Networking in the Shadow of the Law: Informal Access to Legal Expertise through Personal Network Ties

Abstract

Civil legal problems are common in everyday life, but the costs of obtaining legal representation create barriers to legal action and contribute to disparities in access to justice. Some individuals, however, may have informal access to legal assistance through personal network ties with lawyers, enhancing their responses to justiciable problems. In this study, we draw from theories of social capital and network formation to examine the distribution and mobilization of network-based legal expertise. Using nationally representative survey data, we find that network-based access to lawyers is widespread, and most people who have ties to lawyers expect to informally mobilize legal assistance when facing a problem. But people who are most likely to afford formal legal representation are also most likely to have informal access to lawyers. Thus, while informal access to lawyers may shape responses to legal problems, it may also exacerbate inequalities in experiences with civil justice events.

Social scientific research on law indicates that formal engagement with the legal system represents only the tip of a massive iceberg of justiciable problems in individuals’ everyday lives (Felstiner et al. 1980). At any given time, it is estimated that more than 44 million American households are experiencing a problem that falls within the domain of civil law. This includes issues related to family and intimate relationships, work, benefits, housing, debt, medical care, and consumer purchases, as well as problems with neighbors (Sandefur 2012; and see American Bar Association [ABA] 1994; Curran 1977; Currie 2009; Genn et al. 1999; Hensler et al. 1991). Studies of how individuals respond to these situations tend to focus on engagement with lawyers and legal institutions (Sandefur 2008). However, survey research estimates that less than a quarter of justiciable problems are taken to a lawyer (Kritzer 2008; Sandefur 2012), and an even smaller proportion reaches the courts (Felstiner et al. 1980).

One reason for the lack of formal legal action in the face of a civil legal problem is that hiring a lawyer can involve significant costs (Galanter 1974; Hadfield 2000). In addition to monetary costs, individuals often face difficulties in identifying lawyers who provide the type of assistance needed, and in convincing an appropriate lawyer to take on the representation (Kritzer 1997; Ladinsky 1976; Lochner 1975; Monsma and Lempert 1992). These challenges are thought to put lawyers and legal action out-of-reach for many individuals, particularly those who lack socioeconomic resources (Sandefur 2008).

However, a less explored possibility is that some people may be able to access legal expertise and assistance through informal channels—that is, through existing personal relationships—and use this to interpret or address issues that arise in their everyday lives. A friend or family member who is a lawyer might agree to provide legal representation, perhaps for free or at a reduced rate. Or, he or she might recommend another lawyer, provide information about substantive legal issues, assist with administrative procedures such as locating and completing forms, or even offer guidance for individuals who are representing themselves in court proceedings. In a more nuanced way, through informal discussions or interactions, a lawyer might shape an individual's legal consciousness (Ewick and Silbey 1998) or awareness of the scope of the law, legal rights, and legal remedies. Familiarity with these aspects of the law may, in turn, affect whether individuals conceptualize their everyday problems as legal problems and how they think about the options available for addressing them (Sandefur 2012).

Informal mobilization of legal expertise may therefore be an unexplored mechanism through which individuals engage legal actors or respond to legal problems. If network-based access to legal expertise is widely available and frequently mobilized, prior research may underestimate the role of lawyers in justiciable problems. Moreover, network-based access to legal expertise could reduce disparities in access to legal representation, particularly in civil disputes (Sandefur 2008). However, previous research has not examined the extent to which individuals’ personal networks contain lawyers—or the likelihood that individuals will mobilize legal assistance through their network ties when they face justiciable problems.

In this paper, we consider how network ties to lawyers are distributed across socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups, and the extent to which individuals are able to mobilize network-based legal expertise when they face a legal problem. Patterns of network exchange (Blau 1964; Homans 1958; Lin 2001), network homophily (Laumann and Senter 1976; McPherson et al. 2001), and residential segregation (e.g., Wilson 1987) may restrict network-based access to legal experts among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower socioeconomic status. Building on this work, we consider how network ties to lawyers are distributed across socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups. We also examine the likelihood that individuals who have network ties to lawyers will ask for—and receive—legal assistance through those ties. Recent work highlighting the distinction between access to and mobilization of network-based resources suggests the potential for socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequalities in individuals’ ability to utilize social capital (Smith 2010). Moreover, network structural characteristics such as tie strength (Lin 1999a; Wellman 1992) may also influence individuals’ ability to mobilize network-based legal expertise. We empirically explore these questions using data from a nationally representative survey of American adults, and then conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for research on inequalities in access to justice and the process of legal mobilization.

Social Capital and Legal Action

Theories of social capital emphasize that resources rooted in social connections and interpersonal relationships can enhance individual action (see, e.g., Coleman 1988; Lin 1999, 2000; Portes 1998). Social capital may inhere in structural features of one's social network (Burt 1992; Coleman 1988) and the presence of specific types of network ties—such as strong ties (Bian 1997; Lin 2001), weak ties (Granovetter 1973), and kin ties (Kana'iaupuni et al. 2005). Much of this research has emphasized the advantages of social capital, in the form of network structure and tie characteristics, for job seeking through informal channels (Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo 2006; Granovetter 1974; Lin and Dumin 1986; Portes 1998; but see Mouw 2003).

Importantly, social capital may also be located in specific resources possessed by a network alter, which may enhance instrumental actions (Lin 1999b). Resources accessed through, or borrowed from, an individual with whom one has a personal relationship are termed “contact resources” (Lai et al. 1998). Examples include money, power, information, material goods, symbolic goods, and tertiary network connections. Expertise is a contact resource that may be particularly beneficial for individual actions that intersect with economic, social, legal, or political institutions (York Cornwell and Cornwell 2008). Expertise may take the form of specialized skills, techniques, or knowledge that are not commonly available, but gained through the completion of postgraduate education, training, or certification (Gerver and Bensman 1954). Expertise may also be relational, stemming from familiarity with roles and relationships within particular settings (Sandefur 2015).

In this paper, we focus on social ties with lawyers as a form of social capital, in that such ties may confer informal access to contact resources such as legal advice, information, or assistance. Network ties with lawyers may enhance instrumental legal action, as well as instrumental actions that occur outside of the formal legal system but are informed by legal principles or expectations. Below, we describe the benefits that network ties to lawyers can provide and then theorize how these ties may be distributed and mobilized.

