26
Legal Interviewing and Standardized Clients Professor Paul Maharg University of Northumbria

Standardized Client Training

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Slides used in initial plenary during training of standardized clients at Northumbria University Law School

Citation preview

Page 1: Standardized Client Training

Legal Interviewing and Standardized Clients

Professor Paul MahargUniversity of Northumbria

Page 2: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 2

2000 Research Study Law Society of England & Wales

Interviewed 44 clients of 21 different solicitors in the north of England.

50% said that they had previously used a solicitor whom they did not like.

The most common complaint was lack of respect, followed by a lack of interest in the client, and then poor communication.

Hillary Sommerlad & David Wall: Legally Aided Clients and Their Solicitors: Qualitative Perspectives on Quality and Legal Aid

Stu

dy

1

Page 3: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 3

2000 Research Study Law Society of England & WalesS

tud

y

1‘I sent my former solicitor packing because she wouldn’t listen. That is absolutely fundamental; this was my case, only I knew the full circumstances’.

Page 4: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 4

2000 Research Study Law Society of England & WalesS

tud

y

1‘I went to [my current solicitor] because of her reputation and expertise… She is a part-time Registrar and has a big reputation as a specialist in this area but she just doesn’t listen’.

Page 5: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 5

2000 Research Study Law Society of England & WalesS

tud

y

1‘She listens for part of what I have to say, and then interrupts, saying something like “OK, I’ve got the picture, what we’ll do is ...” and she hasn’t really got the picture, she’s only got half the facts.

I think it’s partly because she so busy and also because she’s simply not used to giving clients a voice. What’s more she has actually made me frightened of expressing my views.

I am about to change to another solicitor’.

[continued]

Page 6: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 6

2000 Research Study Law Society of England & WalesS

tud

y

1 ‘I like my current solicitor because I can have a chat with

her, I trust her ... ... The other solicitor — I was just a file for him, but for [her current solicitor] I’m a real person and that comes across in court’.

‘I wanted the law to be explained. ... The way the solicitor views the client is important. He has to be interested in our views’.

‘They must be able to give you time. If solicitors haven’t got enough time, they can’t get enough out of you. You have to have time to be able to tell your story’.

‘I never liked him. ... we couldn’t have had a solicitor like him for this [matter]; I think he was perfectly competent, but there was no sympathy’.

Page 7: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 7

summary:clients and their solicitors

For many clients, their engagement with the law was not simply about achieving a result.

Their responses indicated that the process itself was important.

Empathy and respect were not luxury items: they were fundamental to the service.

Page 8: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 8

summary: what do clients dislike?

Inaccessibility Lack of communication Lack of empathy and understanding Lack of respect

Page 9: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 9

summary: what do clients most care about?

Three things, in descending order:

1. the process, ie having their problems or disputes settled in a way that they view as fair

2. achieving a fair settlement3. the number of assets they end up winning.

Tyler, T. (1988) Client perceptions of litigation. What counts: process or result? Trial Magazine

Page 10: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 10

competence in client communication

Study by Prof. Avrom Sherr (U of London) 143 actual 1st interviews

24 % trainee solicitors 76% experienced solicitors

70% at least 6 years 23% more than 11 years

High percentages of ineffective interviews Experienced solicitors generally no better than trainee

solicitors

Sherr, A. (2003) What clients know: client perspectives and legal competence, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 1, 5-31

Stu

dy

2

Page 11: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 11

Stu

dy

2 51% failed to get the client’s agreement to advice

or plan of action 76% failed to confirm with client the solicitor’s

understanding of the facts 85% failed to ask before ending whether there

was anything else the client wanted to discuss

competence in client communication

Page 12: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 12

Stu

dy

2 51% failed to get the client’s agreement to advice

or plan of action 76% failed to confirm with client the

solicitor’s understanding of the facts 85% failed to ask before ending whether

there was anything else the client wanted to discuss

competence in client communication

Page 13: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 13

competence in client communicationStu

dy

2 Experienced solicitors:

Used less legalese Better at “filling in the gaps” Rated their own interview performance higher

than did trainee solicitors But the clients saw no difference in

performance between trainees and experienced solicitors

Page 14: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 14

Stu

dy

2‘Being ‘‘client centred,’’ … is about paying attention to the practical and emotional needs of the client, not necessarily agreeing with the client’s motives, policy or philosophy and not necessarily doing what the client says they want. The client centred lawyer will listen to the client in order to advise on all options, as well as showing what they think is best for the client’.

