2*7 Q i I

/V0/ol /JO. 2 A i r

LEGAL SERVICE MARKETING:

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ATTORNEY ATTITUDES

IN THE STATE OF TEXAS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILISOPHY

by

Tom L. Ingram, M. B. A.

Denton, Texas

August, 1984

© Copyright by

Tom L. Ingram

1984

Ingram, Tom L., Legal Service Marketing: An Explora-

tory Study of Attorney Attitudes in the State of T e x a s .

Doctor of Philosophy (Marketing), August, 1984, 267 pp., 76

tables, bibliography, 78 titles.

The problem of this investigation was to make an

exploratory examination of attorney attitudes concerning

legal service m a r k e t i n g . The study was c o n f i n e d to

attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Texas.

Items of specific interest were the implicit and explicit

marketing management philosophies of attorneys, attitudes

toward various promotional and media issues with respect to

legal marketing, and attitudes toward serving the interest

of various publics in the practice of law.

This study has been designed to specifically achieve

seven objectives. First, the study is to d e t e r m i n e if

practicing law necessarily engages an attorney in marketing.

Second, the study is to d e termine if a t torneys can be

identified as having a production-, sales-, or consumer-

oriented marketing management orientation. Third, the study

is to determine a profile of attorneys based upon their

marketing management philosophy. Fourth, the study is to

determine attorney perceptions concerning the professional

appropriateness of various message content for promoting

legal services. Fifth, the study is to determine attorney

perceptions concerning the professional appropriateness of

specific media in promoting legal services. Sixth, the

study is to determine attorney perceptions concerning the

relative importance of serving various publics in the

practice of law. Seventh, the study was finally to

determine the extent to which attorneys utilize written

business plans and specific characteristics of those plans.

The methodology in this study used both primary and

secondary research. Secondary sources included periodicals

and texts from both the legal and marketing areas. The

primary research was conducted by means of the mail survey

technique. The universe for this study was determined to be

members of the State Bar of Texas. A total of 35 ,772 names

were on the State Bar rolls. A systematic random sample of

10 percent of the membership was selected. A representative

sample of 1 ,077 or 30.1 percent of the 3 ,577 mailed ques-

tionnaires were returned and usable. The statistical

analysis included frequencies, one-way analysis of variance,

cross tabulations, factor analysis, discriminant analysis,

and Pearson product moment correlations.

The primary conclusion of this study is the need for a

complete analysis of all aspects of the legal environment

and its various publics before marketing can adequately

assist in marketing legal services. Recommendations are

given. The report concluded with suggestions of further

research as a result of the conclusions and findings of this

study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It has been my pleasure and good fortune to work with

the State Bar of Texas on this study. The insights, time,

cooperation, financial support, use of physical facilities,

and manpower were essential to the success of this effort.

Above all, the patience and consideration of the State Bar

and its executive directors with me has been exemplary and

appreciated in degree beyond expression. In particular,

Mr. Jack Reynolds, Associate Executive Director, provided

substantial guidance and reinforcement at critical points

in the study. The State Bar also played a substantial role

as an intermediary between myself and the Supreme Court of

Texas. This study was a success because of the efforts of

the State Bar of Texas, its m e m b e r s h i p , the executive

directors, and the Texas Supreme Court.

In sincerity,

Tom"L. Ingram

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES x i i

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1

Nature of the Problem Study Objectives Justification of the Study Methodology Role of the State Bar Questionnaire Response Data Research Hypotheses Limitations of the Study Outline of the Dissertation

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1 9

Code of Professional Responsibility Legal Research on the Delivery of Legal Services

The Bates Decision The Road to the Bates Decision Bates vs. the State Bar of Arizona Marketing Impacts of the Bates Decision Texas Since the Bates Decision The Marketing Perspective Scope of Marketing Marketing Management Service Marketing Marketing Professional Services Legal Service Marketing

III. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 63

Secondary Research Procedure Primary Research Procedure Attitude Measurement Fact Measurement Questionnaire Construction Cover Letter Mailing Information

(Chapter III cont.)

Page

Sampling Procedure Sample Size Sampling Technique Statistical Analysis

IV. ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . 96

Secondary Research Analysis Mission and Purpose Attorneys in Marketing Marketing Management Philosophy

V. ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . 105

Data Analysis Statistical Analysis Reliability of the Instrument Analysis by Questionnaire Item Analysis by Cross Tabulation Analysis by Correlation Analysis by One Way Analysis of Variance Analysis by Discriminant Procedure Sample Validation Analysis of the Research Hypotheses Overview of the Research Analysis

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 152

Summary Conclusions Recommendations for Further Study

APPENDIX A .

APPENDIX B .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

170

178

262

XI

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Reliability Statistics for Section I . . . 179

II. Factor Analysis of Responses to Question-naire Item One Through Twelve of Section I Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix 180

III. Frequencies and Means for Section I Attitude Statements 182

IV. Frequencies and Means for Section II Promotional Issues 186

V. Frequencies and Means for Section III

Media Issues 188

VI. Frequencies and Means for Section IV . . . 190

VII. Frequencies for Section V Use of Formal and Informal Business Plans 191

VIII. Frequencies for "Was The Plan Prepared Within the Firm By?" With Respect to Use of Formal Written Business Plan 192

IX. Frequencies for "Was An Individual Or Firm External to Your Legal Practice Used as a Consultant in the Development or Prepara-tion of the Busness Plan?" With Respect to the Use of a Formal Written Business Plan 193

X. Frequencies for "Does the Time Scope of the Plan include a (Check All That Apply)?" With Respect to the Use of a Formal Written Business Plan 194

XI. Frequencies for "Does the Business Plan Include a Statement About (Check All That Apply)?" With Respect to the Use of a Formal Written Business Plan 195

XII. Frequencies for "Does the Business Plan Include a Statement About (Check All That Apply)?" With Respect to the Use of a Formal Written Business Plan 196

Xll

m , , Page Table

XIII• Frequencies For Number of Newspapers Read Daily (Excludes the The Wall Street Journal

XIV. Frequencies for "Which of the Following Do You Subscribe to Individually or Jointly?

(Check All That Apply) 1 9 8

XV. Frequencies for "Indicate the Zip Code of the Area in Which Your Principal Office is Located

XVI. Frequencies for "What is Your Age?" . . . . 201

XVII. Frequencies for "Please Indicate Your Sex . 202

XVIII. Frequencies for "Please Indicate Your Ethnic Background 2 0 2

XIX. Frequencies for "How Long Have You Been Admitted to Any Bar?" 2 0 3

XX. Frequencies for "Do You Have a Degree From

a School of Law?" 2 0 4

XXI. Frequencies for "At Which of the Following Did You Receive Your Legal Education?" . . 204

XXiX. Frequencies for "Does Your Current Occupation Involve You In the Practice of Law or Otherwise in the Legal Profession on at Least a Part-time Basis?" 205

XXIII. Frequencies for "What Percentage of Your Work Week is Involved in the Practice of Law or Otherwise in the Legal Profession . 205

XXIV. Frequencies for "What is Your Primary Legal

Occupation?" 2 0 6

XXV. Frequencis for "How Many Hours, Both Chargeable and Non-Chargeable, Do You Devote to the Practice of Law in an

Average Month?" 2 0 7

XXVI. Frequencies for "On the Average, How Many Chargeable Hours Do You Produce Per Month?" 2 0 8

x m

Table

XXVII.

XXVIII.

XXIX.

XXX.

XXXI.

XXXII.

XXXIII.

XXXIV.

XXXV.

XXXVI

XXXVII

XXXVIII

Page

Frequencies for "What Percent of Your Earned Income in 1980 (Excluding Investment Income) Was Derived From the Law Profession (Including Judges, Law School Faculty, Government Attorneys, and Corporate

Attorneys)?" 2®^

Frequencies for "(For Practicing Attorneys Only) With Respect to Your Volume of Practice, Do You Normally Have?" 210

Frequencies for "Do You Have An Undergraduate Degree From a College or University?" . . 211

Frequencies for Holders of Undergraduate Degree in Business 2 1 1

Frequencies for "Do You Have a Graduate Degree Other Than A Juris Doctorate?" . . 212

Frequencies for Holders of Graduate Degree

in Business 2 1 2

Frequencies for "When You Charge on an Hourly Basis, What is Your Average or Standard Hourly Rate?" 2 ^

Frequencies for "What Was Your Personal Net Income Before Taxes in 1980 From Your Work as a Member of the Legal Profession?

Deduct All Business, But Not Personal

Expenses" 2 ^

Frequencies for "Which of the Following Areas of the Law Constitute at Least 10% of Your Practice (Check All That Apply)?" . . . . 215

Frequencies for "Are You Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in (Check All That Apply)?" 2 1 7

Frequencies for "Do You Plan to Seek Board Certification in the Next Year (Check All That Apply)?" 2 1 ®

Cross Tabulation of Composite Orientation and Summated Promotional Appeals 219

xiv

Table

XXXIX.

XL.

XLI .

XLII.

XLIII.

XLIV.

XLV.

XLVI.

XLVII.

XLVIII.

XLIX.

L.

LI .

LI I.

Page

Cross Tabulation of Composite Orientation and Degree of Importance Attached to Serving the Interest or Welfare of the General Public 2 2 0

Cross Tabulation of Composite Orientation and Use of Formal Written Business Plan . 221

Cross Tabulation of Composite Orientation and Summated Production Scores 222

Cross Tabulation of Composite Orientation and Summated Sales Scores 2 2 ^

Cross Tabulation of Composite Orientation and Summated Consumer Score 2 2 6

Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented and Degree of Importance Attached to Serving the Interest or Welfare of the Client . . 221

Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented and Use of Formal Written Business Plan . . . 229

Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented and Use of Informal Nonwritten Business Plan . 230

Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented and Summated Promotional Appeal Scores . . . . 231

Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented and

Summated Media Scores 2 3 2

Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented and Summated Readership Scores 2 3 ^

Pearson Product Moment Correlation for Summated Consumer Variable With Promotion issues

Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Sumated Consumer Variable with Media Issues 2 3 7

Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Summated Consumer Variables with Use of Business Plan

xv

Table

LIII.

LIV.

LV.

LVI.

Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Summated Consumer Oriented Variables With The Five Publics

One-way Analysis of Variance for the Consumer-Oriented Variable and the Promotional Issues

One-way Analysis of Variance For the Consumer-Oriented Variable and the Media Issues

One-way Analysis of Variance for Consumer-Oriented Variable with the Client Group of Section IV and Use of a Formal Written Business Plan From Section V .

Page

238

239

240

• • •

LVI I.

LVIII.

LIX.

LX.

LXI.

LXII .

LXIII.

LXIV.

LXV.

LXVI.

LXVII.

One-way Analysis of Variance for Composite Orientation with Promotional Issues . .

One—way Analysis of Variance for Composite Orientation with Media Issues

Frequencies for Composite Orientation

Variable

Canonical Discriminant Functions . . . .

Classification Results for Cases Selected for Use in the Discriminant Analysis . .

Classification Results for Cases Not Selected for Use in the Discriminant Analysis

Cross Tabulation Comparison for Zip Code Groups by Samples

Cross Tabulation Comparison for Age by

Sample

Cross Tabulation Comparison for Sex by Sample

Cross Tabulation Comparison for Ethnic Background by Sample •

Cross Tabulation Comparison for Years Admitted to Any Bar by Sample . . .

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

xvi

Table

LXVIII.