Benefits of Network-Based Legal Expertise

Studies of how individuals experience and respond to legal or justiciable problems tend to focus on the points at which their actions intersect with formal legal institutions, such as hiring a lawyer or filing a claim (Sandefur 2008). Hiring a lawyer, in particular, marks formal engagement with the legal system (Kritzer 2008; Miller and Sarat 1980), and “lawyering up” is consequential for both legal processes and outcomes. Lawyers can offer important information about legal issues, help clients to reconstruct narratives in line with legal concepts (Hosticka 1979; Ladinsky 1976; Sarat and Felstiner 1986), and assist with navigating complex legal procedures (Elwell and Carlson 1990). Lawyers’ roles and relationships within legal settings can also enable them to effectively navigate legal institutions (Sandefur 2015). Thus, having a lawyer may enhance instrumental legal action by signaling the credibility of a claim (Sandefur 2015), and prior work suggests that individuals with legal representation generally fare better in litigation (Engler 2009; Sandefur 2015; Taylor Poppe and Rachlinski 2016).

However, not all individuals are equally able to access the benefits of formal legal representation. A large literature demonstrates that individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to take formal legal action in response to a justiciable problem, including obtaining legal representation (Genn et al. 1999; Sandefur 2007a; Miller and Sarat 1980; for a review see Sandefur 2008). While these results reflect variation in the types of problems that individuals experience, differences remain even after accounting for such factors (Genn et al. 1999; Miller and Sarat 1980, but see Kritzer 2008). There has been less research on the relationship between race/ethnicity and individuals’ responses to legal problems (Sandefur 2008), but at least one study finds that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to engage the formal legal system in civil matters, and are less likely to be successful when they do (Miller and Sarat 1980). This research suggests that socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequalities in access to civil justice result, in part, from disparate levels of formal engagement with lawyers. However, a possibility not explored in prior research is that some individuals may be able to acquire some or all of the benefits of legal representation through a friend or family member who is a lawyer.

Informal Access to Formal Representation

For some individuals, having a network tie to a lawyer may provide an informal channel through which a formal lawyer–client relationship is established. A lawyer who is a friend or family member may agree to provide representation but at a reduced rate—or for free. Such informal access to formal representation may increase the likelihood that individuals will take formal legal action because it lowers the costs of doing so. Importantly, it may also increase the availability of legal representation for those who could not afford to purchase it at the market rate, thereby reducing socioeconomic disparities in access to justice.

Even without a reduction in the standard hourly rate, formal lawyer–client relationships that are established through informal channels may have a number of benefits over those that are established in more conventional ways. For example, a lawyer who is a network member may agree to provide formal legal representation even when it is not an economically optimal use of her time, or when it falls outside of her usual area of practice. Research on the structure of the legal profession suggests that legal services are concentrated in domains where the work is most lucrative, reducing the proportion of lawyers who take on the everyday legal needs of individuals (Galanter 1974; Hadfield 2000; Heinz et al. 2005; Mayhew and Reiss 1969). Even where lawyers do represent individuals, they are typically selective in the matters that they agree to take and avoid cases in which the profit margin is small or the likely outcome is unpredictable or unfavorable (Kritzer 1997; Lochner 1975; Monsma and Lempert 1992). However, lawyers who are network members may be motivated at least in part by an informal relationship, sympathy, or a sense of personal obligation, thus increasing the availability of representation in cases where an individual might not otherwise find a lawyer willing to take the case.

Personal relationships may also enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of legal services (Uzzi and Lancaster 2004). Even in formal attorney-client relationships, greater trust, empathy, and open communication may generate representation that is more effective, in part because it is more closely tailored to a client's wishes (York Cornwell and Cornwell 2008). Having an informal tie with one's lawyer may also motivate the lawyer to dedicate greater effort, thereby conferring an additional benefit of informal access to legal expertise.

On the other hand, legal representation obtained from a network contact may be of relatively less value than representation obtained through formal channels if the legal problem does not fall within the lawyer's area of expertise. There is likely to be variation in both the characteristics of lawyers (e.g., training, specialization) to whom individuals are tied, and in their practice settings and hourly rates. These factors may also affect lawyers’ abilities to take on personal clients.

If a lawyer contact is not willing or able to provide legal representation, he or she may instead provide a referral. This is also beneficial, because searching for and assessing the quality of legal representation presents a challenge for most individuals. Markets for professional services such as legal, financial, and medical services are highly imperfect. These professional services are often characterized by economists as credence goods, in that consumers are generally unable to gauge the amount of the service they need or the quality of the service they receive (Hadfield 2000: 968). Lawyers’ inability to guarantee favorable outcomes further generates uncertainty in the market for legal services (Ladinsky 1976). Individuals who lack familiarity with the law may be particularly vulnerable in such markets. For example, “one-shotters,” who do not have repeated engagement with legal services, lack experience from which they could evaluate a lawyer's services (Galanter 1974). And, due to their lack of knowledge of US law and legal culture, immigrants are especially vulnerable to exploitation by nonlawyers such as “notarios,” who may falsely represent themselves as authorized to practice law or provide formal consultation on immigration matters (Shannon 2009).

Because of the risks involved when purchasing credence goods such as legal services, people often rely on word-of-mouth referrals (Chang 2005; DiMaggio and Louch 1998; Ladinsky 1976). In fact, the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS) indicates that nearly two-thirds (63.57 percent) of individuals who hired a lawyer in the past 10 years chose the law firm or attorney based on the recommendation of a friend, relative, or acquaintance (Smith et al. 2014; and see Bogart and Vidmar 1990; Lochner 1975; Ladinsky 1976; May and Stengel 1990). In such cases, a friend might recommend a lawyer whom she has used before or a firm that has a good reputation in the community. But, a social contact who is a lawyer can draw on both substantive knowledge of the law and relational expertise (Sandefur 2015) to identify an attorney who specializes in a relevant area and has a good track record.

Legal Experts and Informal Assistance

Another important possibility is that some individuals are able to access legal advice or information without activating a formal attorney-client relationship. This could occur when a network contact who is a lawyer provides general assistance that does not rise to the level of legal advice or representation. For example, a lawyer might provide informal assistance with instrumental legal actions, by giving general information about a legal topic, describing legal procedures, discussing the recourse that an individual has in a particular situation, or outlining how to navigate administrative and organizational procedures. Such informal assistance may shape the actions of some individuals among the growing number who take formal legal action without legal representation (Engler 2009; Landsman 2012).