Sherr, A. (2003) What clients know: client perspectives and legal competence, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 1, 5-31, 12

summary: competence in client communication

Page 15: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 15

Standardised Client Project

SC project: Professor Clark Cunningham, Georgia State

University Dr Jean Ker, Clinical Skills Unit, Medical Faculty,

University of Dundee Professor Paul Maharg, Karen Barton, Glasgow

Graduate School of Law (Strathclyde) Funded by:

Clark Foundation for Legal Education, Scotland College of Law, England and Wales Burge Foundation, Georgia State U., USA

Page 16: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 16

SCI: our hypothesis

With proper training and carefully designed assessment procedures, Standardised Clients (SCs) could assess important aspects of client interviewing with validity and reliability comparable to assessment by law teachers

Page 17: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 17

aims

develop a practical and cost-effective method to assess the effectiveness of lawyer-client communication which correlates assessment with the degree of client satisfaction.

ie answer the following questions… Is our current system of teaching and assessing

interviewing skills sufficiently reliable and valid? Can the Standardised Patient method be translated

successfully to the legal domain? Is the method of Standardised Client training and

assessment more reliable, valid and cost-effective than the current system?

Page 18: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 18

training of SCs

‘The best way to learn how to do standardized patients is to do it along side of someone who has already done it before. It’s [the] apprenticeship system.’

Wallace, P. (1997) Following the threads of an innovation: the history of standardized patients in medical education, Caduceus, A Humanities Journal for Medicine and the Health Sciences, Department of Medical Humanities, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, 13, 2, 5-28.

Page 19: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 19

conclusions

Use of SCs as described in our study is as reliable and valid as tutor assessments

We make what the client thinks important in the most salient way for the student: a marked exercise where most of the grade is given by the client

We do not conclude that all aspects of client interviewing can be assessed by SCs We focus the assessment on aspects we believe can

be accurately evaluated by non-lawyers We focus the assessment on initial interview, which at

Northumbria will be supplemented by an advice-giving interview

This has changed the way we enable students, trainees and lawyers to learn interviewing

Page 20: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 20

where else are SCs used?

1. Strathclyde University Law School, Glasgow – law students and trainees

2. Society of Writers to the Signet, Edinburgh – corporate and commercial lawyers

3. Law Society of Ireland – solicitors on continuing professional development programmes

4. Kwansei Gakuin University Law School, Osaka, Japan – law students

5. Solicitors Regulation Authority – Qualifying Law Transfer Scheme

6. University of New Hampshire Law School, USA – 2nd & 3rd year law students

7. Later this year, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Page 21: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 21

SC training 1: script conference

read script as group discuss the role discuss feelings, reactions clear up ambiguities re role of lawyer use feedback to modify the scenario

Page 22: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 22

SC training 2: practising the role

There’s a need for the SCs to calibrate: Body language Tone of voice Attitudinal swings Dealing with the lawyer’s open questions… Improvising on closed questions… Performance analysis: ‘What prompted you to say…?’ ‘How did

you feel…?’

And to: Be aware of orientation towards lawyer at first sight Respond congruently to the lawyer Consult the internal ‘invigilator’…

Page 23: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 23

SC training 3: assessing lawyers

We shall discuss marking system, and form a common understanding of it

SCs will viewed and mark videos, comparing to ‘standard’

SCs will view each others’ ‘live’ performances and mark them

Process repeated until everyone has role-played once

Comment on performance Marks will be collated in the room (suspense

factor…)

Page 24: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 24

key activities

Be aware of your self: Body language Eye contact Acting vs enacting

Responding to questions and improvisation Relaying information Staying in neutral Congruence with own feelings

Three-level thinking: Get the important facts right Improvise Assess according to criteria

Page 25: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 25

after this week?

You will role-play clients with students. You may role-play with real lawyers and other

professionals There will be refresher training on the scenario you are

about to learn. If you are being trained on a new scenario you will have

the same pattern of training More information:

These slides will be posted up onhttp://paulmaharg.com For more information on SCs, see http://zeugma.typepad.com/sci

Page 26: Standardized Client Training

Professor Paul Maharg 26

initial practice workshop

Divide into pairs – interviewer & interviewee, then swap.

Aim for interviewer: Make your partner feel comfortable Ask questions about him or her Remember the information – no notes! Feed back the information to the larger group afterwards to

introduce your partner Aim for interviewee

Choose the person you want to be (yourself or anyone else) Answer questions easily,and giving information (but don’t

tell long stories…)