Page

Cross Tabulation Comparison for Current Occupation in Practice of Law, at Least on Part-time Basis by Samples 253

LXIX. Cross Tabulation for Chargeable and Non-chargeable Hours Per Month by Samples . . 254

LXX. Cross Tabulation Comparison for Chargeable Hours Per Month by Sample 255

LXXI. Cross Tabulation Comparison for Percentage of Income From Legal Profession 256

LXXII. Cross Tabulation for Rate Charged on an Hourly Basis by Samples 257

LXXIII. Cross Tabulation for Personal Net Income by Sample ^58

LXXIV. One-way Analysis of Variance for Consumer-Oriented Attorneys Holding Business and Nonbusiness Degrees with Media Issues . . 259

LXXV. Cross Tabulation of Consumer-Oriented Variable and Client Rank Variable . . . . 260

LXXVI. One-way Analysis of Variance for Composite Orientation Variance and Attitudinal Orientation Statements from Section I . . 261

X V I 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The United States Supreme Court ruling in the 1977

case of Bates vs. the State Bar of Arizona removed the

prohibition per se of attorney a d v e r t i s i n g as p r e -

viously imposed by state bar associations. The removal of

this ban initiated the advertising of various legal

services. Further, new methods arose for the delivery of

legal services by segments of the legal community.

The Bates Decision provided the catalyst for a renewed

confrontation between the forces advocating the use of

advertising for promoting legal services and the opposing

camp. The group denouncing advertising of legal services

viewed the activity as being inconsistent with attorney

professionalism (Shimp and Dyer, p. 80). Articles appeared

in marketing literature presenting survey information on

both attorney and consumer views of the attorney adver-

tising issue (Shimp and Dyer 1978, Smith and Meyer 1980).

The legal literature presented entire issues dealing with

the overall topic of the delivery of legal services and

especially with respect to the attorney advertising issue

(Gordon 1978) .

Legal professionals and marketing academics became

embroiled in heated debate over many complex issues that

composed the overall attorney advertising issue. The

consumers' perceptions of various issues were appraised by

both legal and marketing academia. Surprisingly, little

attention was directed toward several central and paramount

assumptions underlying the attorney advertising issue. The

basic issue not addressed was simply whether or not

attorneys practicing law are engaged in marketing. After

establishing that marketing activities are pertinent to law

practice, attention can be properly directed toward an

understanding and identification of the marcoenvironments

in which attorneys operate. Only after such an investi-

gation can the application of various marketing management

concepts be appropriately applied. An example of such an

application would be in the marketing area of advertising.

In summary, if the legal profession is found to be engaged

in marketing, then the basic rudiments of marketing know-

ledge should be applied to that industry as appropriate.

The literary debate over the attorney issue deals

primarily with the application of advertising which is only

one component of the promotional mix. In turn, the promo-

tional element is one component of the marketing mix as a

whole. The elements of the marketing mix (price, product,

place, promotion) are considered to be controllable by the

marketing manager and, therefore, included in development

of strategic marketing plans and tactics (McCarthy 1 9 7 5 ,

p. 3 5 ) . Hence, decisions over the strategic and tactical

use of the advertising component of the promotional mix was

being undertaken by the law p r o f e s s i o n and m a r k e t e r s

without what appeared to be a thorough investigation and

understanding of the m a c r o e n v i r o n m e n t w i t h i n w h i c h

attorneys operate.

This study was aimed at uncovering attorney views of

the legal environment as it relates to legal service

marketing. A study of this nature was essential to formulate

the necessary framework needed to p r e s c r i b e effective

marketing strategies and tactics. Attorneys and marketers

need a comprehensive scope of the nature of legal service

marketing before taking a definitive position regarding the

attorney advertising issue.

The categorical definition of legal service marketing

utilized in this study is marketing that

deals with all aspects of law p r a c t i c e with respect to the attorney and client relationship from initial awareness and attitude formation through post-purchase evaluation.

This definition seeks to e m p h a s i z e that m a r k e t i n g

relationships may exist between an attorney and client

before actual needs are c o n c e i v e d . In other words, a

marketing relationship may be established between attorney

and client before the entities actually enter a legal

service relationship. Further, the definition connotes the

extent of the relationship. The inclusion of the post-

purchase evaluation points out that legal service marketing

may extend past the last contact between attorney and

client in the legal service relationship. Therefore, the

marketing relationship of attorney and client may begin

well before and extend well after the actual legal service

relationship.

Nature of the Problem

The legal service marketing issue was conceived of in

a dual perspective. First was the legal environment per-

spective of attorneys, judges, the courts and the State Bar

Association. Second was the marketer's view of focusing

on product and services, producer-consumer relationships,

competition, and general m a n a g e m e n t of the marketing

component of the firm. Both views must be considered and

integrated to p r e s e n t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n a l y t i c a l

appraisal.

The legal community has wrestled for many years with

the issue of legal service promotion and its effect on

legal professionalism (Dunn 1980, p. 332). The individual

states found themselves reworking their g u i d e l i n e s on

attorney advertising and solicitation due to the Bates

Decision. Texas was no exception to this. The State Bar of

Texas has attempted twice to pass an attorney advertising

referendum (Dunn 1980, p. 336). The purpose of the refer-

endum was to amend the Disciplinary Rules governing adver-

tising guidelines as well as media constraints for both

print and broadcast media. Both referendums failed due to

lack of participation by the bar members. That is, fewer

attorneys voted than the required 51 percent necessary for

a valid referendum. The mentality of a substantial portion

of the bar membership with respect to this issue may be

summarized in the following open statement from an article

in the Texas Bar Journal:

There are many among us who prefer not to discuss lawyer advertising. Except for the reality, I certainly may be counted in that corner. . . . How do we best live with attorney advertising (Douhitt 1980, p. 332).

This citation conveys what appeared to be the feeling of

many attorneys given the response to the referendums. In

general, attorneys appear to understand neither the role of

advertising to an institution nor the relationship of

advertising to marketing. Clearly, the legal sector has

need of information concerning the potential role of market-

ing (and, in turn, advertising) for its particular

environment.

The marketing community as revealed in marketing

literature has not displayed a clear and concise under-

standing of the legal service marketing issue. Time and

again attention has been focused on the application of

advertising to the legal industry that encompasses environ-

ments which marketers choose to ignore. The literature

primarily addresses tactical evaluations of advertising

rather than focusing on the broad strategical issues.

Marketing has failed to present to the legal industry a

comprehensive evaluation of the legal marketplace.

The integration of the perspectives of the two major

groups involved in the legal service marketing issue leads

to a single conclusion. The volume of work on the topic

has focused on the attorney advertising issue without a

proper evaluation and understanding of the marketings issues

related to the legal industry. Therefore, a study aimed at

exploring the legal environment as it relates to marketing

was deemed beneficial to the l e g a l i n d u s t r y and to

marketers who seek to apply marketing techniques to legal

services.

Study Objectives

Due to prevailing controversy surrounding the legal

service marketing issue, the general o b j e c t i v e of this

study was to determine attitudes of attorneys in the State

of Texas concerning legal service marketing. The study

sought to establish from a macroprospective the relation-

ship between the legal service industry with respect to

marketing management philosophies and usage of marketing

planning.

These primary and related objectives were accomplished

by the analysis of both primary and secondary data. The

primary data were collected from a mail questionnaire sent

to a sample of attorneys in the State of Texas. Secondary

data were obtained from legal and marketing literature.

The study yielded significant insight into the legal

service marketing issue. An investigation was conducted to

expose differences and similarities among attorneys holding

various perspectives on the issue of concern. Further,

prevailing and subordinate philosophies of marketing manage-

ment were identified and s c r u t i n i z e d . A n a l y s i s w a s

conducted to distinguish characteristics of the attorney,

(e.g., o r g a n i z a t i o n of firm, size of firm, v o l u m e of

workload) with respect to various m a r k e t i n g m a n a g e m e n t

philosophies utilized.

The study was designed specifically to achieve the

following objectives:

1. D e t e r m i n e if practicing law n e c e s s a r i l y

engages an attorney in marketing;

2. Determine if attorneys can be identified as

having one of the three following marketing

management philosophies:

A. Production orientation

B. Sales orientation

C. Consumer orientation

3. Determine a profile of attorneys identified

as having:

A. Production orientaton

B. Sales orientation

C. Consumer orientation

4. Determine attorney perceptions concerning the

professional appropriateness of various mes-

sage contents for promoting legal services;

5. Determine attorney perceptions concerning the

professional a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of specific

media in promoting legal services;

6. Determine attorney perceptions concerning

the relative importance of serving v a r i o u s

individual and group interests in the prac-

tice of law;

7. D e t e r m i n e the extent to which a t t o r n e y s

utilize written business plans and specific

characteristics of those plans.

Justification for the Study

Marketing as a discipline exists at the convenience

of the society within which it functions. Due to this

relationship, marketing must constantly prove its worth

and effectiveness to the society. Just as societies are

dynamic and process oriented, so marketing must evolve with

the change of the host environment. This change, in part,

has been reflected in the broadening of marketing concepts

and in applications to an ambit substantially larger than

previously accepted. The application of marketing techno-

logy to the p r o f e s s i o n a l services area d o c u m e n t s the

broadened marketing perspective. The articles by Kotler

and Levy (1969), Kotler and Conner (1977), and Bloom

(1977) are all representative of marketing being extended

to the professional service area.

The marketing discipline continues striving to develop

a general theory of marketing. The detailed investigation

of one profession and its relationship to marketing as a

discipline contributes information to the total volume of

knowledge needed to develop such a theory. Hunt notes that

marketing has made significant strides in recent years, but

still falls short of a general theory of marketing (1981,

p. 75). He suggests that a theory of m a r k e t i n g m u s t

contain the following:

1. A systematically related set of statements;

2. Some lawlike generalizations;

3. Be empirically testable (Hunt 1976, p. 136).

This study contributes information to the professional

service marketing area, which, when integrated into the

total body of i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to s e r v i c e

marketing, helps fulfill the criteria presented for a

general theory of marketing.

10

The legal p r o f e s s i o n in Texas h a s b e e n e x p o s e d

directly to marketing techniques via the attorney adver-

tising issue. The profession has been forced to deal

openly with one specific area of marketing. The Supreme

Court of Texas is certainly aware of the issue and realizes

it may have to mandate advertising and solicitation guide-

lines within the state. The consumer of legal services has

been exposed to expanded yellow page advertisements as well

as those presented in print and broadcast media. The adver-

tising issue, which is only a small part of the total legal

service marketing issue, is, therefore, before the courts,

the attorneys, and the general public.

The present situation from both the marketing perspec-

tive and from that of the legal profession points to a need

for a thorough investigation and analysis of legal service

marketing. The findings of this study contribute to both

the practical and theoretical aspects of marketing. The

information concerning attorney perspectives on the use of

specific media and message content yields p r a c t i c a l

insights for using the promotional component. Marketing

theory development is enhanced by the study of marketing

management philosophies. The legal c o m m u n i t y b e n e f i t s

through the obtaining of more substantial information on

attorney attitudes towards the legal service marketing

11

issue. Specific information on attorney perspectives of

promotional media and message content should be of value to

the courts in the regulation of attorney a d v e r t i s i n g .

Finally, the attorneys and courts should be better able to

provide for the needs of their clients through a thorough

understanding of this complex issue.

Methodology

This study made use of data collected from b o t h

primary and secondary data sources. The secondary sources

included periodicals and texts from both m a r k e t i n g and

legal areas. Data were gathered from the Civil Statutes

of the State of Texas which include the attorney "Canon

of Ethics" and "Disciplinary Rules" governing attorney

conduct.

Secondary data were utilized to determine if it could

be substantiated that law practice involves marketing

functions. Further, secondary data were sought as a basis

of comparison with primary research data on the appro-

priateness of specific media and m e s s a g e content for

attorney promotions. The "Canon of Ethics" was consulted to

determine the stated mission and purpose of attorneys in

the State Bar from a business perspective. These findings

formulated a basis on which to compare the consistency of

the implicit and explicit marketing orientation of attor-

neys from the primary research effort.

12

Primary data were collected by means of the mail survey

technique. A sample of attorneys in the State of Texas was

selected from the membership of the State Bar of Texas. In

order to practice law in the state, an attorney must be a

member of the State Bar of Texas, therefore, membership in

the State Bar represented the p o p u l a t i o n of a t torneys

licensed to practice law in the state. Since this was the

population of interest, the membership role of the State Bar

of Texas was designated the sample frame. An appropriate

sample drawn from this population coupled with the use of

the mail interview yielded results r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of

attorneys throughout the state.