Casual discussions with lawyers may also shape legal consciousness (Ewick and Silbey 1998). Just as corporate actors and those who repeatedly engage the law benefit from regular oversight by lawyers (see Arnold and Kay 1995; Galanter 1974), regular (but informal) interactions with a lawyer may change individuals’ attitudes and behavior so as to reduce the risk of facing legal action. In addition, informal discussions with lawyers may alter individuals’ interpretation of the blameworthiness of another party (Groth et al. 2002), and their decisions about taking legal action (see, e.g., Jacob 1992; May and Stengel 1990; Morgan 1999). Such conversations might also shape subjective experiences of legal processes and increase satisfaction with procedural justice (Zimerman and Tyler 2010).

Informally consulting with a lawyer may also help individuals to determine whether a problem can or should be defined as a legal problem. An important distinction between formal and informal access to lawyers is that formal engagement with lawyers is likely to result in the redefinition of problems as legal problems and the formulation of claims as legal claims (Jacob 1992, and see Albiston et al. 2014). On the other hand, informal access to lawyers may reveal possibilities for resolution of a problem without formal engagement with the law. These may lead to avoidance of the law altogether, or to actions that take place in the shadow of the law—that is, actions that do not directly engage legal institutions but use the law as a framework for interpreting rights, responsibilities, problems, and claims (Mnookin and Kornhauser 1979). Thus, informal access to legal expertise may help individuals to make legally informed decisions in pursuit of extra-legal or nonlegal resolutions of problems. Such approaches may underlie the large portion of justiciable issues that do not reach the formal legal system and are thus assumed to be resolved (or allowed to go unresolved) without engagement with the law.

Having established the many advantages that may accrue for those who have network-based access to lawyers, we next consider the distribution of such ties. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lawyers frequently receive requests for their opinions, assistance, or advice, and do sometimes provide these to family members, friends, and acquaintances (see, e.g., Whitney 2007). However, previous research has not considered the extent to which individuals’ personal networks contain lawyers or the potential impact of such network access to legal expertise. Below, we build from research on social networks and social capital to consider how network ties with lawyers are formed and how network-based legal expertise is accessed.

The Formation and Distribution of Network Ties with Legal Experts

Network ties with lawyers may originate as either formal or informal relationships. For some individuals, what begins as a formal attorney-client relationship may, through repeated interactions, become overlaid with a more personal, informal tie. Other individuals have informal access to a lawyer through a personal relationship that precedes any interaction about legal matters. For example, one's sister, friend, in-law, or neighbor may also happen to be a lawyer. For both formal and informal relationships, the structure of the legal profession and principles of social network formation lead us to expect that network ties with lawyers are unequally distributed across social groups.

Uzzi and Lancaster (2004) point out that relationships between large law firms and their corporate clients often generate repeated, reciprocal exchanges. These repeated exchanges may provide fertile ground for the development of informal ties. However, legal problems common among individuals, and particularly those with lower levels of education or income, differ from those of corporate actors and wealthy clients (ABA 1994; Pleasance et al. 2004). For example, landlord/tenant disputes and issues regarding government benefits are less likely to involve legal representation (Kritzer 2008). These and other common individual legal problems are typically faced by one-shotters, and such matters rarely result in repeated engagement with the same lawyer (Galanter 1974: 116; Heinz et al. 2005). Consequently, socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are less likely to have the kinds of repeated formal interactions with a lawyer that lead to the development of a personal relationship.

Theories of network formation suggest that individuals of lower socioeconomic status are also less likely to have network ties to individuals who happen to be lawyers. Tie formation and patterns of exchange are driven, in part, by actors’ relative status positions along a number of dimensions. Most important for this study is that individuals who occupy lower status positions are less likely to form or maintain network ties with higher status actors. One reason for this is that cultivating higher status network ties typically requires special effort, strategizing, or the expenditure of resources such as time and money (Lin 1999a). And, status asymmetry makes relationships inherently unstable. Lower status actors typically have fewer resources to offer in return for high-status alters’ resources, so there is little incentive for high-status alters to maintain the relationship (Blau 1964; Homans 1958; Lin 2001).

Research on network homophily also suggests that individuals tend to be connected to socioeconomically and demographically similar others. Tendencies toward homophily within networks reflect, in part, that relationships form most readily among individuals who have shared backgrounds, sentiments, and lifestyles (Laumann and Senter 1976; McPherson et al. 2001). Even without like-me preferences in the formation of social ties, racially and socioeconomically segregated contexts such as neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces make it difficult for diverse individuals to meet, form, and maintain close relationships (Britton 2011; De Souza Briggs 2007; Huckfeldt 1983; Kossinets and Watts 2009). Consistent with theories of network formation and homophily, there is evidence that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have professionals or experts among their close confidants (York Cornwell and Cornwell 2008). Those who reside in racially segregated and/or high-poverty neighborhoods also tend to be particularly isolated from network ties with working- and middle-class individuals (Rankin and Quane 2000; Small 2007; Wilson 1987), which might extend to lawyers.

Lawyers are likely to occupy relatively high-status positions in networks since law is one of the most culturally and politically prominent (Abel 1989) and prestigious (Blau and Duncan 1967) occupations. Lawyers also tend to have relatively high levels of education and income (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015). Thus, we hypothesize that individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have a social network tie with a lawyer. Racial/ethnic minorities may also be less likely to be connected to lawyers because minorities are less likely to be lawyers. Although the number of minorities entering the legal profession has increased over the past few decades (ABA 2013), African Americans and Latinos continue to be underrepresented in the legal profession (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015), particularly in the most prestigious employment settings (Heinz et al. 2005; Payne-Pikus et al. 2010). Since networks tend to be racially and/or ethnically segregated, we hypothesize that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have a social network tie with a lawyer.

Mobilizing Legal Assistance

Much of the previous research on social capital assumes that individuals who have network-based access to resources will be able to mobilize those resources when needed, but this is not necessarily the case (Smith 2008). For example, a survey of physicians found that 99 percent of them had been asked by a family member for medical advice or assistance, and more than 70 percent had agreed to provide a physical examination, prescribe medications, or diagnose an illness for a family member. However, a majority of the physicians also reported having refused at least one request for assistance (La Puma et al. 1991).

