pay a solicitor privately’ (2013 5%, 2009 15%) or ‘do nothing else’ (2013 17%, 2009 27%). Results in 2007 were very similar to those in 2009.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 17 Of those who asked for a review, 57 people (78%) were then granted legal aid (Q44). This may be because information was supplied that had not previously been given, or that their financial circumstances, or something within their case, had altered.

Almost all of those granted legal aid (either at first instance or on review) went ahead (94%), however 6% (31 people) did not go ahead with their case (Q45). This proportion was identical to that in 2009. Those who did not go ahead with their case under legal were asked why not (Q46). The most common reasons for this (15 people) was that the situation had changed and they no longer needed to take legal action. 9 people gave a reason other than those included in the set answer options to this question. 3 indicated this was due to time factors (2 specifically to time ‘running out’) and 3 answers suggested that they thought the case might restart at some point. 6 respondents simply decided ‘not to bother / could not face the hassle’, whilst 4 did not proceed due to how much it would cost them.

Those who had gone ahead with their civil legal aid case (which for many was on-going) were asked what they would have done about their problem without legal aid (Q55). The most common response ‘don’t know (37%), with a further 27% saying they would have ‘given up trying to resolve the problem. 22% (109 people) indicated they thought they would have ‘paid for the case myself’, although there is no way of knowing whether this group could have actually afforded to do this. 7% said they would have represented themselves and 5% that they would have found a non-legal route to resolve the problem.

For almost half of respondents (49%, 378 people) their case was still on-going. Of those who did not consider their case to be on-going (Q81), 43% had won (or largely won), with a further 34% having neither won nor lost (mostly by agreement) . 9% (34 people) had given up trying to resolve the problem, with 7% (27 people) having lost or largely lost.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 18 Communication with Scottish Legal Aid Board

These questions were only asked of those who could be expected to have direct contact with SLAB the Civil and Treasury samples, but not the A&A sample. This gives a base number of 601 respondents to this section, although not all of these will have been asked all the questions.

Key points

 The majority of those who had direct contact with SLAB were satisfied or neutral with how long it took to get an answer (83%), whether things were explained clearly (89%) and that the response answered their question (85%).

 Of those who were refused legal aid, 35% were dissatisfied with how clearly the reasons for this had been explained to them. This is a slight fall from 2009, where the figure was 41%. SLAB is reviewing its communication with applicants who have been refused in the light of this finding.

 Of those who had to pay a financial contribution during the course of their case, 83% were satisfied or neutral with how clearly SLAB had explained what they might have to pay.

Section Findings

80% of respondents remembered filling in forms as part of their legal aid process (Q35). 16% of respondents did not have to fill in any forms, and 4% could not remember. 85% of those who had had to fill in a civil legal aid form found it easy, with 15% saying it was difficult. However recent research around experiences with the Financial Eligibility Form (the most complex form that applicants have to fill in) has led to a review and a new form has recently been introduced (August 2013). This revised form would not have been used by any of the respondents spoken to for the 2013 applicants’ survey.

Amongst those who had direct contact with SLAB that required an answer, the majority were satisfied or neutral about their experience (Q38A, Q38B & Q38C). 83% were satisfied or neutral with how long it took to get an answer (Figure 1 below), 89% that things were explained clearly (Figure 2 below) and 85% that the response answered their question (Figure 3 below). It should be noted that those who had direct contact that required an answer from the Board was a small group; 149 people. Half of these contacts were about money they had to pay towards their case (Q36 & Q37).

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 19 The Scottish Legal Aid Board 20 There were no significant differences in satisfaction by sample type, region, whether the case was begun under special urgency or gender.

There were no significant differences in satisfaction by sample type, region, whether the case was begun under special urgency or gender.

For some subsets within the data the numbers involved are too small to support meaningful statistical analysis, meaning that we cannot draw any conclusions from the data itself. However, where even very small numbers of responses indicate a difference of view, this might suggest that some follow up work might be useful in helping us establish whether an issue is or is not problematic for a particular group. For example, in this survey, the responses from a small number of applicants with a disability (or longterm illness) who had a non-family case suggest that this group may be more likely to be dissatisfied with all three aspects of response from SLAB than either non disabled people with non-family cases, or disabled people with family cases. The numbers involved are however very small, and Tables 3 and 4 overleaf show this . SLAB will use contacts from its external Equalities work to explore whether these responses do in fact reflect an issue and, if they do, whether there is anything SLAB can do to address it.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 21 Table 3. Satisfaction with SLAB response - comparison of those with/without disability in non-family cases. Non Family Cases Disability No Disability Satisfied or Dissatisfied Satisfied or Dissatisfied neutral neutral How long it took to get an 3 6 12 2 answer Things were explained clearly 5 4 14 0 The response answered my 4 5 13 1 question