Role of the State Bar of Texas

Due to the professional nature of the target popula-

tion of the study, the help and support of the State Bar of

Texas was sought and obtained. The bar agreed to partici-

pate in the study and provided informational input as well

as physical facilities and monetary support.

The State Bar of Texas and the State Supreme Court

approved a questionnaire prepared for this study and mailed

under their auspices. In all respects, the questionnaire

appeared to the bar membership sample to be an inquiry by

the State Bar of Texas. The cover letter carried a message

from the President of the State Bar and his signature. The

13

State Bar provided the mailing list of 35,772 names and

State Bar e n v e l o p e s , both outgoing and r e t u r n . T h e

questionnaires were returned to the State Bar in Austin,

Texas. Each of these procedures were accomplished in an

attempt to enhance the response rate.

A total of 3,577 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e m a i l e d to

attorneys throughout the state of Texas. No follow-up

mailing was attempted due to a preference of the State Bar.

A follow-up mailing had been used in a previous study of its

membership with undesirable results from the State Bar s

perspective. The fact that identification of those who had

not responded could be made was interpreted by many State

Bar members as a m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the respondent

anonymity. The mailing yielded a return of 1 ,091 or 30.5

percent of the questionnaires sent out. A total of 2,486

or 69.5 percent of the questionnaires were not returned.

Of the questionnaires that were returned, 14 or 1.3 percent

were determined to be unusable because the requested infor-

mation was not provided. Therefore, a total of 1,077 or

30.1 percent of the total mailing were returned and usable.

Research Hypotheses

The research hypotheses presented for evaluation in

this dissertation were as follows.

1. Hypothesis I. There are no attitudinal differ-

ences among attorneys demonstrating a consumer

14

orientation on the basis of holding a b u s i n e s s

degree.

2. Hypothesis II. There are no attitudinal differ-

ences among attorneys demonstrating a consumer

orientation versus a nonconsumer orientation on

the basis of message content approval.

3. Hypothesis III. There are no attitudinal dif-

ferences among attorneys d e m o n s t r a t i n g a con-

sumer orientation versus a nonconsumer orientation

on the basis of media approval.

4. Hypothesis IV. There are no attitudinal differ-

ences among attorneys demonstrating a consumer

orientation versus a nonconsumer orientation with

respect to the use of a formal written business

plan.

5. Hypothesis V. There are no attitudinal differ-

ences among attorneys demonstrating a consumer

orientation versus a nonconsumer orientation with

respect to the use of an informal written business

plan.

6. Hypothesis VI. There are no attitudinal differ-

ences among attorneys demonstrating a consumer

and nonconsumer orientation with respect to the

degree of importance assigned to each of the

following.

15

a. the courts

b. the clients

c. the general public

d. the State Bar

e. the firm or private practice

7. H y p o t h e sis V I I . T h e r e are no d i f f e r e n c e s

among attorneys demonstrating a consumer orienta-

tion versus a nonconsumer orientation with respect

to the number of periodicals and n e w s p a p e r s to

which they subscribe.

8. H y p o t h e s i s V I I I . T h e r e are no d i f f e r e n c e s

among attorneys demonstrating consumer orientation

versus a nonconsumer orientation with respect to

volume of practice handled.

9. Hypothesis IX. There are no differences among

attorneys' marketing management philosophies that

would permit classification of attorneys into a

production, sales, or consumer orientation.

Limitations of the Study

The limitation of this study included the following.

1. The study was confined to attorneys in the State

of Texas. This was due to the fact that rules

and regulations concerning attorney conduct are

state specific.

16

2. The study was narrowed to include only attorneys

who hold membership in the State Bar Association.

3. Due to time and financial l i m i t a t i o n s , a mail

survey was utilized with the inherent limitations

and potential problems associated with the use of

such a survey technique. Included in these possi-

bilities were (a) low response, (b) ambiguity of

questions, (c) narrow range of response, (d) bias

due to order in which questions are exposed and

answered, and (e) identity of the respondent.

4. The study deals with general attitudes of attor-

neys toward the marketing of legal services. The

study does not attempt to distinguish attorney

perspectives of legal service marketing as applied

specific client groups.

5. The study is concerned primarily with attorney

attitudes with respect to the legal service mar-

keting issue rather than attempting to m e a s u r e

usage or effectiveness.

Outline of Dissertation

The following chapters adhere to the format presented

below. Chapter II presents a historical perspective of the

attorney marketing issue as well as a pertinent discussion

of the marketing concepts relevant to the attorney market-

ing issue. Following that discussion, Chapter III presents

17

a detailed account of the research methodology of this

study. This includes a discussion of the collection pro-

cedures of both the primary and the secondary data, ques-

tionnaire design, sampling procedure, and methods of

analysis. Chapter IV presents the results of the secondary

research and an interpretation of the statistical signif-

icance of the findings as appropriate. Chapter V presents

the actual results of the primary research and analysis of

statistical significance of the findings as appropriate.

Chapter VI begins with interperative analysis of the results

presented in the pre— vious chapter. Finally, Chapter VI

presents conclusions and recommendations for further study.

18

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. B a t e s Vs . S t a t e Bar of A r i z o n a ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 433 U . S . 3 5 0 , 97 S. C t . 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810 .

2 . Bloom, P a u l N. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , " A d v e r t i s i n g i n t h e P r o f e s -s i o n s : T h e C r i t i c a l I s s u e s , " J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t i n g , 41 ( J u l y ) , 103-110 .

3 . D o u h i t t , F r a n k ( 1 9 8 0 ) , " R e f l e c t i o n s o f a C o u n t r y Lawyer , " Texas Bar J o u r n a l , 43 ( A p r i l ) , 332-333 .

4 . Dunn , Bob ( 1 9 8 0 ) , "A Vacuum of U n c e r t a i n t y , " T e x a s Bar Journal, 43 (April), 335 -336 .

5 . K o t l e r , P h i l i p and S idney J . Levy ( 1 9 6 9 ) , " B r o a d e n i n g t h e Concept of M a r k e t i n g , " J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 33 ( J a n u a r y ) , 10-15 .

6 . a n d R i c h a r d A. C o n n e r , J r . ( 1 9 7 7 ) , " M a r k e t i n g P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , " J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t i n g , 41 ( J a n u a r y ) , 7 1 - 7 6 .

7 . G o r d o n , R o b e r t W . , E d i t o r , B a y l o r Law R e v i e w , 30 ( F a l l ) , 1978.

8 . Hunt , She lby D. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , M a r k e t i n g T h e o r y : C o n c e p t u a l F o u n d a t i o n s o f R e s e a r c h i n M a r k e t i n g , C o l u m b u s , Ohio : Gr id I n c .

9 . ( 1 9 8 1 ) , The R e t r o s p e c t i v e Comment on "The M o r p h o l o g y of T h e o r y and t h e G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f M a r k e t i n g , " i n The G r e a t W r i t i n g i n M a r k e t i n g , Howard A. Thompson , T u l s a , O k l a h o m a : Penn W e l l P u b l i s h i n g Company.

10. M c C a r t h y , E . J e r o m e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , B a s i c M a r k e t i n g : A M a n a g e r i a l A p p r o a c h , 5 t h e d . , H o m e w o o d , I l l i n o i s : R icha rd D. I r w i n I n c .

11. Shimp, Te rance A. and Rober t F . Dyer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , "How t h e Lega l P r o f e s s i o n Views Legal S e r v i c e A d v e r t i s i n g , " J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 44 ( A p r i l ) , 5 6 - 6 3 .

12. Smith, Robert L. and Tiffany S. Meyer ( 1 9 8 0 ) , "Attor-n e y A d v e r t i s i n g : A C o n s u m e r P e r s p e c t i v e , " J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 44 ( A p r i l ) , 5 6 - 6 3 .

CHAPTER II

MARKETING ASPECTS OF LEGAL SERVICES:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is designed to present a description of

the nature of the legal service marketplace. This overview

of n e c e s s i t y , e n c o m p a s s e s a v i e w of a t t o r n e y s ' and

marketers' perspectives. This information was deemed

essential to a thorough understanding of the various issues

pertinent to the topic of legal service marketing.

The Legal Environment Perspective

The predominant view found throughout the legal liter-

ature was one of distain for legal service advertising.

Seldom did legal writers distinguish advertising as only

one part of marketing. Rather, advertising and marketing

seemingly were equated in their discussion of the issues.

This undifferentiated perspective has not been favorable

with respect to marketing applications for attorney ser-

vices. The following citation seemed very representative:

"Traditionally, advertising and solicitation have been

among the cardinal sins of the unethical lawyer and have

been subject to blanket prohibitions in codes of profes-

sional ethics" (Welch 1978, p. 585). A n o t h e r writer

19

20

expressed a more direct criticism toward advertising of

legal services as follows: "Personally, I believe adver-

tising will not, in the long run, prove to be in the inte-

rest of the client, of serving the ends of justice and the

legal profession" (Booms and Bitner 1981, p. 333 ). These

quotations point to the "low opinion" held by members of the

legal profession regarding some specific marketing techni-

ques. In particular, advertising and s o l i c i t a t i o n (or

selling in marketing terminology) have been singled out as

detestable practices for a forthright and upstanding attor-

rney. Therefore, the implicit view of the legal profession

suggests that general as well as specific marketing, sales,

and advertising techniques are unprofessional and inappro-

priate for the delivery of legal services.

Code of Professional Responsibility

The explicit documentation of the legal profession's

stance to various marketing techniques was sought from

their own guidelines. The practice of law is regulated by

the state. In Texas, regulation is administered through

the State Bar of Texas and ultimately the courts. The

citation of state regulation is presented in the State of

Texas Civil S t a t u t e s , "Title 14, A t t o r n e y s at L a w , "

(Vernon 1977 , p. 169). The validity of such regulation is

stated as

21

The practice of law is effacted with a public interest, and hence, the state may regulate the practice of law and control it so that the public welfare will be served and promoted (Vernons 1979, p. 223).

The environment that attorneys operate within is further

documented as to their relationship to the State Bar of

Texas, to the State Supreme Court, and to the State of

Texas as follows:

All persons who practice law in the State of Texas are members of the State Bar and are sub-ject to the provisions of this article and the rules adopted by the State Supreme court. . . . The State Bar of Texas is an agency of the judi-cial department of the state, and is, therefore, an agency of the state government. . . (Vernons 1979, p. 224).

The practice of law is thus extensively regulated by the

state via the State Bar and the rules of conduct enacted by

the State Supreme Court. The extent of this regulation

encompasses several possible areas of marketing. In parti-

cular, "Section 8, Code of Professional Responsibility,"

deals with several pertinent topics. This code is made up

essentially of nine canons with numerous Ethical Consider-

ations and Disciplinary Rules as appropriate to each canon.

The nine canons are as follows.

1. A Lawyer Should Assist in Maintaining the

I n t e g r i t y and C o m p e t e n c e of the L e g a l

Profession.

2. A Lawyer Should Assist the Legal Profession

in Fulfilling Its Duty to Make Legal Council

Available.

22

3. A Lawyer Should Assist In Preventing the Un-

authorized Practice of Law.

4. A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and

Secrets of a Client.

5. A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Profes-

sional Judgement on Behalf of a Client.

6. A L a w y e r S h o u l d R e p r e s e n t a C l i e n t

Competently.

7. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously

Within the Bounds of the Law.

8. A Lawyer Should Assist in i m p r o v i n g the

Legal System.

9. A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the A p p e a r a n c e

of Professional Impropriety (Vernons, 1979,

pp. 265-307).

The canons which should form the basis of attorney behavior

were obviously very demanding. Of particular interest to

this study were Canon One and Canon Two. Canon Two with its

thirty-two Ethical Considerations and ten D i s c i p l i n a r y

Rules spell out detailed provisions for an attorney on how

to make his services available. Better stated, the canon

prescribes how not to make legal services available. This

was extremely interesting given the first Ethical Consider-

ation of Canon One. It reads in part, "A basic tenet of

23

the professional responsibility of lawyers that every

person in our society should have ready access to the inde-

pendent professional services of a lawyer of integrity and

competence" (Vernons 1 977 , p. 268 ). This statement shows

the concern for making attorney services available to the

public. Canon Two then provides thirty five pages of

Ethical Consideration and Disciplinary Rules setting severe

limitations and boundaries on how an attorney can fulfill

Ehtical Consideration One of Canon One.

