IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v5y2008i4p875-906.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Lawyer or Not to Lawyer: Is that the Question?

Author

Listed:
  • Herbert M. Kritzer

Abstract

A central aspect of much of the debate over access to justice is the cost of legal services. The presumption of most participants in the debate is that individuals of limited or modest means do not obtain legal assistance because they cannot afford the cost of that assistance. The question I consider in this article is whether income is a major factor in the decision to obtain the assistance of a qualified legal professional. Drawing on data from seven different countries (the United States, England and Wales, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Japan), I examine the relationship between income and using a legal professional. The results are remarkably consistent across the seven countries: income has relatively little relationship with the decision to use a legal professional to deal with a dispute or other legal need. The decision to use a lawyer appears to be much more a function of the nature of the dispute. Even those who could afford to retain a lawyer frequently make the decision to forego that assistance, usually at about the same rate as those with limited resources. The analysis suggests that those considering access to justice issues need to grapple with the more general issues of how those with legal needs, regardless of the resources they have available, evaluate the costs and benefits of hiring a lawyer.

Suggested Citation

  • Herbert M. Kritzer, 2008. "To Lawyer or Not to Lawyer: Is that the Question?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 875-906, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:5:y:2008:i:4:p:875-906
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margherita Saraceno, 2018. "Justice: Greater Access, Lower Costs," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(2), pages 283-312, July.
    2. Hadfield, Gillian K., 2014. "The cost of law: Promoting access to justice through the (un)corporate practice of law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(S), pages 43-63.
    3. Yun-chien Chang & Su-hao Tu, 2020. "Two-way selection between flat-fee attorneys and litigants: theoretical and empirical analyses," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 131-164, February.
    4. Anna Gunderson, 2021. "Ideology, Disadvantage, and Federal District Court Inmate Civil Rights Filings: The Troubling Effects of Pro Se Status," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 603-628, September.
    5. Danielle Venn, 2009. "Legislation, Collective Bargaining and Enforcement: Updating the OECD Employment Protection Indicators," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 89, OECD Publishing.
    6. P. Pleasence & N. J. Balmer & R. L. Sandefur, 2016. "Apples and Oranges: An International Comparison of the Public's Experience of Justiciable Problems and the Methodological Issues Affecting Comparative Study," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 50-93, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:5:y:2008:i:4:p:875-906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.