Table 4. Satisfaction with SLAB response - comparison of those with/without disability in family cases. Family Cases Disability No Disability Satisfied or Dissatisfied Satisfied or Dissatisfied neutral neutral How long it took to get an 16 3 92 13 answer Things were explained clearly 16 3 96 8 The response answered my 16 3 93 12 question

Although the questions about satisfaction with response from SLAB were asked in 2009 they were asked to a different section of respondents; therefore, the responses are not comparable. The decision to change this in 2013 was taken in order to ensure that questions were being asked to the relevant group of applicants.

136 people were refused legal aid at some point in their application in 2013, significantly more than in 2009 (23%, compared with 13% in 2009, Q40). Of those who were refused legal aid at some point in their case most (62%) were satisfied or neutral that this was explained clearly to them (even though they may have been dissatisfied with the outcome). 35% of people in 2013 were dissatisfied with how clearly it was explained to them why they were refused (Q41). Although this was a decrease on 2009 (41%) this was not statistically significant.

There is some correlation between being refused both initially and again on review and being dissatisfied with how this was explained. However just under half of the 16 people who were also refused on review were satisfied/neutral with how clearly their initial refusal was explained to them.

SLAB is reviewing communication with applicants who have been refused in the light of this finding. This is an area where SLAB and the solicitor both have input into communication. Although SLAB writes directly to the applicant explaining why they have been refused, this necessarily has to be limited to the formal reasons for refusal. The same notification is also sent to their solicitor. It is expected that applicants will discuss the refusal with their solicitor if they have any queries on it, so the solicitor has an important role in explaining and interpreting the refusal. SLAB needs to provide accurate information on reasons for refusal, which often means using specialised, legal, terminology that is unlikely to be easy for non-professionals to understand.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 22 Unlike most other transactional areas of public service, SLAB has very little direct communication with applicants for legal aid; it is the solicitor that makes the application on the applicant’s behalf,. In the case of refusals on the merits, SLAB writes to the solicitor and this letter is copied to the applicant. SLAB has to balance the need for accuracy of information, which is required both to properly justify decisions and to enable the solicitor to respond to them effectively, with the need to make the letter understandable to those without any formal legal knowledge. Providing simplified communications on reasons for refusal might mean that these did not provide a full or technically precise picture, and SLAB could be vulnerable to justified complaints about this and also potentially to challenge of the decisions themselves. This is therefore an issue that is not simply about plain English communication and so will require careful further consideration.

The proportion of people answering ‘yes’ to the question “Did your solicitor tell you that they could ask SLAB to review its decision to refuse aid, or that you might be able to apply again later if circumstances changed?” has increased to 83%, from77% in 2009 and 62% in 2007 (Q42).

Amongst those who were refused, 54% asked for a review, similar to results in 2009 where this stood at 48% (Q43). They were slightly less likely in 2013 to ‘pay a solicitor privately’ (2013 5%, 2009 15%) or ‘do nothing else’ (2013 17%, 2009 27%). The numbers involved are small so subject to fluctuation between years, however answers in 2007 were very similar to those in 2009.

Respondents were asked whether they had any suggestions to improve the legal aid process (Q87). 102 suggestions were made by 74 respondents. The most frequent topics mentioned were around communication (22 responses), followed by comments on improving the speed of processes (15 responses).

Most of the comments on communication were of a general nature: “explain it more clearly to people”, “just to try and keep it more simple and straightforward”, “simplify the language”, “more information on full process”. SLAB are reviewing the content of letters to applicants and, as mentioned above, a new Form 2 has been issued. This has already made a positive impact for people, with reports of fewer difficulties in completing the form. Others made points about specific types of information: “clearer leaflets”, “be more clear on exactly what they want you to send in”, “be clearer on the reasons for not allowing claim”; or specific needs of applicants: “accept that not everyone is on the same level when it comes to ability to understand”. Not all the comments appeared to be directed to what SLAB can achieve, some of them appear to come under solicitors’ remit: “if they contacted people more often regarding their case”, “better communication between parties because it takes years”, “would have appreciated some written materials, an explanation about the legal aid process and possible payments that may have needed to be made”.