The following excerpts from the Disciplinary Rules

were typical of the theme present in Canon Two.

1 . With respect to providing aid in recognition of legal problems,

Examples of permissible activities include preparation of institutional advertisements and professional articles for lay publica-tions and participation in seminars, lec-tures, and civic programs. But a lawyer who participates in such activities should shun personal publicity (Vernons 1979, p. 271).

2. With respect to contacting clients,

Obviously a lawyer should not contact a non-client, directly or indirectly, for the pur-pose of being retained to represent him for compensation (Vernons 1979, p. 271).

3. With respect to selecting a lawyer: Profes-sional Notices and Listing,

The traditional ban against advertising by lawyers, which is subject to certain limited exceptions, is rooted in the public interest. C o m p e t i t i v e advertising would e n c o u r a g e extravagant, artful, self-laudatory brashness in seeking business and thus could mislead the layman. Furthermore, it would inevitably

24

produce unrealistic expectations in parti-cular cases and bring about distrust of the law and lawyers. Thus, public confidence in our legal system would be impaired by such advertisements of professional services. The attorney-client relationship is personal and unique and should not be established as the result of pressures and deceptions. History has demonstrated that public confidence in the legal system is best preserved by strict, self-imposed controls over, rather than by unlimited, advertising (Vernons 1979, p. 272) .

These extended quotations were presented to demonstrate the

underlying tone reflected in the disciplinary rules toward

typical marketing techinques. More explicitly, the Discip-

linary Rules present essentially the "thou-shall-nots" for

attorney communication. For the sake of brevity, a few of

these were summarized below.

1. An attorney should not conspire to generate

publicity about him or his firm (Vernons

1979, p. 279).

2. An attorney may only use a professional

card with the specific information of name,

address, telephone numbers and name of law

firm (Vernons 1979, p. 279).

3. An attorney may not publish the same infor-

mation that is present on his professional

card in periodicals, magazines, newspapers,

or other media (Vernons 1979, p. 279).

25

This review of the Canon Ethics was not exhaustive,

but representative, of the content with respect to the

research topic. The citations point to the e x tremely

adverse perception of basic marketing functions, with

respect to legal services, held in the governing document

of the legal profession.

Legal Research on the Delivery of Legal Services

The preceeding discussion sought to present the expli-

cit statements by the legal profession concerning legal ser-

vice marketing as well as give insight to the underlying

aura of the professional attorney model as set down in the

Canon of Ethics. Further insight was sought from the legal

profession's research on the delivery of its own services.

The profession on both the national and state levels

was concerned with essentially the same issues. The first

issue that appeared in many writings dealt with the unmet

need for legal services (Brinkman 1976, p. 167). Another

major topic of concern was how the consumr evaluates and

selects an attorney (Rosenthal 1976, p. 275). The evalua-

tion of quality also was paramount in numerous discussions

(Carlson 1976, p. 287). More important was the gathering

of the research evidence and a call for a general theory or

possible model for the mobilization of private law for its

delivery to the consumer. One author offered eight major

issues that should be addressed to achieve that theory.

The issues were as follows:

26

1. The role of attorneys in recruiting clients,

in defining problems as legal, in choosing

remedies to be pursued and in e f f e c t i v e l y

determining the law for clients.

2. The role of lay intermediaries in defining

problems as legal and in leading clients to

lawyers.

3. The relationship between the structure of

legal service delivery systems and decisions

to mobilize law.

4. The costs (financial, psychological, tempo-

ral, etc.) of mobilizing law and the way they

relate to actual mobilization.

5. The extent to which the benefits of legality

may be achieved without mobilizing law and

the costs of doing so.

6. The relationship between the competence of

parties and the successful mobilization of

law.

7. The relationship between the outcome of legal

mobilization and future decisions to mobilize

law.

8. The relationship between extra legal power

and the ability to mobilize law for institu-

tional change (Lempert 1976, p. 186).

a

27

It was noted that marketing, as a discipline has much to

contribute with respect to each of the eight issues that

were set forth. Pertinent application and theory with

respect to consumer behavior, channels of distribution,

pricing, promotion and systems management could be applied

in the study of the delivery of legal services as suggested

by the previous issues.

An article by consumer advocate (and attorney) Ralph

Nader, again tied the delivery of legal services to

marketing topic, consumerism (Nader 1976, p. 246). This

article addressed some of the more deeply seeded problems

associated with the delivery of legal services to a broader

spectrum of individuals in the society. That is, Ralph

Nader sought to tie the merger of consumerism and legal

service needs to sociological theory. Namely, the author

suggests, " . . . the shortcomings of our legal system as

presently structured, and with a realization that some pro-

blems are amendable to solution only through a redistri-

bution of power and wealth in the society" (Nader 1976,

p. 247). This discussion of the legal system goes past the

"access" view of the legal system to social power. Nader

further addresses the use of prepaid and group legal ser-

vices to improve the legal system through institutional

change (Nader 1976, p. 253).

28

The type of research conducted by the legal profession

on itself was systematically reviewed and documented in an

article by F. Raymond Marks (1976, p. 191). Marks summa-

rized the major empirical research factors on attorney and

client relationships. He suggested four major areas into

which the issues of these studies could be grouped. They

were as follows:

1. Frequency of Lawyer Contact

2. Lawyer Use (and Nonuse) by Problem Type

3. Lawyer Use and Problem Solving Styles

4. Past Users versus Past N o n u s e r s (Marks 1976, pp. 193-198).

Another article that summarized the research findings

of many studies on numerous legal topics focused on the

use and types of people utilizing legal services (Sarat

1977, p. 455). The author concluded that, "Studies of the

use of legal services, valuable as they are, typically fail

to provide a theoretical context or framework within which

to interpret their findings" (Sarat 1977, p. 435). Se-

lected results of the numerous studies presented in the

article were noteworthy. In a national sample of adults,

Curran and Spalding (1974) reported that 81 percent thought

that lawyers could be trusted and 76 percent thought

lawyers tried to understand their clients (Curran and

Spalding 1976, p. 113). Additionally, the research found

that 75 percent of the respondents thought that many things

29

handled by lawyers could be handled better by other profes-

sionals. Finally, they found that only 37 percent believed

that lawyers would work as hard for poor clients as they

would for wealthy ones.

Levine and Preston (1970) and Rockwell (1968) sug-

gested blacks were less likely to have favorable attitudes

toward attorneys, and blacks and young people were less

likely to have consulted an attorney. Finally, an inte-

resting conclusion of a 1964 A l a b a m a Lawyer study was

that those who had consulted a lawyer tended to have a

lower esteem for lawyers in general than respondents who

had never consulted a lawyer.

In summary, the discussion and review of research and

writings from the legal community has sought to present the

general tone of animosity toward marketing that appeared to

be prevalent. This stance appeared to be predicted upon

the legal profession's desire to maintain a dignified and

forthright appearance before the public and the courts.

Specifically, the legal profession has pointed to marketing

techniques of promotion as being inconsistent with their

desired image. Therefore, they have historically labeled

such behavior as unethical.

The review of the research from the legal literature

showed a primary focus on the consumers' views of the

delivery of legal services and consumer attitude toward the

30

profession in general. A systematic and rigorous study of

the legal system (and its subparts: the courts, attorneys,

State Bar Association) relevant to the delivery of legal

services was not found.

The preceding discussion of the legal e n v i r o n m e n t

perspective of the marketing of legal services focused on

two main areas of investigation. First, the Code of Pro-

fessional Responsibility was reviewed to ascertain the

explicit stance of the legal profession with respect to

various marketing issues. Second, more implicit documen-

tation of the profession's view was sought from a review of

the research findings from the legal profession's litera-

ture. Both areas tend to project a rather negative and

narrow view of marketing and its a p p l i c a t i o n s to the

delivery of legal services.

The Bates Decision

The bridge between the legal c o m m u n i t y and direct

application of marketing techniques in the d e l i v e r y of

legal services was provided by the ruling of the United

States Supreme Court in a landmark case on attorney adver-

tising. The review of this case between the inspection of

the legal environment perspective and the marketing per-

spective (concerning legal service marketing) helps provide

the conceptual framework necessary for a thorough under-

standing of both sides of the issue.

31

The legal community underwent a dramatic change with

the United State Supreme Court ruling that struck down the

total prohibition of various forms of attorney communi-

cations with the public. The 1977 ruling in John R. Bates

and Van Osteen vs. State Bar of Arizona (herafter refered

to as the Bates Decision) opened the door to new methods of

attorney communication with the public without legitimate

sanctions being imposed by state bar associations. The

impact on the legal profession since the Bates Decision has

been considerable. However, before the results of the

Bates Decision could be c o m p r e h e n d e d , a review of the

events leading to the Bates Decision was needed. A summary

of those events is presented next.

The Road to the Bates Decision

The restrictions that were abolished by the Bates

Decision were not always part of the legal profession's

canons. The American Bar Association Canons of P r o f e s -

sional Ethics was first implemented in 1908 (Hobbs 1976,

p. 735). These canons attempted generally to disallow such

perceived abuses as billboards and hawking on the streets

(in-person solicitation). A n e w p a p e r " c a r d " ( b u s i n e s s

card) was an accepted form of attorney communication with

current and potential clients. These cards were restricted

in content to such items as the attorney's name, address,

32

telephone, and any special fields of law practice. These

business cards were routinely placed in newspapers as

advertisements until 1937 (Hobbs 1976, p. 737).

Patent attorneys were allowed to advertise under the

Patent Office's supervision until 1952 (Hobbs 1976,

p. 737). Only 2 to 4 percent of all patent attorneys did

advertise. A partial advertising ban was first implemented

because the Patent Office could not control abuses and

finally patent attorney advertising was totally banned in

1959.

Through a series of cases dealing with various profes-

sions (i.e., dental, optometrists, legal), the courts

upheld the states' right to regulate those professions

(Hobbs 1976, pp. 737-738). However, a slight shift in the

court's position was evidenced in the 1975 case of Goldfarb

vs. Virginia State Bar. The United States Supreme Court

held that the legal profession had no blanket exemption

from the antitrust laws; that is, the violaton of antitrust

laws was used as a defense in Goldfarb to strike down bar

association prohibitions of fee schedules. The courts

reached back to the Sherman Act of 1 890 and found the pro-

hibitions to be a restraint of competition. This veridct

was viewed as significant in that the courts had recognized

the consumer's interest in the practice of law as well as

the interests of bar associations and the states (Braner

and Steinberg 1977, p. 521).

33

Bates Vs. the State Bar of Arizona

Two attorneys in Arizona placed an advertisement in a

Phoenix newspaper for their legal clinic. The advertise-

ment specified five legal services and specific prices for

the services. The advertisement was in direct violation of

the state bar Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (b), as part of Rule

29(a) of the Supreme Court of A r i z o n a , A r i z o n a Revised

Status (1977-1978). Bates and O'Steen admitted the adver-

tisement violated the disciplinary rules but offered two

basic defenses. The first defense was that the rule tended

to limit competition and, therefore, was in violation of

the Sherman Act, sections one and two. The second defense

was the two attorneys' contention that the rule infringed

upon their First Amendment rights of free speech (Welch

1978, p. 586). The Arizona Supreme Court rejected these

d e f e n s e s and as a r e s u l t i m p o s e d c e n s u r e u p o n the

attorneys.

On appeal to the United State Supreme Court, the same

two defenses were presented. The United States Supreme

Court unanimously held that the Arizona Disciplinary Rules

were exempt from the antitrust provisions of the Sherman

Act (Sarat 1977, p. 586). Thus, the first defense offered

by Bates and O'Steen was rejected. The United States

Supreme Court cited the state action doctrine of Parker vs.

Brown (1943) as the basis for their decision.

