The Value of Interpersonal Skills in Lawyering

Transcription

1 Law and Human Behavir, VL 5, N. 4, t981 Ntes~Discussins The Value f Interpersnal Skills in Lawyering Stephen Feldman* and Kent Wilsn~" Nting the histrical negative public perceptin held f attrneys, a 2 X 2 factrial design was created t assess the relative rles f legal cmpetence and relatinal skill in the frmatin f client attitudes tward attrneys. Ninety-three subjects viewed a simulated, vide-taped attrney-client interview in which the attrney pssessed either (a) high legal cmpetence and high relatinal skill, r (b) lw legal cmpetence and high relatinal skill, r (c) high legal cmpetence and lw relatinal skill, r (d) lw legal cmpetence and lw relatinal skill. Analysis f questinnaires cmpleted by the subjects after viewing the tapes revealed the attrney having high legal cmpetence and high relatinal skill t be viewed as mst expert, attractive, trustwrthy, prbable f satisfying the client, and being recmmended and used in the future. The attrney having lw legal cmpetence and high relatinal skill was rated secnd n sixteen f the seventeen measures emplyed, indicating that relatinal skill cntributes mre t the frmatin f a client's perceptin f his r her attrney than des the attrney's level f legal cmpetence. Implicatins f the results fr the training f future attrneys are discussed. The first thing we d, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii. INTRODUCTION Hardly a pst-watergate phenmenn, negative perceptins and pinins f attrneys have lng been held by the general public. Characterized as being unscrupulus, untrustwrthy, and unfeeling, lawyers have prved t be a fertile surce f inspiratin fr playwrights, authrs, and cmedians fr centuries. Charles Dickens, fr example, said bluntly, "The law is an ass." (Bleak Huse). Carl Sandburg, in The Lawyers Knw *Department f Educatinal Psychlgy and Measurement, and Cllege f Law, University f Nebraska- Lincln. *Department f Psychlgy and Cllege f Law, University f Nebraska-Lincln /81 / $03.00/ l Plenum Publishing Crpratin

2 312 FELDMAN AND WILSON T Much, raised the questin, "Why des a hearse hrse snicker hauling a lawyer away?" And mre recently, Jhnny Carsn has spken f the lawyer dll, "... yu wind it up and it puts its hand in yur pcket; the mre expensive mdel squeezes." Mre serius and current criticism f attrneys and the legal system has been reprted in the scial science literature. In a tw-year analysis f the perceptins f attrneys held by mid-western residents, Wilsn fund that while 21% f the ppulatin expressed cmplete cnfidence in attrneys, 24% stated that they have either questinable cnfidence r n cnfidence whatsever in attrneys and the quality f their wrk (Wilsn, 1981), Similarly, an ABC-Harris Pll f Nvember, 1980 fund that nly 13% f the public has high cnfidence in law firms. That figure is dwn frm 18% in 1978, and 24% in 1973 (Wall Street Jurnal, 2/6/81, p. 36). While examples f the negative valuatin f attrneys are easily fund, discussins f the pssible causes underlying this seemingly universal perceptin are lacking. Assuming that it is mre desirable fr attrneys and the legal prfessin t be perceived psitively than negatively, 1 an examinatin f ptential causes f the distrust and antagnism is merited. Three ptential explanatins exist. One prbable explanatin is t be fund in the nature f the legal system itself. It is an adversarial system which by design creates as many lsers as winners. Lsers are understandably embittered by their lss and wuld be prne t displace their anger nt the perceived bject f their lssutheir lawyer. But sme "winners" may als feel disappintment in the system, and cnsequently in their lawyer, especially in thse cases in which they believe their rights were nt as fully prtected by the law as they shuld have been. Divrce litigants, fr example, are rarely cmpletely happy with child supprt, visitatin rights, and prperty settlement prvisins f their decrees althugh they may have "wn." The same is true f trt, cntract, and prperty litigants, wh may feel that despite the amunt f their damages award they were nt fully cmpensated fr their lss. Either winning r lsing a case, therefre, may create negative feelings n the part f a client tward his r her attrney and the legal system. A secnd pssible explanatin fr the lw regard in which lawyers are held may lie in the public's perceiving widespread legal incmpetence n the part f attrneys. In this view the client's disppintment in his r her attrney wuld nt evlve as a byprduct f either winning r lsing a case, but wuld be directly related t a feeling n the part f the client that his r her attrney actually lacked sufficient legal training and/r skill. The develpment f psitive attitudes tward attrneys, therefre, wuld be cntingent n attrneys demnstrating high levels f legal skills; i.e., n their shwing a thrugh knwledge f relevant substantive law and an ability t use apprpriate legal prcedure. Failure t demnstrate such knwledge and skill wuld result in the attrney's being viewed as incmpetent, blundering, and ineffective. A third explanatin fr negative public attitudes tward attrneys cncerns the persnal attributes f attrneys themselves. Apart frm winning r lsing a case, and apart frm perceiving insufficient legal skills in attrneys, a client may becme angry r disillusined with his r her attrney as the result f the nature f the persnal relatinship existing between them. Cld, distant, detached r cndescending at- 1The issue f whether r nt the legal system requires public acceptance r apprval is discussed infra.