Of those who mentioned ‘speed of process’ all the comments were directed at making it faster. Although it would be under the control of the courts rather than SLAB, three comments specifically mentioned cases involving children and the need to “have faster protocols” for these; one person elaborated “when it takes over a year to see my grandchild the bond is lost”.

Other topics mentioned included comments on advertising, making the process easier, administration & handling and financial issues. There were 3 comments on the broad theme of equalities, although they did not identify whether there had been specific issues, 2 of these related to gender and 1 to race.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 23 Financial / Treasury

A series of questions were asked only to the sample of 205 people who were known to have dealt with SLAB’s Treasury Department. This is comparable with the Treasury sample of 190 that was used in 2009. The questions covered their experiences of: the financial contribution, clawback, opponents and adding cost to case. These are dealt with in turn below. Some of the numbers responding to these questions were very small and cannot be statistically analysed, or compared reliably with previous years. One of the actions suggested for the future is an on-going small questionnaire for Treasury clients which would allow us to gather more responses (over time) than is practicable in a single survey.

Financial Contribution:

80% (164 people) of those in the Treasury sample were, or had been, making regular payments towards a financial contribution to their case (Q56). This proportion was identical to 2009. Only 52% recalled being told by their solicitor that they might get back some of the money they paid in contributions if the cost of the case was less than was originally expected, or if they won (Q57). This was almost identical to 2009 (51%).

83% of respondents were satisfied with how clearly SLAB had explained to them what they would have to pay in their contribution, virtually the same as in 2009 (Q58). Dissatisfaction increased to 16% (from 11%), however the difference between years is not statistically significant (Q58).

10 people had their legal aid suspended or stopped due to non payment of a financial contribution (Q59). Most of these knew beforehand that this could happen (7 people – Q60) and were aware that they might still have to pay something if their solicitor had done work on their case (8 people – Q61).

38 people had difficulties paying their contribution and contacted SLAB about this (Q63). The majority of these (33 people) were satisfied with how SLAB dealt with their difficulties, although 5 were dissatisfied (4 ‘fairly’ and 1 ‘very’ – Q64).

Clawback:

33 people were trying to get or keep money or property from someone else as part of their case (Q66). Two-thirds knew that they might be asked to pay some or all of their solicitor’s costs if they won or kept money or property, however one third did not (Q67). There were no differences apparent between those who knew and those who did not.

The group was split fairly evenly between those who had paid clawback(15 people) and those that had not (17 people – Q68). Of those that had to pay something, those who gave an opinion were fairly evenly split between those who paid more than expected (4people) and those who paid less (5 people). The largest group (6 people) didn’t know how the amount they had to pay compared with what they had expected (Q69).

Those who answered ‘more than expected’ to Q69 were asked why they thought this was. 1 respondent had not expected to have to cover the costs of the case (“I thought they would be able to cover those costs. I'd like my money back.”). Another respondent only mentioned concerns about “the time it took”. The other 2 did not know.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 24 Opponents:

85 people (41%) knew that if they won their case they might be able to get costs paid by their opponent (Q71). 45% had not known this, and 13% could not remember. Of the 85 who did know, most (70 people) recalled being told by their solicitor that they might have to cover costs if their opponent did not pay (Q72). However, 14 people had been unaware of this.

In 17 cases an opponent had been ordered, or had agreed, to pay the costs of the case (Q73). 3 of these had had problems getting these costs from their opponent (Q74), with the Board trying to obtain payment in 2 cases and the solicitor in 1 (Q75).

Additional costs of case:

29 people (14% of the Treasury sample) had had their solicitor discuss with them the possibility of using someone in their case that might add to the cost of the case (Q76). 19 of these recalled being told by their solicitor that they might have to pay for this, but 9 did not and 1 person could not remember (Q77).

Respondents were asked whether they had any suggestions on how the Scottish Legal Aid Board could improve the contributions, clawback or payments systems. 19 people responded, with a total of 25 suggestions.

The most common theme was in relation to debt recovery policy. Some of these comments were in relation to SLAB recovering money from other parties for assisted persons, “[the system could be improved] by chasing up money that people who win cases are owed”. The majority of other comments on this theme were in relation to being given more information about debt; “discuss the amount I have to pay back, so I can pay it off quicker”, “help calculating how much you would get, and how much they need”. None of these respondents mentioned having sought this information, or any issues that they had had in getting information.