34

The United States Supreme Court did r e c o g n i z e , at

least in part, the second defense. The First Amendment

challenge was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court citing

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy vs. V i r g i n i a C i t i z e n s

Consumer Council (1976). In the cited case, the State of

Virginia had offered six defenses to its ban of prescrip-

tion drug prices. The United States Supreme Court had

recognized in that case the right and "vital interest of

the consumer in an unrestricted flow of commerical infor-

mation" (Welch 1978, p. 594). The U. S. Supreme Court had

followed the t r e n d of such c a s e s as V a l e n t i n e v s .

Chrestensen (1942), Breard Vs. A l e x a n d r i a (1951), and

Bigelow vs. Virginia (1975). The Bigelow vs. Virginia case

was pointed to by the Court as effectively eliminating the

doctrine holding that commerical speech was unprotected by

the First Amendment (Welch 1978, p. 594).

The Bates Decision prevented the state from prohibit-

ing the publication of truthful advertising in a newspaper.

However, the U. S. Supreme Court stopped considerably short

of holding that advertising could not be regulated in any

way (Welch 1978, p. 587). Some of the areas justified for

regulation were as follows:

1. False, deceptive or misleading advertising.

2. Claims as to the quality of service.

3. Time, place and manner of advertising.

35

Additionally, the U. S. Supreme Court chose specifically to

reserve judgment on several key points. Issues of parti-

cular importance to this study are as follows:

1. Spectrum of state regulation of in-person

client solicitation (especially on-site).

2. Advertising via television or radio.

3. The use of disclaimers or warnings to con-

sumers in legal advertisements.

In summary, the Bates Decision caused a substantive

change in the legal profession with respect to State Bar

prohibitions and restrictions on advertising. Granted, the

change was mandated. N o n e t h e l e s s , the p r o f e s s i o n was

thrust into a less restrictive marketplace seemingly un-

aware of the intimacies of dealing competitively for the

consumer. The previous discussion was not intended to be a

thorough shepardizing of the Bates Decision and the techni-

cal legalities surrounding the numerous court cases leading

to the Bates Decision. The importance of the review to

this study was embedded in the dramatization of the events

that led to the legal profession's forced awareness of

openly dealing with marketing. The Bates Decision dealt

specifically with newspaper advertising. H o w e v e r , the

impact of cracking the Disciplinary Rules has been seen in

other applications of marketing techniques.

36

Marketing Impacts of the Bates Decision

The Bates Decision in effect opened the door to the

legal profession for a variety of innovations. In part,

this was due to the reluctance of many of the states' bar

associations to enforce the restrictions in their discip-

linary rules as a result of the Bates Decision. That is,

even though the Bates Decision did not remove the ability

of the state to regulate attorney advertising at all, it

was sufficient to cause dramatic reappraisal (Welch 1978,

p. 600).

The impact in the marketplace was soon evident. One

of the first groups to take note of potential changes in

the market were accountants. Interestingly, the accounting

profession prophesied the advent of attorneys' tax clinics

(Loeb and Bloom 1977-78, p. 30). In part, this became fact

with the joint venture of H & R Block Incorporated and

Hyatt Legal Services. This venture brought under one roof

the tax and legal clinic (Business Week 1980, p. 76).

Whereas the legal clinic concept has been in existence

since at least 1972, the Bates Decision made the concept

more workable. This same article noted the significance of

marketing to the legal clinic concept, "Some experts say

that marketing and administrative problems often overwhelm

such clients. . . . A lot fail because the lawyers starting

them are not very good managers" (Business Week 1 980 ,

p. 78).

37

The arrival of numerous legal clinics and the rela-

tively novel way of delivering legal service began to

explode by the end of 1978 (Wall Street Journal 1980, p. 1).

Some of the changes documented were as follows:

1. Legal Clinics using price competition, high

volume, and streamlined procedures.

2. Sophisticated do-it-yourself legal p a c k e t s

with limited attorney contact.

3. Group and prepaid legal service plans (legal

insurance).

4. Improved and expanded lawyer referral ser-

vices including fee structures.

5. Competition across state lines with multiple

offices.

6. Use of nonattorney in the giving of routine

legal advice and performing routine legal

tasks (Wall Street Journal 1980, p. 1).

The increased level of activity and competition in the

legal service marketplace had other business implications.

Some firms were not ready for the strategic and tactical

planning necessary to handle the business decisions they

had implemented into their law practice. A New York law

firm ran an advertisement in four business publications

aimed at corporate clients that needed help in recovering

bad debts. The advertisement drew 1,000 responses. The

38

firm then was " . . . startled to realize that there's more

to marketing than advertising. It had to assemble a sales

presentation for perspective clients" (Wall Street Journal

1981, p. 1). The profession learned that advertising

could pay for itself. One report showed that an average of

$7.93 in fees was received for e a c h d o l l a r s p e n t on

advertising by attorneys (Wall Street Journal 1980, p. 1).

Texas Since the Bates Decision

The Bates Decision effectively left Texas attorneys in

an unknowing condition with respect to the Disciplinary

Rules. The rules had to be amended to reflect the changes

brought about by the Bates Decision. A simple review of

events in the State of Texas since the decision provided a

picture of how little had occurred to clear the issue. The

events were as follows:

1. June, 1977: The Bates Decision

2. June-July, 1977: A State Bar working committee was

appointed by the State Bar president.

3. October, 1977: The State Bar Board of Directors

received the proposal for the revised Disciplinary

Code provisions from the working committee.

4. January, 1978, The State Bar Board of Directors

adopted a revised Disciplinary Code and recommended

it to the Supreme Court of Texas.

5. May-June, 1978: Referendum submitted to the State

Bar membership by mailed ballot.

39

6. July, 1978: Referendum failed for insufficient

number of ballots returned.

7. August, 1978: Another special committee on adver-

tising was appointed.

8. August-September, 1978: Committee h e a r i n g s with

various media and consumer groups.

9. December, 1978: The Supreme Court of Texas sus-

pended Disciplinary Rules 2-101 and 2-102, to the

degree that they conflicted with the Bates Decision.

10. D e c e m b e r , 1979: C o m m i t t e e met to p r o p o s e a

second referendum to be submitted to the State Bar

membership.

11. April-May, 1980: Second referendum was submitted

to the membership of the State Bar of Texas.

12. July, 1980: Second referendum failed for in-

sufficient number of ballots returned.

13. October, 1980: The State Bar Board of Directors

requested the Supreme Court of Texas to implement

an order concerning the D i s c i p l i n a r y R u l e s ,

especially concerning advertising (Dunn 1980,

p. 335; Rehmet 1978. p. 611, p. 689).

The previous summary outlines the events that took

place in the State of Texas after the Bates Decision. The

two referendums that failed were believed to be indicative

40

of the predominant disposition held by attorneys in Texas.

The returned ballots in the first referendum numbered 81

percent for p a s s a g e . The second referendum showed a

similar response from the returned ballots of 82 percent

for passage. The explanation was that attorneys who were

against revision (regardless of the Bates Decision) simply

did not return their ballot. This in effect was essen-

tially two votes against, given the necessity of having 51

percent of all members voting to validate the referendum.

The Bates Decision had a very important and substan-

tial impact on the regulation of the legal profession with

respect to marketing legal services. As has been docu-

mented previously, the Bates Decision had a direct effect

in the State of Texas concerning the Disciplinary Rules

that govern attorney behavior and specific marketing prac-

tices in particular.

In summary, the review of the circumstances surround-

ing the Bates Decision (both nationally and in Texas) was

provided as a bridge in the comparing and contrasting the

legal and marketing perspectives concerning the marketing

of legal services.

The Marketing Perspective

The issues of legal service marketing as viewed from

the marketing standpoint were numerous. The review of per-

tinent marketing concepts and terminology is necessary to

41

gain a thorough understanding of them before a review of

their application in the legal service area could be fully

appreciated. In particular, the concepts or definitions of

marketing, marketing management, service marketing, and

professional service marketing are presented.

The Scope of Marketing

It has been stated that the term "marketing" was first

introduced between 1906 and 1911 even though the concept of

marketing has essentially been evidenced for thousands of

years (Bartels 1976, p. 3). For numerous years, marketing

was defined in terms of the traditional business enter-

prise. Such examples were taken from E. Jerome McCarthy

( 1975). His definition of marketing from a macro perspec-

tive was as follows:

Marketing is concerned with designing an effi-cient (in terms of use of resources) and fair (in terms of distribution output to all parties involved) system which will direct an economy's flow of goods and services from p r o d u c e r s to consumers and accomplish the objectives of the society (McCarthy 1975, p. 18).

He also presented a micromarketing definition which narrows

to the following:

Marketing is the performance of business activ-ities which directs the flow of goods and ser-vices from producer to c o n s u m e r or u s e r to satisfy customers and accomplish the company's objectives (McCarthy 1975, p. 19).

The previous definitions emphasize the process, flow,

and result of activities involved in marketing. However,

42

in an important marketing article dealing with an expanded

or broadened view of marketing Kotler and Levy ( 1 969 )

suggest the following:

The choice facing those who manage non-business organizations is not whether to market or not to market, for no organization can avoid marketing. The choice is whether to do it well or poorly, and on this necessity the case for organizational marketing is basically founded (Kotler and Levy 1969, p. 15).

Thus, these authors have suggested that marketing is essen-

tially applicable to any organization. In fact, his state-

ment suggests that all o r g a n i z a t i o n s are involved in

marketing.

Kotler presented a broad encompassing definition of

marketing that remained somewhat simplistic in concept.

This definition was stated as, "Marketing is human activity

directed at satisfying needs and wants through exchange

processes" (Kotler 1980, p. 10). Therefore, how exchanges

are created, stimulated, facilitated and valued is mar-

keting (Kotler 1972, p. 49). This d e f i n i t i o n can be

equally applied to profit and nonprofit o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

Further, the definition can be utilized for both product

and service oriented organizations.

Marketing Management

The tasks of planning, organizing, directing and con-

trolling any organization could broadly be referred to as

management. When these tasks are applied to the marketing

43

function of an organization then the concept of marketing

management is formed. Kotler has defined marketing manage-

ment as follows:

. . . the analsyis, planning, implementation, and control of programs desired to create, build, and maintain mutually beneficial exchanges and rela-tionships with target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives (Kotler 1980, p. 19).

This definition expresses marketing management in terms

broad enough to be applied to any organization. That is,

marketing management is the management of the exchange pro-

cess, whatever that exchange might be.

The evaluation of specialized marketing management

philosophies was also of importance to this study. The

works of Kotler revealed several marketing management

philosophies. The first of these was the production con-

cept. The production concept was defined as follows:

. . . a management orientation that assumes that consumers will favor products that are available and affordable, and, therefore, the major task of management is to pursue improved production and distribution efficiency (Kotler 1980, p. 20).

This philosophy focuses upon the product as distinct from

the evaluation of its possible application to the legal

profession.

The second philosophy that was reviewed from Kotler's

writings was the selling concept. This concept stresses

moving the good or service rapidly. The concept is volume-

oriented. Kotler defined this concept as follows:

44

. . a management orientation that assumes that consumers will either buy or not buy enough of the organization's products unless the organiza-tion makes a substantial effort to stimulate their interests in the product" (Kotler 1980, p. 21 ).

The developments in the legal profession after the Bates

Decision seemed to demonstrate, in part, the selling con-

cept as described by the definition.

The final marketing management philosophy presented

for review was the marketing concept. The marketing con-

cept has as its focal point the consumer. This orientation

has been stated in many phrases such as, "The customer is

King," "Find wants and fill," and "Love the customer and

not the product," (Kotler 1980, p. 22). The explicit

definition presented by Kotler was as follows:

. . . is management orientation that holds that the key to achieving organizational goals consists of the organization determining the needs and wants of target markets and adapting itself to delivering the desired satisfactions more effect-ively and efficiently than its competitors (Kotler 1980, p. 22).

Thus, in essense the marketing concept is a way for the

organization to achieve profits (however, these profits may

be measured, in dollars for a business, or new members for a

religious organization) through customer satisfaction.