Accessing legal expertise within one's network requires, first, willingness to ask the legal expert for help, and second, the legal expert's willingness to provide assistance. Prior work suggests that both requesting and receiving network-based legal expertise are likely to be affected by network structural characteristics, such as the strength of the tie linking an individual to a lawyer (Bian 1997; Wellman 1992). Tie strength can be determined by a number of parameters, including emotional closeness and intimacy, frequency of interaction, the nature of the relationship (e.g., kin or non-kin), and obligations or expectations around reciprocity (Lin 1999a). These tie characteristics are typically interrelated, so that individuals’ closest and most intimate ties also tend to have high frequency of interaction and strong norms around exchanges of support. Strong ties are also more likely to be homogeneous than weak ties. Because weak ties are less close and likely to be non-kin, they often connect individuals to heterogeneous alters and thereby provide access to novel information (Granovetter 1973). However, strong ties may be more easily mobilized for a number of reasons.

For one thing, individuals may be more likely to ask for informal legal advice or assistance through stronger ties. Legal problems often involve sensitive or stigmatized matters (see, e.g., Owens 2014), and individuals may be more willing to discuss these with someone with whom they feel comfortable. Strong ties tend to be more emotionally intimate, trusting, and long lasting (Coleman 1988; Granovetter 1973; and see Lin 1999), and there is greater empathy and open communication in strong relationships (Haines et al. 1996). And, from a practical standpoint, the frequent interaction that is more common with stronger ties increases the opportunity to discuss a legal problem and mobilize assistance (Small 2013).

We therefore hypothesize that, among those who have network ties to lawyers, individuals who have stronger ties to lawyers will be more likely to ask for informal legal advice or assistance. However, we also consider an alternative possibility. Small's (2013) theory of targeted mobilization suggests that individuals’ requests for legal assistance through network ties will be determined by the perceived utility of the tie, rather than the strength of the tie. From this perspective, individuals would be expected to seek legal assistance or expertise through the ties most likely to be able to provide it—or from the individuals whose legal expertise is deemed most pertinent to the issue at hand. This theory would predict that individuals who have multiple lawyer-ties will select whom to ask for help on the basis of perceived utility rather than tie strength. If this is the case, and the perceived availability or applicability of legal expertise is equally distributed across network ties, we should not find an association between tie strength and the likelihood of asking for informal legal advice or assistance.

Strong ties may be particularly valuable when it comes to receiving informal legal assistance. One reason for this is that strong ties are more likely to involve an expressive element, leading to the conveyance of sympathy, solidarity, and support (Lin 1999a). Indeed, many of the potential benefits of informal access to legal expertise stem from the intimacy of the relationship—including personalized representation, greater motivation to help, and open discussions leading to the (re)interpretation of legal (and nonlegal) issues. In these respects, the benefits of having a network tie to a lawyer would be expected to be more easily unlocked when the relationship involves greater closeness or intimacy.

Network tie strength may also increase a legal expert's willingness to provide assistance. From a lawyer's perspective, offering legal advice or assistance through informal channels implies foregone revenue. And, providing legal representation or taking legal action outside the confines of a formal attorney-client relationship puts lawyers at risk of ethical violations related to conflicts of interest and attorney-client privilege (American Bar Association 2015).¹ Given the potential costs of providing help, lawyers may be more willing to assist strong ties—those with whom they have the closest relationships, interact most frequently, and share norms of reciprocity.

Lawyers may also be particularly likely to provide help to family members compared to non-kin. Family ties tend to be the strongest and most long-lasting ties in individuals’ networks (Antonucci and Akiyama 1987; Fischer 1982; Wellman and Wortley 1990), and they often carry a sense of obligation, which promotes repeated and reciprocal exchanges of a wide range of social resources (Haines et al. 1996; Iida et al. 2008; Kana'iaupuni al. 2005). Kin ties are also more likely to be embedded within densely interconnected network structures. In these contexts, requests for assistance that go unfulfilled may lead to sanctions from other network members (Coleman 1988; Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). Thus, we hypothesize that, among those who have network ties to lawyers, individuals who have stronger ties and/or kin ties with lawyers are more likely to receive legal assistance.

Finally, there are two reasons why we might expect inequalities across social groups in the likelihood of receiving legal assistance through network ties. First, if tie strength increases individuals’ ability to mobilize legal expertise, then individuals who can only reach out a lawyer through weak or tertiary network ties (e.g., a friend of a friend), would be less likely to be able to mobilize informal legal assistance. Because ties linking lower socioeconomic groups and racial/ethnic minorities to higher status alters tend to be weaker than those of higher status groups (Lin and Dumin 1986; Smith 2008), members of lower socio-economic status groups and racial/ethnic minorities may be less able to mobilize resources through their network ties with lawyers. We therefore examine whether the strength of network ties linking individuals to lawyers varies across social groups, and whether this may reduce the likelihood that individuals with lower socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities will mobilize legal expertise.

Second, variation in the types of lawyers to whom individuals are connected could affect their ability to mobilize legal expertise. Lawyers work in very different settings, specialize in different areas of law, and tend to represent either corporate or individual clients (Heinz et al. 2005). Each of these factors may influence individual lawyers’ willingness and ability to provide assistance in everyday legal matters. For example, lawyers working at large private law firms, which typically specialize in corporate legal matters, enjoy greater occupational prestige and compensation, but their expertise may be less applicable to individuals’ legal problems such as housing, debts, consumer purchases, or family matters (Heinz et al. 2005; Payne-Pikus et al. 2010). Large private firms may also place more constraints on lawyers’ abilities to help friends or family members, through firm policies prohibiting such activities and onerous billable hour requirements. And, higher hourly rates at large corporate firms increase the cost of foregone wages involved in providing legal assistance at no cost. By contrast, solo practitioners and lawyers working at small law firms are more likely to specialize in areas of law that serve individual clients (Heinz et al. 2005). As a result, their expertise may be particularly valuable for individuals grappling with common civil legal problems. Fewer constraints imposed by the organizational setting in which they practice, as well as lower hourly rates, may make them more able and willing to provide legal assistance to network contacts.