Communication was the next most common theme, with clarity and increased information being the key themes: “make it really clear”, “need more information on the payment plan”. Civil cases can sometimes last for many years and we are introducing more frequent communication with assisted persons.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 25 Satisfaction with solicitor

These questions were asked of all the three samples (A&A, civil and Treasury). This gives a base number of 765 respondents to this section, although not all of these will have been asked all the questions.

Key points

 Overall satisfaction with the solicitor and various aspects of the solicitor service is high, and has not changed significantly since the previous surveys (where comparisons are available).

 The figures suggest that those in Aberdeen City are more likely to be dissatisfied with their solicitor than those in other areas of Scotland.

 21% of respondents said they were not given written information by their solicitor at their first meeting. This group of respondents was significantly more likely to be dissatisfied than those who had been given written information.

 10% of respondents were asked by their solicitor to consider paying for their case other than through legal aid. This is less than in 2009, when the figure stood at 20%.

Findings

Overall satisfaction with their solicitor (Q32) is generally high, with 91% respondents satisfied or neutral with the service provided so far. However 9% were dissatisfied with the service they had received to date.

Outcome of case might be expected to influence respondents satisfaction with their solicitor, however exploring this by case outcome shows that most of those who lost or largely lost were satisfied with their solicitor (19 of the 26 people who answered both questions). When asked whether they would use the same solicitor again (Q33) most people said that they would (83%), however 13% indicated that they would not. Responses to both these questions were very similar to those received in 2009.

Respondents were asked for comments or suggestions, including how their solicitor’s service could have been improved (Q34), 93 people gave a total of 116 suggestions . ‘Communication’ was the most commonly mentioned issue (34 people); most of this was in relation to communication from the solicitor, although 2 people mentioned they would have liked their solicitor to listen more. Most comments on communication were of a general nature (“more updates”, “make effort with clients, explain situations”, “explain things when you go to court”), however some respondents did give more specific examples, for example “there was misinformation between the solicitor and the Legal Aid Board whereby I was receiving phone calls from the Legal Aid Board telling me one thing and my solicitor was telling me other things, I felt like a piggy in the middle”.

19 respondents commented that they were unhappy with the quality of legal work provided, with points made including: “I ended up doing a lot of it”, “[solicitor was] only interested in making money, rather than providing a service” and “they should pay more attention to detail … they messed up”. The first resort for people who feel they have not received adequate service from their solicitor would be to complain to the Law Society of Scotland; whether people who were dissatisfied knew and/or did this might be something SLAB could explore in a future applicants survey.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 26 Respondents were specifically asked about their satisfaction with various aspects of the solicitor service, these can classified as relating to: ‘explanation’ (six measures), ‘communication’ (two measures), ‘process’ (two measures) and ‘treatment’ (one measure).

Explanation by the solicitor to the applicant is an important aspect of service. Satisfaction with the explanation given by their solicitor was explored with applicants in the following questions:

 How your solicitor helped you understand the situation you were in (Q19C)

 Explained things clearly in a way that you could understand (Q19D)

 Clearly explained what was going to happen next (Q19F)

 Explained to you any decisions made by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Q19I)

 Clearly explained about any payments for legal aid (contributions) that you might have to make (Q19J)

 Clearly explained that if you won or held onto money or property that this might be used to cover your solicitor’s fees (sometimes called clawback - Q19K)

Figure 4: Satisfaction with solicitor: explanation measures.

As Figure 4 above shows, satisfaction levels in relation to explanation of the legal aspects of the work were particularly high, with over 90% satisfied or neutral that their solicitor: ‘helped you understand the situation you were in’ (94% were satisfied/neutral), ‘explained things clearly in a way you could understand’ (94%) and ‘clearly explained what was going to happen next’ (91%). Levels of dissatisfaction are within a couple of percentage points of those in 2009, and there is no statistically significant difference in satisfaction levels between 2013 and 2009. Compared with 2007, dissatisfaction has fallen significantly on all the above measures.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 27 Respondents were somewhat less likely to be satisfied or neutral on aspects of service relating to explanation to do with SLAB, however this is because they were more likely to respond ‘don’t know’, and not because they were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied. 88% were satisfied/neutral that their solicitor ‘explained to you any decisions made by the Scottish Legal Aid Board’, 84% that their solicitor ‘clearly explained about any payments for legal aid (contributions) that you might have to make’ and 75% that their solicitor ‘clearly explained that if you won or held onto money or property that this might be used to cover your solicitor’s fees (sometimes called clawback)’). For each of these measures 8% were dissatisfied. As with the other measures of satisfaction on explanation, applicants views have not changed significantly since the 2009 survey; however their dissatisfaction has fallen significantly on all measures since 2007. This includes Q19K (explanation about clawback) which was not asked in 2009.