In summary, each of the three philosophies presented

was deemed to have possible applicability to the legal

profession. The three philosophies each has a different

45

primary focus as the key to achieving the organization's

goal. The production concept is focused upon the product,

the selling concept has as its central o r i e n t a t i o n the

needs of the seller (i.e., to convert his product into

cash). Finally, the marketing concept has a consumer

oreintation and the satisfaction of that consumer as its

primary focus (Kotler 1972, p. 49).

Service Marketing

A review of service marketing was viewed as an appro-

priate topic for discussion. The concept of services in

marketing terminology has special significance even though

it is routinely coupled with the concept of the product.

One author defined "product" from a marketing perspective

as ". . . any wants-satisfying good or service and its per-

ceived tangible and intangible attributes" (McDaniel 1979,

p. 124).

A search of the literature revealed many significant

d i s t i n c t i o n s between product and service o f f e r i n g s ,

especially with respect to how these distinctions impact

marketing management, marketing strategy, and the marketing

mix. A more explicit definition for "services" was sought

next. Judd suggests the following definition of marketing

services, "A market transaction by an enterprise or entre-

preneur where the object of the market transaction is other

than the transfer of ownership (and title, if any) of a

46

tangible commodity" (Judd 1964, p. 58). This definition

sought to distinguish services that were attached to a

tangible product (i.e., warranty service contract with a

television) as distinct from an independent offering of a

service (i.e, legal or dental service).

Other writers sought to incorporate some of the more

significant characteristics of services into their defini-

tion. Baranoff and Donnelly ( ) suggested the following

definition for marketing services: " . . . separately identi-

fiable, tangible activities which provide want satisfaction

when marketed to consumers and/or industrial users and

which are not tied to the sale of a product of another

service" (Barnoff and Donnelly , p. 44). The concept

of a service entails several characteristics that tend to

distinguish it from a product concept. Baranoff suggests

the following as unique characteristics of services:

1. Intangible nature.

2. Creditor-Client relationship.

3. Lack of need for logistics.

4. Highly differentiated marketing systems.

5. I n s e p a r a t a b i l i t y of service from c r e a t o r of

service.

6. Highly fluctuating demand.

7. Perishable nature of service at creation.

8. Hetrogenity of offering (Baranoff and D o n n e l l y

1970, pp. 45-47).

47

The investigation of the characteristics of services

points to the possibility of the need for specialized

strategies for marketing services. For example, Baranoff

and Donnelly state the short and direct nature of the

service channel accents the i m p a c t of the l o c a t i o n

decision.

An empirical study by George and Barksdale revealed

several differences in the marketing practices of service

versus product firms (1964, p. 65). These authors report

that service firms are less likely than manufacturing firms

to perform offering analysis, develop sales training pro-

grams, use marketing research or spend as much on marketing

in relationship to gross sales.

Another contribution to the understanding of service

marketing was presented by Rathmell. He made a definitive

distinction with respect to the distribution and delivery

of services. He suggested that location should refer to

the distribution of people and facilities prepared to per-

form services (Rathmell 1974, p. 104). S i m i l a r l y , the

channel should refer to a network designed to deliver ser-

vices to the ultimte consumer or industrial user. In

summary, location equals distribution and channel equals

delivery.

The concept of service marketing management was pre-

sented as being different in conception than product

48

marketing management in two articles presented at the

American Marketing Association's Marketing of Services

special conference (Booms and Bitner 1981 and Lovelock

1981). These articles pointed to several consistencies

between products and services but still suggested a need

exists for different marketing management strategies.

Another article, presented at the same conference, intro-

duced an interesting contrast. This author argued that the

real point of importance was that neither goods nor ser-

vices is actually marketed. Rather, the bundle of bene-

fits, whether tangible or intangible, should be the focus.

Therefore, though the product or service may vary, similar

strategies may be appropriated when the bundle of benefits

is similar (Enis and Roering 1981).

In summary, the previous discussion of service

marketing sought to review several major issues dealing

with service marketing and its relationship to the total

marketing function of the organization. The relevance of

this discussion to legal service marketing is dramatic.

Numerous points have impact on the legal service industry

as it embarks into marketing management in the wake of the

Bates Decision.

Marketing Professional Services

The review of the marketing literature that has been

presented was intended to narrow progressively the topical

49

matter. The d i s c u s s i o n has focused upon the scope of

marketing, marketing management, service management, and

serivce marketing management. A t t e n t i o n will next be

focused upon the marketing of professional services and

marketing legal services in particular.

The marketing of professional services was found to be

dealt with (extensively) in the marketing literature. An

article by Kotler and Connor suggested that specific pro-

grams were needed for managers of p r o f e s s i o n a l service

firms (1977, p. 71). These authors recognized three major

forces that service firm marketing managers would have to

cope with:

1. Assaults on professional codes of ethics.

2. Changing e x p e c t a t i o n s of clients to more

client centered service.

3. Increased c o m p e t i t i o n (Kotler and Connor

1977, p. 72).

The professions were seen as being basically against mar-

keting inroads in their p r o f e s s i o n s . These a u t h o r s

further noted several barriers present in the professions.

The first of these was the p r o f e s s i o n a l ' s "distain of

commercialism." For example, a p r o f e s s i o n a l collects a

"fee" rather than "money." The second barrier suggested was

the various associations' code of ethics. These standards

50

of practice tend to limit the p r a c t i c e of e f f e c t i v e

marketing t e c h n i q u e s . The third was the equating of

marketing and selling. The fact that most codes of ethics

ban selling techniques, seemed to be an explanation as to

why other areas of marketing received such little atten-

tion. Kotler and Connor conclude by stating that effective

professional strategies can be developed that are consis-

tent with professional objectives as well as what might be

termed traditional business marketing objectives (1977,

p. 75.) .

The professions tended to view advertising somewhat

differently among themselves (Darling 1977, p. 48). This

study reported that all four groups included in the study

(accountants, attorneys, dentists, and doctors) reacted

negatively to the advertising issue. However, the account-

ants and attorneys seemed to have a more positive response

to the potential role that advertising could play in their

professions. Darling concluded that m a r k e t e r s s h o u l d

educate the professions concerning the potential advanta-

geous role that advertising could play w i t h i n t h e i r

professions.

The need for consumer education concerning availa-

bility, and specifically, concerning professional services

was also reported in the literature. Stratton reported

that public pressure on various professional groups has

51

outstripped the potentially damaging image for profes-

sionals that promote themselves (1979, p. 72). Stratton

forecast that professional advertising would become a rule

rather than the exception within a few years.

Many professionals in various fields have contended

that advertising lowers quality as well as the image of the

profession (1980, p. 122). Conversely, professionals who

do advertise see advertising as a method for increasing the

availability of services to those who need it as well as

developing price competition (1980, p. 124). A study of

attorneys, accountants, dentists and doctors reported that

these professions did not believe the public would be more

aware nor would advertising assist the consumer in making a

choice of professional services (Darling 1978, p. 23).

Another writer, however, concludes that advertising "could

produce vastly different outcomes in different markets of

even a single profession" (Bloom 1977, p. 110).

The advances in marketing accountants' professional

services were noteworthy. One article presents a "quiz"

for evaluating a Certified Public A c c o u n t i n g f i r m ' s

marketing oreintation (Keane 1981, p. 12). This author

stressed the need for a total marketing orientation of the

professional Certified Public Accountant firm. That orien-

tation was suggested as needing to reach from top to bottom

in the firm. Similarly, an article notes the increased and

52

fierce competition among accounting firms as a result of

firms apparently employing many of the suggestions summa-

rized in the previous article (Yav 1981, p. 27).

Legal Service Marketing

Attention was next directed specifically at the litera-

ture dealing with legal service marketing. Various arti-

cles discussed the expansion of marketing techniques into

the legal services field. One article discussed the

relative advantages and disadvantages of prepaid legal

insurance. The article reported that the systems approach

would allow attorneys to practice law and leave administra-

tion to a system such as a legal insurance company (Clayton

1977, p. 10). Another article suggested that attorneys

move toward the use of direct mail as an alternative to the

mass media (Marshall 1978, p. 81).

Three substantive articles dealt directly with the

issue of attorney advertising. A study by Shimp and Dyer

investigated lawyers' attitudes toward legal service adver-

tising and the relationship between attorneys' personal,

practice related, and attitudinal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and

intentions to advertise (1978, pp. 74-81). This study was

conducted prior to the final j u d g m e n t in the B a t e s

Decision, but during the turmoil that surrounded that case.

The study made use of Likert-type statements dealing with

four major issues. The issues investigated w e r e as

follows:

53

1. Philosophic reasons for and against advertising.

2. Economic considerations.

3. Issues concerning the potential impact of legal

advertising on consumers.

4. Issues concerning the implementation of adver-

tising (Shimp and Dyer 1978, p. 75).

The conclusions of this study with respect to the philoso-

phic issues were of notable importance. The a t torneys

recognized the inadequacy of existing sources of informa-

tion, but thought the nature of the attorney-client rela-

tionship was not suitable for the use of advertising. The

attorneys responded to the economic issues stating that

advertising would generally increase demand slightly but

would not improve quality, lower price, nor create posi-

tions for new attorneys. The attorneys did not think that

advertising would facilitate the selection process, but

rather, that it would ultimately be detrimental to public

confidence in attorneys and, "tend to become deceptive and

confuse rather than enlighten potential clients" (Shimp and

Dyer 1978, p. 77). Information on attorney advertising

content was gathered. The study reported that attorneys

generally believed that price should not be included but

area of specialization, attorney qualifications and general

attorney data were viewed as appropriate. The media the

54

attorneys generally found appropriate were yellow pages and

law directories.

The study reported the findings of a discriminant

analysis to examine relationships between advertising

intentions and various characteristics. The analysis found

among the discriminating variables that attorneys who

intend to advertise tend to "be younger, practice by them-

selves or with a small firm and focus more on legal affairs

of individuals rather than businesses or institutions"

(Shimp and Dyer 1978, p. 80). The same authors continued

their work and developed a decision path model for attor-

neys with respect to advertisng and intentions to continue

advertising (Shimp and Dyer 1981).

The consumer's perspective of the attorney advertising

issue was investigated by Smith and Meyer (1980). This

study looked specifically at the criteria consumers used to

select attorneys, how important the criteria should be and

whether or not consumers actually used the criteria they

rated as important (Smith and Meyer 1980, p. 59). The

importance ratings were gathered from both consumers and

attorneys.

The study supported previous findings that personal

acquaintances and personal recommendations were the most

frequently used technique to select an attorney. The study

showed information available through State Bar Associa-

55

tions* service was the least used. The attorneys tended to

report similar rankings of the criteria that they thought

their clients were using. More important was the degree of

discrepancy between actual and stated importance by con-

sumers. The conclusion, consumers tend not to actually use

the criteria they state as the more important criteria.

This could very will be due to lack of information on those

criteria.

Smith and Meyer concluded that legal advertising was

"warranted" (1980, p. 63). This was based upon the con-

sumers' need and right to information. Conversely, adver-

tising was not suggested as the whole or total answer to

the problem, that is, advertising was only a partial

solution.

The last article reviewed attempted to move away from

the partial solution. Darden, Darden, and Riser finally

moved toward a comprehensive view of the legal service

issue (1981), p. 123). This article studied consumers,

users, and nonusers of legal services with respect to demo-

graphic characteristics and perceptions of information

sources as well as the importance of needs for legal

services. The authors' findings generally supported liter-

ature from the legal and sociological fields relating to

usage of legal services.

Darden, Darden and Riser did suggest various marketing

techniques to help solve various markting related problems.

56

The authors dealt with product knowledge, legal retailing,

promotion, pricing, and environmental relationships. This

article indeed took a large step forward in applying a total

marketing perspective to the legal service area. The study

fell short in the analysis of the total environment that

attorneys operate w i t h i n . The need for m a r k e t e r s to

understand the environemnts of courts, attorneys, and bar

associations is just as important as the attorney's need to

understand the clients environment.