Given that patterns of occupational attainment within the legal profession are linked to lawyers’ socio-demographic characteristics (Dinovitzer et al. 2004, 2009; Heinz et al. 2005), the principle of network homophily suggests that individuals’ socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity may influence the types of lawyers to which they are connected and thus their ability to informally access legal assistance. Individuals from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to occupy more prestigious and lucrative positions within the legal profession, such as those in large, private firms serving corporate clients (Dinovitzer 2004, 2009; Heinz et al. 2005). White lawyers are also more likely than racial/ethnic minorities to work in private law firms, especially the largest firms (Dinovitzer 2004, 2009). In contrast, Black and Hispanic lawyers are more likely to work for nonprofit legal organizations (Dinovitzer 2004) and as solo practitioners (Dinovitzer 2009). Thus, to the extent that they have network access to a lawyer, individuals with lower levels of socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities may be more likely to be connected to lawyers who have expertise on civil legal matters faced by individuals and fewer organizational constraints on their ability to provide informal assistance. As a result, poorer individuals and racial/ethnic minorities may be better able to mobilize informal legal assistance or advice. To explore this, we devote particular attention to examining socioeconomic and racial/ethnic variation in the perceived ability to ask for and receive assistance through network ties to lawyers.

Data and Methods

The goal of this paper is to explore individuals’ access to legal expertise through personal networks. We know that most individuals will face a justiciable problem at some point in their lives, but many fewer will engage with a formal legal institution. Little is known about nonlegal actions that may be taken in response to legal problems. Prior research on the role of social networks in legal action has largely examined discussions with or support from friends and family members among individuals who are already facing or pursuing legal claims. Meanwhile, research on the role of legal expertise has focused on the formal use of lawyers. Informal mobilization of legal expertise is likely to take place prior to legal action and may substitute for it. Therefore, it is important for us to explore network-based access to legal expertise among all individuals, not just those who have engaged in a legal dispute.

To assess the availability of network-based legal expertise within the general population, we developed several items for inclusion on a nationally representative survey of adults, ages 18 and over, residing in the United States (N = 1,000). The survey was conducted between August 9, 2014 and October 26, 2014 by the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University.

The survey sample was based on a random-digit-dial list including cell phones and unlisted numbers. Each household in the continental United States with a cell phone or landline had an equal chance of inclusion. Within each contacted household, the household member with the most recent birthday was selected for participation. Interviews were conducted in English only, using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software. The cooperation rate among eligible respondents who were reached by phone was 79 percent.² The analytic sample used here (n = 944) includes all individuals who provided valid responses on the variables used in our analyses.³

Network Ties to Legal Experts

Network position generators are commonly used to assess the availability of social capital within individuals’ networks by asking about ties to persons in particular occupations (Van der Gaag et al. 2008). We follow this approach to discern whether respondents have any network ties to legal experts. Respondents were first asked, “Think about the people you know, including your family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and members of social groups. Among these people, do you know anyone who is a lawyer?” Respondents who answered in the affirmative are coded as having network-based access to a lawyer. Summary statistics for these and other variables in our analyses are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary Statistics for Key Variables

Respondents who reported having network access to a lawyer were then asked how they were connected to that individual, focusing on the lawyer with whom they have the closest relationship. Relationships are categorized as: immediate family members (spouse or romantic partner, parent, child or step-child, or sibling); extended family members (another relative or in-law); friends and acquaintances (friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or friend of a friend); and associates (coworkers, someone who belongs to the same church, social group, or organization, or someone who worked as the respondent's lawyer). We use relationship type as a proxy for tie strength, following prior research suggesting that immediate family ties tend to be strongest (Antonucci and Akiyama 1987; Fischer 1982; Wellman and Wortley 1990), followed by extended family ties, friends, and acquaintances, and, finally, associates.

We also assess the ability to mobilize legal expertise through network ties to lawyers by asking respondents how likely they are to ask for, or receive, assistance. Focusing on the lawyer with whom they have the closest relationship, respondents were asked: “If you were faced with a problem that might involve the law, how likely would you be to ask this person for assistance?” And, “If you asked for assistance, how likely is it that he or she would give you advice or take action on your behalf (like making a phone call, writing a letter, or filing a claim) at no cost or at a reduced cost to you?” Response categories for both of these items ranged from “very likely” to “somewhat likely,” “somewhat unlikely,” and “very unlikely.” We differentiate respondents who indicated that they are “very likely” to ask for and receive help from those who felt less certain of their ability to informally mobilize legal expertise.⁴

It is important to note that we assess expectations of mobilizing legal expertise in a hypothetical scenario, rather than prior experiences with mobilizing legal expertise. We take this approach because we are interested in estimating informal access to legal expertise within the general population, rather than only among those who have had a legal problem. It is possible that individuals’ perceptions may underestimate or overestimate their actual ability to informally mobilize legal expertise. We explore this empirically (below) by comparing expectations of the ability to mobilize legal expertise across those who have had recent legal problems and those who have not.

Individual Characteristics

To examine how network-based access to legal expertise varies across social groups, we consider respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We rely on respondent reports of age (in years), gender, race/ethnicity, nativity, and the highest level of education completed. Income is coded as a three-category variable indicating whether pre-tax household income from all sources was below $50,000, more than $50,000 but less than $100,000, or $100,000 or more. Respondents who did not report their exact income had the option to categorize it through unfolding income brackets. We imputed household income for respondents who indicated whether their income exceeded $50,000 but did not provide a more specific amount (n = 94). Because having a spouse is likely to affect the size and composition of one's social network, we also control for current marital status.⁵

Finally, we account for whether respondents have had recent experience with the legal system because it may shape the extent to which they are aware of legal expertise within their networks, as well as their perception that they can ask for and receive legal assistance. Respondents were asked whether they or a member of their immediate family have had any kind of legal trouble or problem, either criminal or civil. Those who had any such problem within the past five years are considered to have had recent experience with the legal system.

Analytic Strategy

Our goal is to explore variation in individuals’ access to legal expertise through their social networks and the likelihood that such legal assistance will be mobilized. First, we estimate a series of logistic regression models predicting network-based access to lawyers across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We then estimate a pair of logistic regression models assessing the probability that individuals who have network ties to lawyers will seek and receive assistance from these experts across demographic characteristics and types of relationships with legal experts.

Results

We begin by describing the distribution of network ties to lawyers. As shown in Table 1, fully 70 percent of respondents report having a lawyer within their social network. However, we observe preliminary evidence consistent with our hypothesis that racial/ethnic minorities and individuals with less education and lower incomes are less likely to have network-based access to lawyers. Figure 1 illustrates these disparities, showing that network-based access to lawyers is most common among Whites, those with higher incomes, and those with more education. For example, 89.33 percent of individuals with graduate degrees have a network tie to a lawyer, compared to only 48.61 percent of high school graduates. In the analyses below, we expand beyond these descriptive statistics to evaluate our hypotheses regarding inequalities in access to network-based legal expertise across demographic and socioeconomic groups.