Dissatisfaction with how the solicitor explained the contribution (Q19J) was significantly higher for the Treasury sample (15%), than it was for the A&A or other civil samples. The Treasury sample were also more likely than the other to be dissatisfied generally that things were explained clearly in a way they could understand (Q19D). This suggests that those with more complex financial assessments and/or those who have a more in depth legal aid process may be more likely to be dissatisfied with how this is explained to them.

Regional differences between applicants are based on very small numbers for some regions; however those in Aberdeen City (N = 29) were significantly more likely than the Scottish average to be dissatisfied on most of the measures explored in Q19. Those applicants living outside Scotland, or for whom we don’t have information, were not included in this analysis (35 people, 5% of the total sample).

There was a significant difference in satisfaction around how clearly their solicitor explained what was going to happen next (Q19F); with both older age categories and those with a disability being more likely to say they were dissatisfied on this measure. Age and disability are strongly correlated (in our sample 49% of those aged 65 or more had a disability/long-term illness compared with 20% of those aged 18-24).

Applicants were asked to rate their solicitor service on two communication measures, two process measures and one treatment measure. These are illustrated (Figure 5) and discussed below.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 28 Figure 5: Satisfaction with solicitor: communication, process and treatment measures.

In terms of solicitor communications, applicants were most satisfied with how their solicitor ‘listened to them’ (94% were satisfied/neutral), and slightly less with how their solicitor ‘kept them informed of the progress of their case’ (90% satisfied/neutral, with 10% dissatisfied). These figures are very similar to those in 2009, and both are an improvement on 2007. In 2007, 10% of respondents were dissatisfied with how they were listened to, and 16% with how well they were kept informed of progress in their case.

In terms of the process, 93% of respondents were satisfied/ neutral with the time it took to get appointments (Q19A). Although there are no significant differences when compared with previous years there is an upward trend in the percentage dissatisfied with the time it is taking to get an appointment; from 3% in 2007, to 5% in 2009 and 6% in 2013. This still means that the vast majority are satisfied with time to get appointment; however this may be an indicator of the adequacy of supply of solicitors, which SLAB monitors on an on-going basis. Information on this work can be found at: http://www.slab.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/research/understanding/

10% of respondents were not satisfied that their solicitor ‘dealt with things without delay’ (Q19G). This is identical to 2009, although less than 2007 when it stood at 15%. Experience of delay is a common theme of civil justice, for example the Scottish Civil Courts Review refers to “the law’s already notorious

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 29 delays”1. Further research might allow us to explore what types of delay applicants are experiencing, and whether this is something that is under the control of the solicitor.

96% of applicants felt they were ‘treated with respect and courtesy’ (Q19H) by their solicitor. The Law Society of Scotland includes that “every client will be treated respectfully and with courtesy” as one of the key service standards in their Standards for Scottish solicitors. This measure indicates that this is being achieved in the majority of cases.

There were no significant differences in experience on any of the solicitor satisfaction measures by applicant interest, cases type (family vs. non-family), gender or special urgency status.

67% of respondents said that their solicitor had given them written information at their first meeting (Q20). For most of these (52% of responses to Q20) they had received information about legal aid and the solicitors service, 11% had received information on legal aid only and 3% were unsure which. A further 11% could not remember whether they had received information, and 21% said that they had not received any information on legal aid or their solicitor’s service at their first meeting.

Those whose case began under special urgency were significantly less likely to have received information (32% did not receive information) than those who did not begin under special urgency (20% did not receive information).

Those who did not receive written information at the first meeting were also very significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their solicitor’s service overall as well as on all the specific aspects of the solicitor’s service (explanation, communication, process and treatment which were all covered in Q19).

It is highly unlikely that not having received information will have caused dissatisfaction, however it could be an early indicator that there may be problems.

1 Scottish Civil Courts Review (2009), ‘Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review’, p.ii http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/about-the-scottish-court-service/the-scottish-civil-courts-reform

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 30 Figure 6 below illustrates the differences in dissatisfaction on Q19 where these differences are most significant (greater than 10 percentage points between those receiving and not receiving information at the first meeting). As this shows, the most striking difference relates to explanation about clawback, with 27% (33 of 123 people) of those who did not receive information at their first meeting being dissatisfied, compared with 6% (25 of 439 people) of those who did. In terms of their overall views (Q32), 22% of those who had not received information at their first meeting were dissatisfied with their solicitor overall, compared with just 5% of those who had received information at their first meeting.