3 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 313 titudes and behavirs n the part f an attrney may serve t alienate clients and lwer the prbability f their returning fr future assistance. Cnversely, warm, pen, and cncerned interest shwn by an attrney may fster greater client acceptance and enhance the client's perceptins f bth the attrney and the legal system. Surprisingly, the relative rles f legal skills and interpersnal relatinal skills in the attrney-client relatinship have nt been empirically examined. One pssible cause fr the lack f empirical investigatin is that f the implicit assumptin underlying legal educatinnthat f client satisfactin being slely dependent n legal cmpetence. An attrney's legal educatin is directed tward the develpment f ratinal, intellectual skills rather than interpersnal skills. The lawyer is taught t separate the prblem frm the persn and t direct his/her effrts exclusively tward reslving the legal issue. Thrugh ffering curses in "client cunseling" r "the attrney-client relatinship," sme law schls seem cgnizant f the ptential impact f the attrney's interpersnal demeanr n the client's reactin t the attrney; but such curses are rarely stressed in the law schl curriculum and are never required curses. But exactly hw imprtant are these relatinal skills? If the centuries f public pinin as expressed in literature and verse pssess any validity, it wuld appear as thugh legal skill in and f itself has nt served t engender psitive feelings n the part f the public regarding attrneys and the legal system. The questin then becmes whether relatinal skills alne, r sme cmbinatin f the relatinal and legal skills, serves t significantly affect client perceptins f the attrney. Assuredly, legal efficiency and psitive image may nt be necessarily antithetical. Perhaps the mre crucial issue is that f whether the interests f the legal system are best served thrugh prviding pure legal efficiency, r thrugh prviding services Which result in a psitive feeling n the part f the client tward the legal system. Thurman Arnld, in Symbls f Gvernment (1938), takes as his main thesis the ntin f the belief f the public in the ability f the legal system t prvide justice as the sine qua nn f the American legal system. In Arnld's view, t the extent that the legal system fails t be perceived as ding justice the existence f the system is threatened. Yet what des justice entail: prvisin f legally efficient and apprpriate services, creatin and maintenance f psitive feelings abut the attrney and the legal system independent f case utcme, r bth? The current investigatin seeks t examine the relative rles f legal cmpetency and relatinal skills in affecting the client's perceptin f the attrney-client relatinship. Mre specifically, the present study will fcus n a client's expectatin f a s~,tisfying relatinship and his r her inclinatins t recmmend and use attrneys wh differ alng and within the dimensins f legal cmpetence and relatinal skill. METHOD T examine the rles f legal cmpetency and relatinal skill a tw by tw (2 X 2) factrial design was develped wherein subjects were expsed t a 15-minute videtape in which an attrney was seen interacting with a client in ne f fur mdes: (a) high relatinal skills cupled with high legal cmpetence, (b) high relatinal skills cupled with lw legal cmpetence, (c) lw relatinal skills cupled with high legal

