The mobilization of law may be thought of as the process by which legal norms are invoked to regulate behavior. In the area of private law, mobilization has two distinct aspects. The first is the process by which existing disputes become engaged in the legal system. In theory this means that disputes are transferred from an arena where their resolution and the enforcement of resolutions depends on the relative power of the parties as enhanced or constrained by nongovernmental normative systems to an arena where disputes are resolved by reference to governmental (legal) norms and resolutions are enforced by the power of the state. In practice the separation between the governmental and nongovernmental spheres is rarely complete. Legal norms may influence the way in which parties resolve their disputes even when there is no threat that the matter will be taken to law, and both the parties' resources (Galanter, 1974, 1976) and nongovernmental norms“ clearly affect the way disputes are resolved in the legal system.

This paper reviews existing empirical studies, finding that most have adopted an explicit or implicit model of legal need which is based solely on past use patterns. There is an absence of linkage between problem solving styles, uniqueness of problems, community networks of support, and concepts of social justice. The central problem confronting groups is how to convert their interests into some semblance of property interests or expectation. This invites legal change. Much of the past preoccupation with the problem of need conceals an absence of attention to crucial variables about quality of legal service, lawyer outlook and socialization, and the dynamics of the lawyer-client relationship. Lawyer perception may be as important, if not more important than client perception in determining the nature and scope of legal service. The author suggests, therefore, that any functional definition of legal need has to include a structural view of the legal profession.

This paper discusses the major factors that appear to influence how clients and lawyers come together, and what role professional advertising might play in this process. The context for the discussion is the traditional model of appropriate lawyer-client relations, which is an ideal built into the code of professional conduct. The model presumes a lawyer's professional reputation, and the maintenance of professional standards by the bar. In the real world, conditions of legal practice and problem defining by consumers cause departure from the ideal. A number of factors influence how clients come to perceive problems as amenable to legal assistance. These are certain psychological, cultural, and social attributes whose operation in law is less well understood than it is in medicine. In addition, there are certain structural factors that influence the link between prospective clients and lawyers. Prominent among these is the fact that legal services comprise an imperfect market due to uncertainty of case outcome and difficulties of information procurement. It is suggested that consumers are reasonably rational in their search for lawyers given these problems. Consumers rely heavily upon informal contact networks and influential intermediaries, a process not unlike searching for a job or a doctor. The implications of these findings for opening up information channels through relaxation of the ban on advertising are discussed.

This paper visualizes legal services as one of various alternative paths to delivering legality (i.e., the benefits which access to law confers upon actors). It challenges the assumption that deficiencies in access to law can be most effectively remedied by providing the services of lawyers. It suggests that in some cases there are excessive costs of delivering legality through the medium of legal services and that in other cases legal services are insufficient without some admixture of other factors. Among the alternatives considered are (a) modification of rules systems (e.g., no-fault schemes, simplified transactions); (b) modification of institutions for applying rules (e.g., departures from the court model by making institutions simple, mediative, proactive, private, etc.); (c) enhancement of the capabilities of the parties (personal competence, organizational capacity to utilize legal services, etc.). It is argued that lack of capability of parties poses the most fundamental barrier to access and that upgrading of party capability holds the greatest promise for promoting access to legality. Evidence is adduced for the proposition that organizational structure is a key factor in determining the ability of parties to utilize the legal system. Alternative ways in which various interests can attain the benefits of organization are considered. Finally, research possibilities associated with these themes are sketched.

The traditional emphasis on individual legal problems and their solution through “access” to legal services is seen here as being inadequate to produce general change in economic and political institutions. The concept of access is explored in the forms of freedom of information, prepaid legal services, and extralegal group action; examples of each are given.

Institutional reform, it is suggested, can be brought about by creating a balance of power between consumers and large institutions. A “checkoff” system is described and put forward as a means of organizing consumers to use the evidence of individual complaints to advocate institutional change, something that legal services, as presently structured, do not do. Monopolies such as the utilities and the post office would be required by state law to solicit voluntary contributions from their customers to support a consumer action movement—“a piggyback ride so they can organize themselves.”

The interrelationships between group legal services and these piggyback consumer groups are pointed out: the accumulation of individual case evidence and the promotion of cooperative institutions that would provide legal representation as one of their satellite services. These lawyers could press for government reform of procedural restraints on consumer class actions.

Possible conflicting interests between conservative sponsoring consumer groups and their progressive legal service staff are recognized and ways to avoid them are discussed. One solution offered is to permit lawyers a broader range of activities by relaxing the legal profession's self-restrictions. Law schools are urged to reevaluate what they should teach and to require more analysis and investigation of government and corporate structures in their clinical education. This would ensure a starting point for the continuation of reform in the legal system.

The title states the article's subject: the problems and possibilities of evaluating the competence of lawyers. It attempts to: (1) survey what has been written about the subject, commenting on the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches; (2) suggest those activities of lawyers which most influence the effectiveness of their performance and what competence means as to them; (3) indicate what are the principal problems inhibiting better performance evaluations and some ways to try to deal with these problems; and (4) propose some research tasks which may improve our capability as systematic and relatively objective evaluators.

The literature exhibits approximately five approaches to evaluating lawyer competence. Two are indirect: (1) measurement of competence by a lawyer's training and/or his or her performance on a certification examination and (2) assessment based upon a lawyer's status or reputation. These approaches are of limited value where, as in most present instances, there is no proven relationship between such measures and actual competent performance. The other three approaches focus on performance. The first judges performance in terms of successful and unsuccessful outcomes in advocacy. The second judges performance in terms of the avoidance of negligence. The third involves a more systematic and detailed evaluation of the ways lawyers carry out certain activities central to the services they offer. The article suggests how this last approach can be most effectively developed. In spite of the formidable problems raised by attempts to evaluate lawyers, the author is optimistic that such evaluation is possible and can be productive.

There is a record of concern about the quality of legal services. And there is a record of the attempt to ensure quality through restricting the admission of persons to the practice of law. But beyond this, there is no “system” for, nor for that matter, any theory about, assuring the quality of legal services. This paper proposes such a system, and at the same time offers a theoretical framework for its development. And this is done despite the fact that it is highly unlikely that any such system will be utilized in the near future.

The paper develops its theoretical base, and its concrete proposals, from an extended examination of the systems of quality assurance which have been developed for medical care services. Given a sufficient degree of similarity between the medical care and legal service systems, analogical analysis is used.

The paper concludes that a quality assurance system can be fashioned for the provision of legal services, even though such a system is likely to remain a theoretical construct for the foreseeable future.