Figure 6: Dissatisfaction with solicitor by whether received information at first meeting.

There is also a significant difference with how satisfied respondents were with SLAB’s explanation of why they were refused legal aid (Q41) between those who received information from their solicitor at the first meeting and those who did not.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 31 Figure 7 below illustrates how just over half of those (51%) who did not receive information at their first meeting were dissatisfied with the how it was explained to them that they were refused legal aid, compared with 28% of those who did receive this information. Admittedly the numbers involved are small (122 respondents in this group, of whom 37 did not receive information) however those who did not receive information are still significantly more dissatisfied than would be expected by chance.

Figure 7: Comparison of satisfaction with how refusal of legal aid was explained (Q41) depending on whether or not respondents had received written information from solicitor (Q20).

Of those who did receive information, most used this, or had it available to use if they needed. Only 5% said that they did not keep or had mislaid the information (Q21).

Most respondents were happy that they had been told everything that they needed in relation to their case, and told this in time. However 11% (86 people) wished that they had been told, or told earlier, something relating to their case (Q22). Amongst these 86, financial issues were the most common things they would have liked to have known (22 responses). Many of these centred on having to pay for legal aid, and often seem to be things that respondents might have been expected to have known: “I thought legal aid was free but I have to apparently make contributions”, “wish I had been told earlier that I had to pay”. Legal issues around their case were mentioned in 20 responses, with many of these specific to their case. 13 people mentioned timescales, most of them wishing they had known how long the process would take. 8 responses concerned legal aid information, with 6 of these wishing that they had been told earlier about legal aid (Q23).

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 32 32% of respondents had themselves raised the question of whether they would get legal aid at their first meeting (or telephone call) with their solicitor (Q24). This is slightly more than in 2009. However in most cases the solicitor raises the subject of legal aid with their client.

95% of respondents were confident that their solicitor, or someone working with them, had asked for proof of finances, with only 3% saying that they had not been asked (Q25).

92% of respondents found it easy to provide paperwork to their solicitor, although 5% found it difficult (Q26). Most respondents were also satisfied that their solicitor explained about capital; 83% fully, with a further 6% partially. However 7% did not feel that their solicitor had explained to them about capital (Q27).

10% of respondents (78 people) were asked by their solicitor to consider paying for their case other than through legal aid(Q28). This is considerably less than in 2009, when the figure stood at 20%. From those who were asked to consider alternatives to legal aid the most common alternative was ‘privately at a fixed fee’ (29 responses), followed by ‘don’t know/can’t remember’ (21 responses), ‘paying privately not fixed fee (15 responses) and ‘no win - no fee’ (8 responses) (Q29).

8% of respondents (59 people) thought that there was something they would have liked to have been told, or told earlier, generally about legal aid or the legal system (Q30). The most common thing that people would have liked to have known more about was in relation to financial issues (16 responses). Some of these were about how things were calculated and what was included, others were more fundamental (“I didn’t realise legal aid only covered part of the bill”). 15 responses were in relation to generally having more information about the whole process: “wish I knew the ins and outs”, “how the system works & operates”. 11 responses concerned legal aid and most of these were quite general, typically around “what legal aid actually covers”.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 33 Equality of Experience

These questions were asked to all respondents to the survey. The demographic questions expanded on those asked in 2009, and were designed to additionally explore problems with access to legal aid. A geographic breakdown of the sample is also given, based on postcode data provided to SLAB.

Key points

 Those with a disability were most likely to describe ways in which their disability had made accessing legal help difficult (10% of those with a disability).

 The responses to the demographic questions suggest that very few respondents (less than 0.5%) found that their membership of any particular demographic group (other than disability) made it more difficult for them to access legal aid.

 Analysing answers to other question by demographic characteristics (including region) suggests that disability and location are most likely to affect satisfaction with or experience of accessing legal help (see satisfaction with SLAB and satisfaction with solicitor). SLAB is addressing these issues; however it is positive than most people did not think their demographic characteristics caused difficulties in accessing legal aid.

Section findings

For all the questions asking for demographic information a ‘prefer not to say’ response was recorded as such. The percentage choosing to supply information to the demographic questions varied; from 94% for religious affiliation (H11) and 95% for sexual identity (H20), to over 99% for gender (H14).