4 314 FELDMAN AND WILSON cmpetence, r (d) lw relatinal skills cupled with lw legal cmpetence. These fur cmbinatins f variables were designated treatment cnditins A, B, C, and D, respectively. Differentiating each f the fur treatment cnditins invlved specificatin f patterns f behavir fr each dimensin f bth legal cmpetency and relatinal skill. Legal cmpetency was defined as pssessing knwledge f the substantive law and prcedure relevant t the client's prblem. An attrney pssessing high legal cmpetence, therefre, wuld btain sufficient factual data t determine the specific legal issue invlved, explain curt jurisdictin and prcedure, give practical advice, prvide apprpriate frms fr gatii~erifig further infrmatin frm the client, and explain relevant law. Cnversely, an attrney lw in legal cmpetence wuld nt take sufficient factual data, explain curt jurisdictin r prcedure, give practical advice, prvide frms, r explain relevant law. Behavirs characteristic f the relatinally skilled attrney were frmulated after a literature review f behaviral factrs invlved in influencing interpersnal relatinships. 2 Based n research specifying relatinal skills in ther settings (Strng and Schmidt, 1970; Schmidt and Strng, 1970, 1971; Dell, 1973; Dell and Schmidt, 1976) the fllwing behavirs were incrprated int the rle f the relatinally skilled attrney: intrducing self using first name, shaking hands, making small talk cmments, letting the client talk, leaning frward, lking at the client, reflecting the client's cntent and affect, and appearing warm, reactive, and animated. Als based n the wrk f the abve nted authrs, the fllwing behavirs were incrprated int the rle f the relatinally unskilled attrney: failure t intrduce self, nt shaking hands, making n small talk, taking ver the cnversatin, sitting back in the chair, nt lking at the client, nt reflecting the client's cntent r affect, and appearing distant, alf, and nnreactive. Table 1 lists each f the fur treatment cnditins and the attrney characteristics assciated with each. Prir t use, all fur videtapes were screened by a psychlgist and a law prfessr wh agreed as t the apprpriateness f the relatinal skills emplyed and legal cmpetency displayed. Additinally, the tapes were presented t a grup f 20 law students, wh were all able t crrectly identify the fur cnditins with 100% agreement. ~This is nt t say that interpersnal relatinships are influenced by behaviral factrs alne. Strng (1968) cnceptualized interpersnal influence as a prcess invlving the interplay f bjective, behaviral, and reputatin factrs. Objective factrs cntributing t the develpment f a client's perceptin f his r her attrney wuld include such items as the presence f diplmas, certificates, and titles in the attrney's fflee. Behaviral factrs affecting the client's perceptin wuld include the verbal and nnverbal attrney behavirs during the attrney-client interchange; and reputatinal factrs wuld include infrmatin available t the client frm external surces. The decisin t fcus n the behaviral factrs assciated with interpersnal influence rests primarily n the belief that f the three influential factrs behavir is mst susceptible f being altered. Degrees and bar admissin certificates (i.e., bjective factrs f influence) are fund in mst, if nt all, law ffices and can he cnsidered as a fairly cnstant variable. Althugh reputatin cannt be assumed t be cnstant acrss attrneys, this factr is nt rdinarily capable f being rapidly altered. Reputatin, it is assumed, accrues ver the curse f a prfessinal's career. Furthermre, f the three influential variables, nly behavir is amenable t being taught during a law student's legal educatin. Althugh bjective and reputatinal factrs in the lawyer-client exchange were nt examined in the current study, the ptential influence f these factrs was experimentally cntrlled. Thrugh presenting an unknwn attrney the effects f reputatin were cntrlled, and thrugh videtaping each f the fur attrney rles in the same physical setting bjective factrs f influence were held cnstant.