Figure 1. Network-Based Access to Lawyers, by Respondent Characteristics.

Disparities in Network-Based Access to Legal Expertise

Table 2 presents results from logistic regression models predicting network-based access to a lawyer across respondent characteristics. The first model considers whether racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have network ties to lawyers. We find that Black and Hispanic individuals may be less likely than Whites to have ties to lawyers, although only the parameter estimate for Hispanics achieves significance (OR = .55; p < .05). Other (non-White) individuals are also less likely than Whites to have network ties to lawyers (OR = .58; p < .05). However, we should be cautious in interpreting these results because the “Other” category is rather small (n = 71) and is comprised of individuals from multiple racial/ethnic groups. Those who are foreign-born are slightly more likely to have network ties to lawyers, although the difference does not achieve significance (OR = 1.54; p = .092).

Table 2. Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Network-Based Access to Lawyers

Note: ^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001.

Models 2 and 3 test our hypothesis that individuals who have more education and higher incomes are more likely to have network ties to lawyers. Consistent with this, Model 2 shows that, compared to those with a high school degree, the odds of having a network tie to a lawyer are nearly four times as high for those with a college degree (OR = 3.91; p < .001) and more than 7 times higher for those with a graduate degree (OR = 7.81; p < .001). And, Model 3 indicates that individuals who earn over $100,000 per year have 2.1 times higher odds of having network-based access to a legal expert (OR = 2.11, p < .001) compared to those in the lowest income bracket.

Model 4 introduces indicators of marital status and recent legal trouble. Marital status is not significantly associated with network-based access to lawyers (OR = .84; p = .15). However, individuals who had legal trouble in the past five years have about 70 percent higher odds of having a network tie with a lawyer (OR = 1.70; p < .01). Even after adjusting for these covariates, however, it is notable that both income and education remain positively associated with network-based access to lawyers.

Taken together, results in Table 2 provide support for our hypotheses regarding socio-economic status, in that education and income are positively associated with network-based access to lawyers. We also find some evidence that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have such ties. Fit statistics confirm that socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics help to account for variation in the likelihood of having a network tie to a lawyer, but they also indicate that the models’ predictive power is limited. Together, the parameters in Model 4 explain only about 15 percent of the variation in access to a lawyer (see Tjur 2009), suggesting the need for additional research to identify other sources of such variation.

Mobilizing Legal Expertise

Having a network tie to a lawyer does not mean that one will be able to informally mobilize legal assistance through that tie when faced with a legal problem. Below we test our hypotheses regarding the associations between tie strength and the mobilization of legal assistance among those who reported having network ties to lawyers. Table 3 presents results from logistic regression models of the mobilization of legal assistance through these ties.

Table 3. Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Predicting Mobilization of Legal Expertise through Personal Network Ties to Lawyers

Note: ^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

Models 1 and 2 examine the probability that individuals who have a network tie to a lawyer will ask for help if they are facing a legal problem. We do not find any evidence of socioeconomic or socio-demographic disparities in the likelihood of seeking legal help through network ties. The probability of asking for help from a lawyer within one's social network is not significantly associated with race/ethnicity, nativity, education, or income. In fact, the only respondent characteristic that is associated with the likelihood of asking for help is having recently had a legal problem. Those who reported that they had a legal problem in the past five years have nearly 50 percent higher odds of reporting that they would ask for help from a lawyer in their network if they were faced with another legal problem (OR = 1.47, p = .06), although the parameter estimate is only marginally statistically significant.

In Model 2, we test whether the likelihood of asking for legal help varies across the types of relationships that connect individuals to lawyers. Consistent with our hypothesis regarding greater mobilization of strong ties, individuals whose closest lawyer is within their immediate family are more likely to report that they would ask for help than those whose closest lawyer is an extended family member (OR = .19, p < .001) or a friend (OR = .30, p < .001). Surprisingly, those whose closest lawyer is among their associates are no less likely to report that they would ask for help than those who have a lawyer within their immediate family (OR = .57; p = .21). And, in supplemental models, we find that individuals who have a lawyer among their associates are more likely to ask for help than those who have a lawyer within their extended family (OR = 3.01; p < .001) or friends (OR = 1.90; p < .01).⁶ These results run counter to the targeted mobilization hypothesis, which would not anticipate such a strong association between immediate family ties and the likelihood of asking for help. However, because we ask about the propensity to ask for help from one lawyer, we are not able to compare whether individuals would have been more or less likely to ask for help from other lawyer-ties they may have. Instead, we find that individuals are most likely to ask for help from an immediate family member who is a legal expert or from a legal expert that they know through work or organizational or group membership.

Models 3 and 4 present results from logistic regression models predicting whether an individual is very likely to expect to receive help, for free or at a reduced cost, from a lawyer within his or her network. In Model 3, we find some support for our hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of socioeconomic status are less likely to be able to mobilize legal expertise through their social networks. Those who have incomes over $100,000 are more likely to expect to receive assistance from a network-based lawyer than are those in the lowest income category (OR = 2.06; p < .01). Women are also more likely to expect to receive legal assistance through their networks; the odds are about 50 percent higher among women compared to men (OR = 1.45; p < .01). However, we do not find any evidence that expectations about receiving legal assistance vary across racial/ethnic groups or across levels of education. Individuals who have previously engaged with the law are not more likely to expect to receive legal assistance through their network ties (OR = 1.15; p = .25)

Model 4 incorporates the types of relationships that respondents have with legal experts. As we hypothesized, individuals who have access to a legal expert within their immediate family are the most likely to expect to receive legal assistance. Compared to those whose closest legal expert is within their immediate family, individuals whose closest legal expert is within their extended family have about 73 percent lower odds of reporting that they are very likely to receive legal assistance (OR = .27; p < .001), and those whose closest legal expert is among their friends or associates have more than 80 percent lower odds of being very likely to receive through those ties (OR = .18; p < .001 and OR = .13; p < .001, respectively). In supplemental models, we confirm that those whose closest legal expert is among their extended family are also more likely to expect to receive help than those who have non-kin ties to a legal expert.⁷ The additional analysis shows no difference in the odds of receiving help from a legal expert who is a friend compared to a legal expert who is an associate.⁸ Overall, then, individuals with a legal expert within their immediate family are most likely to expect to receive assistance, and those with a legal expert within their extended family are more likely to expect to receive assistance than those with network ties to friends or associates who are legal experts.