2% of respondents said that they would have liked to have received information in another language or format (Q82). This is very similar to the 3% figure from 2009. Amongst the 14 people who did want information in another language or format (Q83), ‘Polish’ was the single most common response (5), followed by ‘plain English’ (3) and; Arabic, Croatian, Kurdish Sorani, Lithuanian, Russian and Urdu (1 response each). SLAB does make information available in a variety of languages including Arabic, Polish and Urdu, as well as other formats such as Browsealoud (for those with problems reading text). SLAB also advertises (on its website) the possibility of providing communications in other formats / languages on request (http://www.slab.org.uk/languages). However the structure of the legal aid process means that SLAB is usually not responsible for distributing general legal aid information to applicants; this makes it difficult for SLAB to ensure that applicants get information in their preferred language or format.

24% of respondents said that they had a long-standing illness, health problem or disability that limited their daily activity or the kind of work they could do (H1). This is broadly comparable with 2009, where the figure was 30%. 1% of respondents (9 people) preferred not to answer this question. The most common type of disability was ‘reduced physical capacity’ (33%), followed by ‘physical co-ordination difficulties’ (26%) and ‘mental illness’ (20%) (H2).

Amongst those who said they had a disability or long standing illness, 18 people (10%) thought that this had made it more difficult for them to access legal aid (H3). Of these 18 respondents, 3 described physical access difficulties (“I found it difficult getting to the solicitors”). 1 further respondent did not

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 34 actually experience a problem on this occasion but was concerned that could have been problems if there had not been a local solicitor (“if there wasn’t a local solicitor I would have found it difficult to walk to a solicitor that would represent me”). A further 3 respondents mentioned difficulties around access to information (“letters tougher to read as I am dyslexic”), with 2 having problems making themselves understood (“problems writing”) (H4). 5 people preferred not to describe how their disability had made it more difficult for them to access legal aid.

Respondents were distributed amongst age ranges broadly in line with 2009, as would be expected from this random sample of applicants. The most common single age category was ’35 – 44’ (31%), followed by ’25 – 34’ (24%) (H5). 2% of respondents choose not to provide this information. Only 2 people thought that their age had caused them difficulties in accessing legal aid (H6). These were in age categories ’25 – 34’ and ’45 – 54’. Neither of these appeared to be related to anything in the control of SLAB (H7).

The majority of respondents (96%) were white (broadly reflecting the Scottish population at large), and the majority of these described themselves as Scottish (H8). Those describing themselves as ‘Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British’ made up 1.4% (11 people), with ‘other’ accounting for 0.5% (4people) and ‘African, Caribbean or Black’ 0.3% (2 people). In 2009, 97% of respondents described themselves as ‘white’. 11 people (1%) choose not to provide this information. Only 1 respondent, of ‘white – British’ ethnicity, thought that their ethnicity had made it more difficult to access legal aid (H9 & H10).

Over half of respondents (57%) who provided an answer described themselves as not belonging to any religion, religious denomination or body (H11). Of the remainder, Roman Catholic was the single most common response (14%), followed by ‘other Christian’ (11%) and Church of Scotland (10%). 12 respondents belonged to other recognised religions (Muslim and Buddhist). 6% of respondents preferred not to provide this information.

2 people thought their religion had made it more difficult to access legal aid. 1 was ‘other Christian’ and the other ‘none’ (H12 & H13).

61% of respondents who provided an answer were female and 39% male (H14), with only 3 people (less than 1%) preferring not to provide this information. This is a higher proportion of females than in applications for civil legal aid; in 2011 civil applications were split by gender 52% female and 48% male. In the 2009 survey, the proportion of female respondents was even larger, with 65% of respondents being female, and 35% male. Since the samples were taken at random, the gender split is most likely to reflect research factors, such as gender differences between availability at home (although calls were made in the evening, as well as during the day) or likelihood to take part in telephone surveys. Given that there were few statistically significant differences by gender, this should not have a bearing on the research findings. If it was felt justified, the next survey could possibly include a booster sample of males, in order to reflect the gender split of applicants more accurately. However, the need for this would have to be clear since it would likely add to the cost of the research; it would require more contacts to be made and information on the gender of applicants is not always available.