5 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 315 Table 1. Attrney Behavirs Assciated With Treatment Cnditins Relatinal High Legal cmpetency skill High Lw Cnditin A: Cnditin B: 1. Obtains factual data. 1. Takes n infrmatin. 2. Explains curt jurisdictin 2. N explanatin f curt and prcedure, jurisdictin r prcedure. 3. Gives practical advice. 3. Gives n practical advice. 4. Prvides apprpriate frms. 4. Prvides n frms. 5. Explains relevant case law. 5. Desn't explain case law. 6. Intrduces self using first 6. Intrduces self using first name. name. 7, Shakes hands. 7. Shakes hands. 8. Makes small talk. 8. Makes small talk. 9. Lets client talk. 9. Lets client talk. 10. Leans frward. 10. Leans frward. I 1. Lks at the client. 11. Lks at the client. 12. Reflects the client's cntent 12. Reflects the client's cntent and affect, and affect. 13. Appears warm, reactive, and 13. Appears warm, reactive, and animated, animated. Lw Cnditin C: Cnditin D: 1. Obtains factual data. 1. Takes n infrmatin. 2. Explains curt jurisdictin 2. N explanatin f curt and prcedure, jurisdictin r prcedure. 3. Gives practical advice. 3. Gives n practical advice. 4. Prvides apprpriate frms. 4. Prvides n frms. 5. Explains relevant case law. 5. Desn't explain case law. 6. Fails t intrduce self. 6. Fails t intrduce self. 7. Desn't shake hands. 7. Desn't shake hands. 8. Makes n small talk. 8. Makes n small talk. 9. Desn't let client talk. 9. Desn't let client talk. 10. Sits back in chair. 10. Sits back in chair. 11. Desn't lk at client. I 1. Desn't lk at client. 12. Desn't reflect client's 12. Desn't reflect client's cntent r affect, cntent r affect. 13. Appears distant, alf 13. Appears distant, alf and nnreactive, and nnreactive. Subjects and Prcedure Ninety-three subjects were recruited frm undergraduate curses in educatinal psychlgy. Seventy-three females and 20 males participated with ages ranging frm 18 t 32 (mde = 20). Subjects reprted t the research rm at designated times and viewed the videtape in grups ranging frm seven t twelve persns in size; each subject was presented with nly ne treatment cnditin. The ttal number f subjects viewing the varius treatment cnditins was: A = 22; B = 26; C = 23; and D = Thte unequal number f subjects per treatment cnditin resulted frm unequal numbers f subjects reprting fr the prject at different time slts. Subjects had signed up fr participatin at designated time perids and variatins in the ppularity f certain available times resulted in sme grups being larger than thers.

6 316 FELDMAN AND WILSON Each cnditin was presented t the subjects n a 15-min videtape which prtrayed an initial attrney-client interview. The attrney was prtrayed by a 40-year ld male lawyer wh als is a graduate student in cunseling psychlgy, while the client was prtrayed by a 42-year-ld male cnfederate. In each cnditin the client presented the same prblem, that f seeking a divrce. All interviews cncluded with the lawyer's accepting the case, aplgizing fr the shrtness f the interview due t unfreseen circumstances, and scheduling a secnd appintment with the client. After viewing the videtape, the subjects were asked t cmplete a questinnaire dealing with their perceptins f the attrney. Fllwing the cmpletin f the questinnaire (see Appendix), the subjects were debriefed as t the nature f the experiment and any questins raised were answered. Dependent Variables and Measures The questinnaire cmpleted by each subject cnstitutes the dependent variable fr purpses f statistical analysis. Within each questinnaire five specific assessments were made: perceived attrney expertness, perceived attrney attractiveness, perceived attrney trustwrthiness, client satisfactin with attrney, and client prbability f recmmending and using the attrney in the future. One sectin f the questinnaire (questins 1 thrugh 36) included the Cunselr Rating Frm (CRF), which measured the perceived attrney characteristics f expertness, attractiveness, and trustwrthiness (Barak and LaCrsse, 1975). The CRF is a semantic differential instrument with 12 seven-pint items cntributing t a scre fr each dimensin. Anther sectin f the questinnaire (questins 37 thrugh 44) cnsisted f prtins f the Cunseling Evaluatin Inventry (CEI) which measured client satisfactin (Linden et al., 1965). The CEI is als a semantic differential instrument cnsisting f 21 seven-pint items. In rder t measure the client's prbability f recmmending and using the attrney in the future, a series f 13 pragmatic questins was develped (questins 45 thrugh 57). The subjects were asked t put themselves in the place f a client and respnd t the questins pertaining t future attrney use. These questins were presented in the same Likert-type seven-pint scale frmat as the CFR and CEI. RESULTS An univariate analysis f variance was cmputed fr each f the fur main dependent measures (i.e., expertness, attractiveness, trustwrthiness, and client satisfactin), and fr each f the thirteen pragmatic questins relating t recmmending and using the attrney in the future. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviatins fr each dependent variable in each treatment cnditin, and the F ratis btained fr the main effects (f bth legal cmpetency and relatinal skill) and the interactin effect fr each dependent variable. As can be seen in Table 2, bth an attrney's level f legal cmpetence and his r her level f relatinal skill will significantly affect hw he r she is perceived by a client. With regard t legal cmpetency, significant main effects were fund n all fur main dependent variables and n 11 f the 13 pragmatic measures. Fr rela-