In summary, a review of both legal and marketing lit-

erature was undertaken. The legal literature tended to

present a hostile attitude in general toward marketing and

advertising in particular. This appeared to be the result

of the profession's desire to maintain its integrity. The

marketing perspective revealed a narrow understanding of

the legal environment. Marketing literature tended to

focus upon the needs of the consumer and how m a r k e t e r s

would like to apply marketing t e c h n i q u e s to the legal

service area. In short, both p e r s p e c t i v e s were short

sighted and narrow. The need for a broader perspective of

both marketing and legal environments seemed evident.

57

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. "Ads S t a r t To Take Hold i n t h e P r o f e s s i o n " ( 1 9 7 8 ) , B u s i n e s s Week ( J u l y 2 4 ) , 122; 124.

2 . " A d v e r t i s i n g P a y s " ( 1 9 8 0 ) , W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l (March 4) , 1.

3 . " A d v e r t i s i n g R e f e r e n d u m F a i l s " 1 9 8 0 , T e x a s B a r J o u r n a l , 43 ( J u l y ) , 689.

4 . Ar izona Revised S t a t u t e s (1977-1978) , 17A, Ru le 2 9 ( a ) , OR 2 -107 (B) , Supplement .

5 . B a r a n o f f , S e y m o u r , and J a m e s H. D o n n e l l y ( 1 9 7 0 ) , " S e l e c t i n g C h a n n e l s of D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r S e r -v i c e s , " in Handbook of Modern M a r k e t i n g , V i c t o r R. Bue l , ed . , New Y o r k , McGraw H i l l , S e c t i o n 2 , 43 -50 .

6 . B a r t e l s , R o b e r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , The H i s t o r y o f M a r k e t i n g Thought , 2nd e d . , Columbus, Ohio, Grid I n c .

7 . B a t e s v . S t a t e Bar of A r i z o n a ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 433 U . S . 3 5 0 , 97 S. C t . 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2nd 810.

8 . B i g e l o w v . V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 421 U . S . 8 0 9 , S . C t . 2222, 44L. Ed. 2d. 600.

9 . Bloom, P a u l N. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , " A d v e r t i s i n g in t h e P r o f e s -s i o n s : T h e C r i t i c a l I s s u e s , " J o u r n a l o f Marke t ing , 41 ( J u l y ) , 103-110.

10. Booms, B e r n a r d H . , and Mary J . B i t n e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) , "Mar-k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s and O r g a n i z a t o n a l S t r u c t u r e s f o r S e r v i c e F i r m s , " M a r k e t i n g of S e r v i c e s : 1981 S p e c i a l C o n f e r e n c e P r o c e e d i n g s , J ames D o n n e l l y and W i l l i a m G e o r g e , e d s . , C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , American Market ing A s s o c i a t i o n .

11. Branca ney

, John G . , and Marc J . S t e i n b e r g ( 1 9 7 7 ) , " A t t o r -ney Fee S c h e d u l e s and L e g a l A d v e r t i s i n g — The I m p l i c a t i o n s of G o l d f a r b , " U . C . L . A . Law R e v i e w , 24 ( F e b r u a r y ) .

58

12. B rea rd v . A l e x a n d r i a ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 341 U . S . 622 , 71 S . C t . 920 , 95 L. Ed. 1233.

13. Br inkman, L e t e r , and Richa rd 0 . L e m p e r t ( 1 976 ) , f o r e -ward i n Law and S o c i e t y R e v i e w , 1 1 , ( S p e c i a l I s s u e ) .

14. Ca r l s o n , R i c k J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , " M e a s u r i n g t h e Q u a l i t y o f L e g a l S e r v i c e s : An I d e a Whose T ime Has N o t C o m e " , Law a n d S o c i e t y R e v i e w , 11 ( S p e c i a l I s s u e .

15. C l a y t o n , John A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , "Legal I n s u r a n c e f o r t h e Mid-d l e C l a s s , " I n s u r a n c e M a r k e t i n g , 18 ( O c t o b e r ) , 10; 12.

16. C u r r a n , B a r b a r a and F r a n c i s S p a l d i n g ( 1 9 7 4 ) , The L e g a l N e e d s of t h e P u b l i c , C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , A m e r i c a n B a r A s s o c i a t i o n a n d A m e r i c a n B a r F o u n d a t i o n .

17. D a r d e n , Donna K . , W i l l i a m R. D a r d e n , G. E . R i s e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) , T h e M a r k e t i n g o f L e g a l S e r v i c e s , " J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 45 ( S p r i n g ) , 123-134 .

18. Darling, John R. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , "Attitudes Toward Advertising By A c c o u n t a n t s , " J o u r n a l o f A c c o u n t a n c y , 143 ( F e b r u a r y ) , 4 8 - 5 3 .

19. , and D o n a l d W. H a c k e t t ( 1 978 ) , "The Ad-v e r t i s i n g of Fees and S e r v i c e s : A S t u d y of Con-t r a s t s Be tween and S i m i l a r i t i e s Among P r o f e s -s i o n a l G r o u p s , " J o u r n a l o f A d v e r t i s i n g , 7 ( S p r i n g ) , 2 3 - 2 4 .

20 . D o u t h i t t , F r a n k ( 1 9 8 0 ) , " R e f l e c t i o n s o f a C o u n t r y Lawyer , " Texas Bar J o u r n a l , 43 ( A p r i l ) .

21 . Dunn, Bob ( 1980, "A Vacuum of Uncertainty," Texas Bar J o u r n a l , 43 ( A p r i l ) .

22 . E n i s , B e n . , and K e n n e t h J . R o e r i n g ( 1 9 8 1 ) , " S e r v i c e Marketing: Different Products, Similar Strate-gies," in Marketing Services: 1981 Special Conference Proceedings, James Donelly et. al. , eds., Chicago, Illinois, American Marketing Asso-ciation.

59

23. George, William C., and Hiram C. Barksdale (1974), "Marketing Activities in the Service Industries," Journal of Marketing, 38 (October), 65-70.

24. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar ( 1 975 ), 42 1 , U.S., 771 .

25. "H & R Block: Expanding Beyond Taxes for Faster Growth" (1980), Business Week (December 8).

26. Hobbs, Charles A. (1976), "Lawyer Advertising: A Good Beginning But Not Enough," American Bar Associa-tion Journal, 62 (June).

27. Judd, Robert C. ( 1964), "The Case for Redefining Ser-

vices," J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 28 (January), 58-59.

28. Kotler, Philip, (1972), "A Generic Concept of Market-ing", Journal of Marketing, 36 (April), 49.

29. (1980), Principles of Marketing, Engel-wood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc.

30. and Richard A. Connor ( 1 977 ), "Marketing

Professional Services," Journal of M a r k e t i n g , 41 (January), 71-76.

31. and Sidney Levy (1969), "Broadening the Concept of Marketing," J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 33 (January).

32. Keane, John G. (1981), "How Accounting Firms Can Use Marketing Concept Techniques to D e v e l o p Their P r a c t i c e s , " M a r k e t ing N e w s , 14 ( M a r c h 6), 12-13.

33. "Law Firms That A d v e r t i s e " ( 1 9 8 0 ) , W a l l S t r e e t Journal (December 18).

34. "Legal Clinics Catch On With Public" (1980), Wall Street Journal, (May 1).

35. "Legal Upheaval, Lawyers Are Facing Surge in Compe-

tition as Court Drop Curb" (1978), Wall Street Journal, (October 18).

36. Levin, Felice and Elizabeth Preston (1970), "Community Resource Orientation Among Law Income Groups," Wisconsin Law Review, 80.

60

37. Levitt, Theodore (1960), "Marketing Myopia," Harvard Business Review, 38 (July-August), 24-27.

38. Lempert, Richard 0. (1976), "Mobilizing Private Law: An Introductory Essay," Law and S o c i e t y , 11 (Special Issue, June).

39. Loeb, Stephen E. and Paul N. Bloom (1977-78), "The 'Bates' Case: Implications for A c c o u n t a n t s , " Government Accountants Journal, 26 (Winter).

40. Lovelock, Christopher H. (1981), "Why Marketing Man-agement Needs To Be Different for S e r v i c e s , " Marketing of Services: 1981 Special Conference Proceedings, James Donnelly and William George, eds., C h i c a g o , Illinois, A m e r i c a n M a r k e t i n g Association.

41. Marks, F. Raymond (1976), "Some Research Perspectives for Looking at Legal Need and Legal Service Deliv-ery Systems: Old Forms or New," Law and Society, 11 (Special Issue, June).

42. Marshall, Christy (1978), "Lawyers Struggle To Devise Workable Ad Codes," Advertising Age, 49 (July 24), 10; 81.

43. McCarthy, E. Jerome (1975), Basic M a r k e t i n g , 3rd. ed., Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin Inc.

44. McDaniel, Carl Jr. (1979), Marketing An Integrated Approach, New York, Harper and Row.

45. Nader, Ralph (1976), "Consumerism and Legal Serivces: The Merging of Movements," Law and Society, 11 (Special Issue).

46. "Newsletter" (1980), Texas Bar Journal, 43 (October).

47. Parker v. Brown ( 1 943 ), 31 7 U.S. 341 , 63 S. Ct. 307 , 87 L. Ed. 315.

48. Rathmell, John M. (1974), Marketing in the Service Sector, Cambridge, Mass., Winthrop P u b l i s h e r s Inc.

49. Rehmet, Vincent W. ( 1978), "Lawyer A d v e r t i s i n g — W h i t -ther Goeth Texas," Baylor Law Review, 30 (Fall).

61

50. Rockwall, Richard ( 1 968 ), A Study of the Law and the Poor in C a m b r i d g e , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , C o m m u n i t y Legal Assistance Office.

51. Rosenthal, Douglas E. (1976), "Evaluating the Compe-tence of Lawyers," Law and Society R e v i e w , 11 (Special Issue, June).

52. Sarat, Austin (1977), "Studying American Legal Cul-ture: An Assessment of Survey E v i d e n c e , " Law and Society, 11 (Winter).

53. Sherman A n t i t r u s t Act ( 1 8 9 0 ) , 26 S t a t . 209 as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1-7.

54. Shimp, Terence and Robert Dyer ( 1 978 ), "How the Legal Profession Views Legal Service A d v e r t i s i n g , " Journal of Marketing, 42 (July), 74-81.

55. and (1981), "Factors In-fluencing Lawyers' Satsifaction with Advertising and Intensions to Continue Advertising," Service Marketing: 1981 Special Conference Proceedings, James Donnelly et. al., eds., Chicago, Illinois, American Marketing Association.

56. Smith, Robert E. and T i f f a n y S. M e y e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , "Attorney Advertising: A Consumer Perspective," Journal of Marketing, 44 (Spring), 56-64.

57. Stratton, Debra J. (1979), "Advertising Comes to the Professions. . . And Societies Learn to Cope," Association Management, 31 (April), 64-75.

58. Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), 316 U.S. 52, 62 S. Ct. 920, 86 L. Ed. 1262.

59. Vernons Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas (1979), Volume 1A, St. Paul, M i n n e s o t a , West Publishing.

60. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976), 425, U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 48 L. Ed. 2d. 346.

61. Welch, John R. (1978), "Bates, Ohralik, Primus--The First Amendment Challenge to State Regulation of Lawyer Advertising and S o l i c i t a t i o n , " Baylor Law Review, 30 (Fall).

62

62. "What t h e P u b l i c T h i n k s of Lawye r s " ( 1 9 6 4 ) , Alabama Lawyer, 25.

63. Yav, M a r g a r e t ( 1 9 8 1 ) , " F i e r c e C o m p e t i t i o n F o r c e s A u d i t i n g F i r m s t o E n t e r t h e A l i e n W o r l d o f M a r k e t i n g , " Wall S t r e e t J o u r n a l (March 18 ) .

CHAPTER III

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research procedures and

techniques for the collection of both primary and secondary

data. The secondary data were collected from legal and

marketing literature with special attention to the Civil

Statutes of the State of Texas (1980). The primary data

were collected from a sample of members of the State Bar of

Texas. Further, the chapter details information concerning

questionnaire construction, sampling procedures, and sta-

tistical analysis employed in the study.