3 people (all male) thought that their gender made it more difficult to access legal aid (H15 and H16). 2 of these had a general perception that legal aid is biased by gender (against males), whilst 1 preferred not to say in what way.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 35 3 people indicated that their gender identity was not the same as that assigned at birth (H17), with 2% choosing not to supply this information. None of those with a changed assigned gender identity felt that this had made it more difficult for them to access legal aid (H18).

94% of respondents described their sexual identity as heterosexual, with 1% ‘gay/lesbian’ and 1% ‘bisexual’ (H20). 5% chose not to provide an answer to this question. 1 ‘gay/lesbian’ respondent thought that their sexual identity had made it more difficult for them to access legal aid (H21 and H22).

One respondent said that they felt it had been more difficult to access legal aid due to all factors below, with the exception of gender identity. However their experience was largely based on perceptions, not fact; for instance that SLAB’s assessors “could be” biased based on sexual identity, religion and so on. In fact, the assessors are unlikely to be aware of most of this information when assessing a case (unless it is included as part of the legal aspect of the case). All decisions taken by assessors are based on the legal merits of the case (including prospects of success) and the financial circumstances of the applicant. There are guidelines on both of these, which are outlined in the Legal Assistance handbooks (http://www.slab.org.uk/providers/handbooks/). Although their solicitor does ask applicants to supply demographic information at the time of application this information is not linked to applicant details. In addition, SLAB has a written Equality Policy, which includes the statement that “all those representing or carrying out work on behalf of the Board must commit themselves to the principles and practice of equality of opportunity in the application of our policies and delivery of our service to clients”. This is monitored, and SLAB also undertakes Equality Impact Assessments on new projects as a matter of course.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 36 Conclusion and next steps

The quota of 765 responses to this survey was achieved quickly, despite the fact that the questionnaire was lengthy for a telephone survey. In itself, the fact that people were willing to take part indicates a generally positive feeling towards legal aid. We received some unsolicited positive comments about both solicitors, and the availability of legal aid. These comments showed how people value the work solicitors do and support in accessing justice.

The information we got through the survey will help SLAB to ensure that applicants are given the most effective possible service when they seek assistance from a legal aid solicitor. We will continue to work with the profession to support them in providing legal aid. Where we have direct communication with applicants we will continue to try and do this as well as possible. The activities arising from this research are described below. Some of them have already led to further work, whilst others are being considered, or will be done at a later date.

Although most people found a solicitor without problem, some reported that this was a problem for them. More respondents in Edinburgh and Aberdeen than other places in Scotland mentioned having difficulty. This has been fed back to SLAB’s ‘monitoring supply’ project; it supports other evidence in this area and will be used by them. Other findings that relate to supply of solicitors have also been shared with the ‘monitoring supply’ project.

SLAB is reviewing its communication with applicants as part of an on-going commitment to communication, and informed by findings from the survey. Those who were refused legal aid at some point were most likely to be dissatisfied with communication. SLAB is exploring ways in which we can balance simplicity with the need to provide accurate information on reasons for refusal, which often means using specialised terminology that may not be so easy for non-professionals to understand. Providing simplified communications on reasons for refusal might mean that these did not provide a full or technically precise picture.

Findings from the demographics questions all feed into SLAB’s Equalities Monitoring work. They help provide evidence about how we are meeting our duties under equalities legislation, as well as informing future planning and activity.

There was a suggestion, based on a very small sample of respondents, that people who defined themselves as having a disability (or limiting long-term illness) and were involved in a non-family case were more likely to be dissatisfied with their contact with SLAB than either non-disabled people with non-family cases, or disabled people with family cases. SLAB will explore this with appropriate stakeholders. This work should both identify whether there may be a problem and, if there is, explore whether there is anything SLAB could do to help resolve it.

The survey covered various financial aspects of legal aid, such as clawback, opponents’ expenses and additional costs. There were no significant problems apparent; however many of these questions were only relevant to a very small number of respondents. SLAB is considering whether a small programme of on-going research would help to supplement our knowledge of applicants’ experiences in relation to the financial aspects of having civil legal aid.

Information on the use of, and access to, online resources will feed into SLAB’s digital strategy.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 37 We will build on this experience to improve how we gather knowledge about applicants and others. In particular, the Demographics section was the first time we have linked problems in accessing legal aid with demographic characteristics in such a structured way. Although this made the section longer than it has been in previous surveys, this approach meant a far more focussed approach to identifying and exploring problems. Repeating this structure in future civil applicant surveys will give us confidence in comparing experiences over time.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board 38

Load more

  38

Copy Link