7 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 317 tiinal skill, significant main effects were fund n all fur main dependent variables and n all 13 f the pragmatic measures. Finding significant main effects n 32 f the 34 analyses demnstrates that bth relatinal skill and legal cmpetency affects a client's perceptins; i.e., an attrney pssessing a high level f either legal cmpetency r relatinal skill will be viewed mre psitively, in terms f the measures emplyed, [han an attrney pssessing a lw level f either legal cmpetency r relatinal skill, respectively. Althugh main effects dminate the analyses f the pragmatic questins, significant interactins were fund fr the main dependent variables f expertness, trustwrthiness, and client satisfactin. In rder t examine the nature f the interactins between legal cmpetency and relatinal skill n these variables, a Newrnan-Keuls pst hc test set at the.01 level f significance was run n each f the three variables. The results f the Newman-Keuls analyses are presented diagrammatically in Figure 1. With regard t the variable f expertness, Figure 1 indicates that the presence f a high degree f relatinal skill (fund in cnditins A and B) cnveys a greater perceptin f expertness nly when legal cmpetency is lw. Similarly, the presence f high legal cmpetence (cnditins A and C) cnveys a greater perceptin f expertness nly when relatinal skills are lw. In ther wrds, the presence f either a high level f legal cmpetence r a high level f relatinal skill will cnvey a psitive impressin f expertness. The results f the analyses f trustwrthiness and client satisfactin were similar t ne anther. On these tw variables the analysis revealed that the presence f high relatinal skills results in an increased perceptin f either trustwrthiness r client satisfactin n matter what level f legal cmpetence was present. A high degree f legal cmpetence, hwever, was able t increase perceptins f trustwrthiness and client satisfactin nly where relatinal skills were at a lw level. As a final analysis, the rank rdering f the means f the varius dependent variables acrss the fur treatment cnditins was bserved. The rank rdering f the means, as seen in Table 2, is strikingly cnsistent. On 16 f the 17 measures the treatment cnditins were rank rdered A, B, C, and D. On the basis f this rdering, it EXPERTNESS Legal Cm,etence R High Lw e H 1 a i g A : B t h i II V n L a C > D l w S k i ] l TRUSTWORTH I NESS Legal Cmpetence High Lw A :: B V v L w C D SATISFACTION Legal Cmpetence Lw H i g A B Fig. 1. Diagrammatic interpretatin f Newman-Keuls analyses f the significant interactins fund between legal cmpetence and relatinal skill. (Nte: prbability set at the.01 level f significance.) h w D

8 318 FELDMAN AND WILSON -a ~ a~ t",l lid Z ~.w.< u~ r ~ q.. O O.-- d~. e,i -~ m III el < ~

9 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS ~..~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~.. e~ ~ O,4-,4-,4 c~,~-,4r ~:~,.4.z q.~ ~.~ ~.~.-._ ~ ~ ~, ~.~._~ ~ ~.=,5. ~ ~.~.. ~.~ ~ Z, vv v:~