We find little evidence in support of the possibility that variation across socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic groups in the types of relationships that link individuals with lawyers contribute to disparities in the ability to mobilize legal assistance. We have explored this in greater detail in supplemental analyses. As shown in Appendix Table A, we observe few patterns in relationship types across socioeconomic and demographic groups. The only exception is that women are more likely to report having their closest relationship with a lawyer within their extended family, while men's closest tie to a lawyer is more likely to be among their friends and associates. Multinomial logistic regression models in Appendix Table B indicate that socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are poor predictors of the relationships through which individuals are tied to legal experts. Furthermore, we find that relationship type does not mediate the association between income and the probability of asking for or receiving help in the models presented in Table 3.

Instead, our results point to the type of relationship that one has with a lawyer as a key factor in his or her ability to informally mobilize legal assistance. The addition of relationship types in Models 2 and 4 of Table 3 significantly increases both model fit and predictive power. To illustrate the associations between network tie characteristics and the mobilization of legal expertise, Figure 2 presents the average predicted probabilities of expecting to seek and receive help by the type of relationship the respondent has with a legal expert. Probabilities are calculated based on Models 2 and 4, holding all other covariates as observed. Error bars represent 95 percent confidence intervals of the predicted probabilities.

Figure 2. Predicted Probabilities of Mobilizing Informal Legal Expertise, by Type of Relationship with Lawyer.

Figure 2 shows that having a legal expert within one's immediate family is particularly advantageous. Those who have a spouse, parent, child, or sibling who is a legal expert are most likely to expect that they would ask for help (p = .82, SE = .05) and to expect that they would receive legal assistance (p = .87, SE = .04). In comparison, fewer than half of those who have a legal expert among their extended family members expect to ask for help (p = .47, SE = .04), although they are more likely to believe that they would receive help if they asked for it (p = .64, SE = .04). On the other hand, individuals who have associational ties with legal experts are especially likely to expect to ask for help (p = .72, SE = .04), but less likely to expect to receive it (p = .47, SE = 05).

Legal Experience and Expectations of Mobilization

While our findings are based on expectations of support in a hypothetical scenario, their reliability is buttressed by the responses of those who have had a recent legal experience. Those who faced a legal problem in the past five years should have more accurate expectations about their ability to informally mobilize legal assistance, as they are more likely to have recently attempted to do so. If individuals who have not recently faced a legal problem are overestimating the likelihood that they would ask for and receive assistance through network ties with legal experts, we should observe lower rates of expected mobilization among those who have recently faced a legal problem.

On the contrary, we find evidence that those with recent legal experience are more likely to report that they would ask for help (OR = 1.47, p = .06 in Model 1 of Table 3). And, recent experience with the law is not associated with expectations around the likelihood of receiving help from a network-based lawyer (OR = 1.12, p = .25 in Model 3 of Table 3). Taken together, these results provide some reassurance that individuals who have not had recent experience with the law are not overestimating the likelihood of asking for or receiving help from a network-based lawyer. This increases confidence in our conclusion that individuals are very likely to mobilize legal expertise through their network ties to legal experts when they face a legal problem. And, it suggests that the hypothetical scenario has implications for the actual activation of social network ties in the event of a legal problem.

Discussion

Previous research documents that most individuals will face a legal or justiciable problem in their lives, but very few will hire a lawyer (ABA 1994; Felstiner et al. 1980; Miller and Sarat 1980). This raises concerns about individuals’ access to formal legal representation and legal institutions (Sandefur 2008). However, our consideration of access to legal expertise through informal channels paints a different picture. We find surprising evidence of widespread access to lawyers through personal social networks. More than 70 percent of respondents have a lawyer within their social networks. And, the vast majority of individuals indicate that if they faced a legal problem they would ask for—and expect to receive—legal advice or assistance through these ties. Individuals’ reliance on legal expertise may therefore be much broader than prior work has estimated based on the use of formal legal representation in legal actions.

Access to legal expertise through one's social network is important because advice or information received through this channel may help individuals make better decisions about how to proceed when faced with a problem, or whether to proceed at all. Informal access to legal expertise may generate formal engagement with the law (see May and Stengel 1990) and enhance the outcomes of legal action. Informal legal expertise, behind the scenes, may also empower some of the growing number of individuals who represent themselves in court (Engler 2009; Landsman 2012), particularly in family matters such as divorce and custody hearings (Mather 2003). And, importantly, network-based mobilization of legal expertise may shape actions or negotiations in the shadow of the law—that is, actions occurring outside of formal legal institutions but taking into account legal formulations of problems, rights, and remedies (Mnookin and Kornhauser 1979).

But the potential benefits of network ties to legal experts are not equally distributed within the population. We find that individuals with lower levels of education and lower incomes are less likely to have network ties to lawyers. This is consistent with socioeconomic inequalities in patterns of formal access to lawyers (e.g., Genn et al. 1999; Miller and Sarat 1980, Sandefur 2008). Those who are most likely to afford formal legal representation are also most likely to be able to access it informally, thereby reducing the cost of legal expertise and potentially increasing its effectiveness. Network-based access to legal advice or assistance may therefore exacerbate existing socioeconomic disparities in access to justice.

In our analyses, Black and Hispanic individuals also appear to be less likely than Whites to have network ties to lawyers, although only the difference between Hispanic and white individuals achieves statistical significance. Further research is needed to explore these racial/ethnic gaps, and their relevance for inequalities in legal engagement and outcomes. We did not find significant differences in network based-access to lawyers across native- and foreign-born individuals. Because our study excluded non-English-speaking individuals, our results may underestimate disparities in network-based access to legal expertise across ethnic groups. Prior research suggests that legal representation by “notarios” and nonlawyers, particularly within immigrant and legally underserved communities, often results in adverse outcomes for individuals facing immigration hearings and other legal actions (Shannon 2009). Therefore, variation across racial/ethnic groups in the network-based availability of legal expertise—and the nature and quality of the assistance that is offered—is a critical direction for further research.

Additional studies considering not only whether individuals have access to a lawyer, but determining how many lawyers are included within their social networks might reveal further inequalities. Our analysis is limited to the lawyer with whom individuals reported having the closest tie, but theories of network formation and homophily suggest that individuals with higher socioeconomic status may have multiple alters who could serve as sources of legal expertise. Having multiple network ties to legal experts would allow individuals to select which lawyer they might consult (Small 2013), and could increase the likelihood that relevant legal expertise is mobilized through informal channels.