10 320 FELDMAN AND WILSON wuld seem clear that the lawyer wh cuples a high level f relatinal skill with a high level f legal cmpetence (cnditin A) will be perceived as the mst expert, mst attractive, mst trustwrthy, and will render the mst satisfied client. He will als be perceived as being mst helpful, mst likely t charge a fair fee, mst likely t have the client fllw his advice, mst likely t have repeat business, and mst likely t be recmmended t thers by his clientele. Such a finding appears t be smewhat bvius and cnfirms cmmn sense. What is perhaps mre interesting and less bvius, hwever, is finding that the lawyer with high relatinal skills and lw legal cmpetence (cnditin B) is ranked secnd n all but ne measure. In ther wrds, this finding wuld seem t indicate that perhaps a lawyer's relatinal skill, mre than his legal cmpetency, guides psitive client perceptins. 4 The nly measure that brke the A, B, C, D pattern f rank rdering was the expertness measure. This result actually supprts the validity f the study and its findings. When asked t evaluate the single quality f expertness, subjects were able t distinguish relatinal skills frm legal cmpetence. The subjects reprted a higher perceptin f expertness fr the lawyer wh cupled high legal cmpetence with lw relatinal skill than fr the attrney wh cupled lw legal cmpetence with high relatinal skill. The main effects fr subjects' ratings f legal cmpetence were greater than fr subjects' ratings f relatinal skill n this measure as well. Hwever, despite their capacity t recgnize high legal cmpetence, subjects still placed the lawyer pssessing high legal cmpetence and lw relatinal skill (cnditin C) third n every ther dependent measure. DISCUSSION The questin initially psed, that f what factrs cntribute t the frmatin f a client's perceptin f his r her attrney, fcused n the variables f legal cmpetency and relatinal skill. The results f the study have served t demnstrate that bth factrs may exert significant influence n the frmatin f a client's attitude. While legal cmpetency as an influential factr has lng been acknwledged by thse institutins respnsible fr the training f attrneys, relatinal r interpersnal skill has been largely ignred. Such lack f cncern appears t be unwarranted, and perhaps detrimental t the legal prfessin in light f the findings f the current research. Finding that n 16 f 17 measures a relatinally skilled attrney is preferred t an attrney pssessing nly legal cmpetence demnstrates the significant rle that an attrney's demeanr may play in his dealings with his clientele. T the extent that ne adpts the belief f public satisfactin being requisite t the survival f public institutins, the desirability f enhancing the image f the legal prfessin via training in interpersnal-relatinal skill is self evident. Further research will be necessary in rder t precisely define the rle f relatinal skill in the attrney-client exchange. Fr example, it can be argued that students in a simulated study wuld emphasize warmth, etc., while a businesspersn 4It shuld be nted, hwever, that if psitive client perceptins are affected mre by an attrney's relatinal skill than by his legal cmpetency, then the cnsumer may be at the mercy f the legal "smthie" r snake-il salesman. But this issue merely raises the questin psed by Arnld, supra, as t whether the mre significant reality is that f subjective r bjective justice.

11 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 321 invlved in an actual civil dispute wuld emphasize legal cmpetence. Thus, future studies shuld utilize actual clients, and seek t investigate whether the heightened attrney perceptins fund in the current study ccur acrss different types f attrneys and fact situatins. REFERENCES Dell, D. Cunselr pwer base, influence attempt and behavir change. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy, 1973, 20, Dell, D., & Schmidt, L. Behaviral cues t cunselr expertness. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy, 1976, 23, LaCrsse, M. Nnverbal behavir and perceived cunselr attractiveness and persuasiveness. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy, 1975, 22, Schmidt, L., & Strng, S. "Expert" and "inexpert" cunselrs. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy. 1970, 17, Schmidt, L., & Strng, S. Attractiveness and influence in cunseling. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy, 1971, 18, Strng, S. Cunseling: An interpersnal influence prcess. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy, 1968, 15, Strng, S., & Schmidt, L. Expertness and influence in cunseling. Jurnal f Cunseling Psychlgy, 1970, 17, Wilsn, K. Nebraskans, lawyers, & the law: A tw-year analysis. Nebraska Law Review, 1981, 60, APPENDIX: SUBJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Lawyer Evaluatin Frm 1 Please indicate yur: Age: Sex: M F ('Circle ne) Schl status: Fr. Sph. Jr. St. Grad. Other (Circle ne) Have yu ever cnsulted a lawyer? Yes N (Circle ne) Are any members f yur immediate family lawyers? Yes N (Circle ne) In which f the fllwing ecnmic classes wuld yu place yur family? Lw Middle Upper (Circle ne) Fr the fllwing scales please check (-) the pint n each scale which best describes the lawyer yu have just bserved. The directin tward which yu check depends 'apn which end f the scale better describes the lawyer. Please put yur check marks in the middle f the spaces, nt n the bundaries. Here is hw yu use these scales: f yu feel that yur judgment f the lawyer is quite clsely related t ne r the ther ends f the scale (but nt extremely), yu wuld place yur check mark as fllws: Very Only Neu- Only Very Much Quite Slightly tral Slightly Quite Much r Alert : : : Unalert OR Alert vl U nalert

12 Unreliable Biased Indifferent lnsightless 322 FELDMAN AND WILSON Selfless Reliable. Unbiased. Agreeable Friendly. Alert Very Only Neu- Only Very Much Quite Slightly tral Slightly Quite Much Selfish Disagreeable Unfriendly Unalert Cmpatible Cheerful Likable Analytic Enthusiastic Respectful Very Only Neu- Only Very Much Quite Slightly tral Slightly Quite Much Incmpatible Depressed Unlikable Diffuse Disrespectful Open Sincere Straightfrward Appreciative Warm Infrmed Clsed Insincere Deceitful U napp reciative Cld Ignrant Prepared Experienced Cnfident Expert Clse Cnfidential Unprepared Inexperienced Unsure Inexpert Distant Revealing Lgical. Intelligent Casual Hnest Attractive. Sciable Illgical Stupid Frmal Dishnest U nattractive Unsciable Skillful Clear Insightful Dependable Trustwrthy Respnsible Unskillful Vague Undependable Untrustwrthy Irrespnsible

13 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 323 Lawyer Evaluatin Frm #2 Mstly (1) Mderately (2) Slightly (3) Neither agree nr (4) Slightly agree (5) Mderately agree (6) Mstly agree (7) 1. The lawyer helped the client see hw clarifying certain prblems wuld be helpful The lawyer's discussin f pssible utcmes was helpful t the client The lawyer's cmments helped the client see mre clearly what he had t d t gain his bjectives Any client wuld be helped by talking t this lawyer The client felt at ease with this lawyer I wuld feel at ease with this lawyer I wuld feel satisfied with this initial interview with this lawyer This lawyer will d all he can t help the client I wuld have cnfidence in this lawyer This lawyer will charge a fair and reasnable fee fr his services, The client will accept and fllw this lawyer's advice The client shuld seek a secnd legal pinin befre cmmiting himself t this lawyer, l 13. I wuld recmmend this lawyer t a friend in need f a gd divrce lawyer I wuld recmmend this lawyer t a friend in need f a gd tax lawyer. 1

14 324 FELDMAN AND WILSON Lawyer Evaluatin Frm #2 Mstly (1) Mderately (2) Slightly (3) Neither agree nr (4) Mder- Slightly ately Mstly agree agree agree (5) (6) (7) 15. If a friend f mine wanted t see a lawyer in rder t buy r sell a huse, I wuld recmmend that he see this lawyer I wuld recmmend this lawyer t a friend in need f a lawyer fr any purpse, l I wuld cnsult this lawyer if 1 had a divrce prblem I wuld cnsult this lawyer if 1 had a tax prblem, l If I were buying r selling a hme and wanted t cnsult a lawyer, I wuld cnsult this lawyer I wuld cnsult this lawyer fr any legal prblem