Our study also extends research on the distinction between access to and mobilization of social capital. Overall, we find that more than half of individuals who have network ties with lawyers are very likely to expect that they would ask for and receive legal assistance through these ties. This is somewhat surprising, since asking for help or advice with a legal matter may require discussing sensitive, private, or stigmatizing issues. And, believing that a lawyer will provide help or assistance at a reduced cost requires the assumption that he or she is both willing and able to help. However, individuals may underestimate the costs and risks that lawyers incur by providing legal representation or advice outside the confines of a formal attorney-client relationship, such as foregone revenue and the potential for ethnical violations. Previous work has highlighted the role of market forces in shaping the provision of pro bono legal representation for the poor (Sandefur 2007b), but little is known about how lawyers respond to informal requests for assistance. Another important question for further research is how professional roles and practice settings shape lawyers’ provision of informal assistance.

Contrary to previous work in this area (Smith 2005, 2007), we do not find any evidence that lower socioeconomic groups or minorities are less likely to expect to ask for or receive help from a network-based lawyer. This also runs counter to the idea that individuals with fewer socioeconomic resources and racial/ethnic minorities have ties to lawyers that will be easier to mobilize because they are more likely to work in smaller firms, earn lower hourly rates, and chiefly represent individual clients. Instead, we find that higher income groups are more likely to believe that they will receive assistance from a network-based lawyer if they asked for it.

We also find that women are more likely to expect to mobilize informal legal assistance, which may reflect underlying gender differences in seeking professional help (Addis and Mahalik 2003), in activating social support (Liebler and Sandefur 2002; Thoits 1995), and in the closeness of relationships with network members (Cornwell et al. 2008)—all of which may increase the likelihood that women will ask for and receive assistance through their networks. These patterns point to a number of unanswered questions about how lawyers may differentially perceive and respond to requests based on the status of the person requesting the assistance and their relationship.

Importantly, we find evidence that informal mobilization of legal expertise through network ties may be associated with structural properties of the tie connecting an individual to a legal expert, as well as the social context within which relationships are formed and maintained. First, having a spouse, parent, child, or sibling who is a lawyer seems to be particularly beneficial. Individuals who have legal experts within their immediate family are most likely to both ask for and receive legal assistance. This may reflect the fact that ties with immediate family members tend to be strong, long lasting, and related to social roles (e.g., spouse, parent, child) that carry obligations (Wellman and Wortley 1990). Higher expectations around mobilizing immediate family ties may also stem from the fact that these ties often promote expressive action in the form of sympathy or support (Lin 1999a), which may increase lawyers’ motivation to help. Even in the absence of such expressive components, immediate family relationships are typically embedded within a larger kin network in which exchanges of support and resources are normative and, in some cases, obligatory.

The gap between asking for and receiving legal assistance is notable for ties with extended family and associates. Those with an extended family member who is a lawyer are less likely to ask for help—but they are more likely to believe that they would receive help if they did ask. This may reflect that extended family relationships tend to be less close than those with immediate family members, leading to reluctance to open up about legal problems, at the same time that these relationships are structured by family obligations to help.

Another important finding is that those who have an associate who is a legal expert are more likely to ask for assistance than to expect to receive it. Ties with associates—such as co-workers and fellow members of groups—may be more easily accessed but less reliable or less beneficial. Relationships with associates are likely to be formed and maintained within organizational contexts that involve regular interaction, which increases opportunities to ask for help (see Small 2013). But associational relationships tend to be less close, less expressive, less embedded in dense networks, and less obligatory—all of which may reduce the possibility that a lawyer will go out on a limb to provide help. More nuanced examination of the nature of network ties to resource-rich alters and the networks within which these ties are embedded is an important direction for further research on the mobilization of social capital.

Our findings are based on perceptions of support in a hypothetical scenario, without specification of a particular type of legal problem. The reliability of the hypothetical scenario is buttressed by supplemental analyses in which we find no differences in the likelihood of expecting to mobilize legal assistance across those who have recently had legal problem and those who have not. However, an important next step for research in this area is examining how and when individuals actually seek and receive assistance through informal mechanisms.

A noteworthy limitation of our study is that we cannot determine what types of assistance individuals would request or obtain from their network contacts with lawyers, or whether those who are able to mobilize such expertise achieve more favorable outcomes in legal or nonlegal areas. While prior work points to the benefits of formal legal representation for case outcomes (Engler 2009; Taylor Poppe and Rachlinski 2016), the effects of legal representation vary across the type of dispute (Miller and Sarat 1980), the type of attorney (York Cornwell 2015), the type of assistance provided (Steinberg 2011), the timing of the assistance (Nielsen et al. 2010), and the legal setting (Sandefur 2015). In a similar way, the benefits of informally accessed legal expertise likely vary across particular types of cases and forms of adjudication. In some cases, legal assistance accessed through network ties may be less tailored to the issue at hand than that which is retained through formal searching mechanisms. However, network-based legal expertise is likely to be accessed earlier in the legal process, and it may be overlaid with a personal relationship that increases its efficiency and effectiveness (York Cornwell and Cornwell 2008; Uzzi and Lancaster 2004).

Taken as a whole, this study contributes to research on legal mobilization and inequalities in access to justice by considering how social network ties confer informal access to legal expertise for some individuals. We find that network-based access to legal expertise is quite common, and that most individuals who have network ties to lawyers expect that they will be able to get legal advice or assistance from these ties when faced with a legal problem. In this way, network-based access to legal expertise may expand the scope of legal action, particularly that which occurs outside of formal legal institutions or without the establishment of formal attorney-client relationships. Over time, it may also shape how some individuals understand the legal system and perceive the rule of law. We urge other researchers to consider how lawyers’ roles as family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and acquaintances may affect citizens’ perceptions of the law and inform legal, and nonlegal, responses to justiciable problems.

However, network-based access to legal expertise may also widen disparities in access to justice. We find that individuals with fewer socioeconomic resources and racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have network ties to lawyers. And, those with higher incomes are more likely to expect to receive legal advice or assistance through their network ties. These findings imply that individuals who are most likely to be able to afford the costs of formal legal representation are also most likely to have low-cost, just-in-time, informal access to legal advice and assistance through their network ties. Thus, inequalities in network-based access to lawyers point to another barrier preventing poorer individuals and minorities from gaining legal advice, engaging legal processes, or making legally-informed decisions when they face civil legal problems.