Secondary Research Procedure

A study of secondary sources was utilized to gather

information with respect to the following specific areas of

investigation:

1. What is the stated mission and purpose of the

State Bar of Texas?

2. Are a t torneys e n g a g e d in the m a r k e t i n g

process?

3. What, if any, is the implicit marketing man-

agement philosophy with respect to clients?

63

64

The investigation of the first area was undertaken by

a search of the Civil Statutes of the State of Texas, in

particular "Title 14, Attorneys at Law" was utilized to find

the explicit statement of the mission and purpose of attor-

neys in the State of Texas (Vernons 1980, p. 244).

The second area dealt with the issue of whether attor-

neys are engaged in the marketing process. This investiga-

tion required a two-step procedure. First, a composite

definition of marketing was garnered from major writings in

the marketing field. These definitions were chosen from

the works of Philip Kotler (1980, p. 49), E. J e r o m e

McCarthy (1975, p. 18), and the American Marketing Associa-

tion ( 1960, p. 1). Secondly, an investigation of attorney

activities was sought again from the Civil Statutes of the

State of Texas. The attorney's statement of mission and

purpose was examined with respect to the marketing defini-

tion. Then a comparative analysis was made between the

definition of marketing and attorney activities.

The final area to be examined through secondary data

sources dealt with the implicit marketing management phil-

osophy presented in "Title 14, Attorney at Law," Civil

Statutes of the State of Texas (Vernons 1980). This

implicit analysis was compared specifically with the writ-

ings of Philip Kotler on various marketing management phil-

osophies (1980, pp. 20-26). Based upon implicit findings

in the legal writings and the criteria available from the

65

marketing literature, a d e t e r m i n a t i o n was made of the

attorneys' stated marketing management philosophy in the

State of Texas.

Primary Research Procedure

The primary data needed from the respondents were both

factual and attitudinal. The construction of the question-

naire instrument was attempted only after a review of pert-

inent theories and concepts with respect to scaling and

attitude measurement. The instrument was pretested and

revised accordingly. The questionnaire was mailed to a

systematic random sample of the State Bar membership. The

returned questionnaires were coded into a data set and

subjected to various analytical techniques. Each of these

steps in the primary data procedure is presented below in

detail.

Attitude Measurement

Primary attitudinal data were collected from the

attorney sample with respect to marketing philosophies and

various marketing topics. In order to develop an adequate

instrument to measure those attitudes, a review of attitu-

dinal measurement and scaling techniques was undertaken.

The works of r e s e a r c h e r s , scholars, and w r i t e r s from

various disciplines were utilized to enhance conceptual

understanding of scaling (Maravell 1 974 , p. 10; Torgenson

1958, p. 13; Green and Tull 1978, p. 162).

66

A constant—sum scale was used to gain insight into

attorney perceptions of the various publics with which the

attorney deals in the practice of law (Green and Tull 1978,

p. 177). From the review of the literature, it was deter-

mined that a Likert scale served the needs of the research

at hand for the majority of the attitudinal information

that was required. The Likert scale is a summated scale

that provides for a cumulative scoring for a particular

construct over several questions. The limitations of the

Likert scale were noted in the literature (Bellenger and

Greenberg 1978, p. 146). The use of any measurement tech-

nique has some disadvantages. The researcher must be aware

of them and use appropriate t e c h n i q u e s for m i nimizing

possible weaknesses. One such technique involves the

reliability of the instrument with respect to attitudinal

statements. A test of reliability was incorporated into

the analysis of the attitudinal statements.

Fact Measurement

Factual information was obtained through m u l t i p l e

questions in several forms. Both open-ended and closed-

ended questions were utilized. Primarily, questions with

closed-ended response categories were presented. As appro-

priate, a response category of "other (please specify)" was

offered to allow for other pertinent r e s p o n s e s . The

67

inventory method of questioning was used to facilitate

multiple responses to a single question.

Factual data were required from several areas of

interest including demographic data on the respondents and

their legal practice. Factual responses were solicited

concerning selected reading material of the respondent and

the use of formal and nonformal business plans.

Questionnaire Construction

The construction of the instrument was performed in

multiple stages. This allowed for the appraisal and

revision of the questonnaire at various points in the pro-

cess of developing the final instrument. The final instru-

ment had seven sections, and the d e v e l o p m e n t of each

section will be covered in the following discussion.

Sect ion I. Marketing A t t i t u d e S t a t e m e n t s . — T h e

first section of the questionnaire was developed in an

attempt to measure attorney attitudes toward three mar-

keting management philosophies—production, sales, and con-

sumer orientation. A five-point Likert scale was presented

with the following response categories: strongly agree,

agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree. The response

field was a total of ninety millimeters across. That is,

there were five response lines for each question, arranged

horizontally, each ten millimeters long, and each line was

68

separated by a blank space of ten millimeters. The five

response lines added to the four blank areas resulted in a

total response field of ninety millimeters. This degree of

care was taken with the physical scale field to help convey

to the respondents the perception of equal appearing inter-

vals between each of the response categories. These state-

ments were developed by the researchers from the criteria

synthesized and presented by Kotler on the various mar-

keting management orientations (1980, p. 20-26).

A second group of attitudinal statements using an

identical type Likert scale was developed to measure the

degree of marketing concept orientation adhered to by the

respondent. These specific statements were developed by

the researcher on the basis of similar research work aimed

at accounting firms (Keane 1981, pp. 12-13).

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e P r e s t e s t . — A g r o u p of t h i r t y - t w o

original attitudinal statements was developed and discussed

with attorneys and members of the executive board of the

State Bar of Texas. After revision, a pilot questonnaire

was administered to a sample of twenty-six a t t o r n e y s .

Members of the pilot group were a convenience sample se-

lected primarily for their willingness to cooperate in the

project. H o w e v e r , it should be noted that the sample

included attorneys with diverse backgrounds and p r a c t i c e s -

individual p r a c t i c e s , in-house corporate a t t o r n e y s ,

69

lobbyists, legal educators, and both small and large part-

nerships. These individuals were telephoned to solicit

their help prior to mailing the pilot questionnaire. The

attorneys were encouraged to answer the questionnaire but

were to make comments on any question concerning wording,

clarity, and interpretation.

All of the pilot questionnaires were returned, and the

comments for each individual question were evaluated. The

pilot questionnaire was reviewed and critically appraised

by experienced researchers holding advanced degrees in

marketing and statistics.

The results of the pretest led to a reduction in the

number of statements utilized in the final questionnaire as

well as changes in wording and sentence structure. A copy

of the final questionnaire is presented in Appendix A. In

the actual test instrument, the three marketing management

orientations were each represented by four attitude state-

ments. The statements corresponding to the approprite

orientation are presented as follows:

1. Production Orientation Statements in Section I

1 . Consumers of legal services are primar-

ily interested in the price.

4. Clients know the feature differences

(such as an area of specialty) of com-

peting attorneys or firms.

70

• C l i e n t s c h o o s e f r o m among c o m p e t i n g

a t t o r n e y s o r f i r m s on t h e b a s i s of o b -

t a i n i n g the b e s t q u a l i t y .

10. I m p r o v i n g s e r v i c e q u a l i t y i s t h e k e y

t o a t t r a c t i n g and ho ld ing c l i e n t s .

2. S a l e s O r i e n t a t i o n S t a t e m e n t s in S e c t i o n I

2 . Consumers of l e g a l s e r v i c e s w i l l n o t

u t i l i z e a t t o r n e y s u n l e s s t h e a t t o r n e y o r

f i r m makes a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t t o s t i m -

u l a t e t h e i r i n t e r e s t in i t s s e r v i c e s .

5 . L e g a l s e r v i c e s a r e s o l d r a t h e r t h a n

bough t .

8 . C l i e n t s can be i n d u c e d t o u t i l i z e more

l e g a l s e r v i c e s t h r o u g h v a r i o u s s a l e s

s t i m u l a t i n g d e v i c e s .

11. Organ iz ing a s t r o n g v o l u m e - o r i e n t e d f i r m

( a t t o r n e y ) a n d s t a f f i s t h e k e y t o

a t t r a c t i n g and ho ld ing c l i e n t s .

3 . Consumer O r i e n t a t i o n S t a t e m e n t s in S e c t i o n I

3 . C o n s u m e r s of l e g a l s e r v i c e s c a n b e

grouped ( i n t o d i f f e r e n t marke t s e g m e n t s )

depending upon t h e i r n e e d s w i t h r e s p e c t

t o l e g a l s e r v i c e s .

6 . L e g a l s e r v i c e c o n s u m e r s i n any g r o u p

(wi th s i m i l a r n e e d s ) w i l l s e e k t h e s e r -

71

vices of an attorney or firm which comes

closest to or s p e c i a l i z e s in t h e i r

needs.

9. Developing effective services and pro-

grams for a selected group(s) is the key

to attracting and holding clients.

12. An attorney or firm should determine the

needs of the client group(s) and then

adapt services and organization to sat-

isfy the clients.

The remaining attitude statements (statements 13

through 22) used in the final questionnaire were used to

measure a consumer versus nonconsumer orientation of the

respondents. That is, half the statements were phrased

with a negative consumer orientation and half with a posi-

tive consumer orientation. These statements were divided

as follows:

1. Negative Consumer Orientation in Section I.

13. Marketing legal services means selling

legal services.

15. Marketing legal services means adver-

tising legal services.

17. Marketing for an a t t o r n e y or l e g a l

firm is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a t t o r n e y

professionalism.

72

19. I t i s b e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y o r f i r m t o

h o l d b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p m e n t , s t r a t e g y

m e e t i n g s o u t s i d e r e g u l a r b u s i n e s s h o u r s .

21 . Less t han 10 p e r c e n t of an a t t o r n e y ' s o r

a l e g a l f i r m ' s t o t a l b u s i n e s s t i m e

s h o u l d be s p e n t on p l a n n i n g a n d p r e -

p a r i n g f o r b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p m e n t .

2 . P o s i t i v e Consumer O r i e n t a t i o n in S e c t i o n I .

14. Deve lop ing new b u s i n e s s f o r a l e g a l f i r m

( o r a t t o r n e y ) i s i m p o r t a n t enough t o p u t

a p a r t n e r (member) i n c h a r g e w i t h f i r m -

wide r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

16. A l e g a l f i r m ( o r a t t o r n e y ) h a s a n e e d

t o e d u c a t e i t s e l f a b o u t l e g a l s e r v i c e

m a r k e t i n g .

18. An a t t o r n e y o r l e g a l f i r m s h o u l d h a v e

a w r i t t e n b u s i n e s s and m a r k e t i n g p l a n .

20 . A c t i v e l y s e e k i n g new c l i e n t s w i t h immed-

i a t e n e e d s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a t t o r n e y

p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m .

22 . C u l t i v a t i n g c o n t a c t s w i t h p o t e n t i a l

c l i e n t s f o r t h e i r f u t u r e n e e d s i s c o n -

s i s t e n t w i th a t t o r n e y p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m .

Section II. Promotional Appeals.--This section of

the questionniare was designed to measure attorney atti-

73

tudes toward various issues of message content. The attor-

neys were asked to evaluate the professional appropriate-

ness of utilizing specific promotional appeals (message

content) when communicating with consumers. The respon-

dents were provided with a five-point Likert scale

comprising the following response categories; very appro-

priate, somewhat appropriate, neutral, somewhat inappropri-

ate, very inappropriate.

The various issues were presented in the pilot survey

described in the discussion of Section I of the question-

naire. The options were revised with respect to wording

and clarity before the final group was assembled.

The issues selected for inclusion in the final

questionnaire are presented below in the order in which

they appeared on the questionnaire. They are as follows:

1 . Hours of operation

2. Pricing of specific services

3. Flat hourly rates

4. Statements concerning quality of service

5. Location of office(s)

6. Statement of certification in specialization

area(s)

7. Telephone number(s)

8. Types of cases you want to handle

9. Law school(s) attended

74

10. Years of practice

11. Professional affiliations (State Bar,

American Bar, etc.)

12. Statements of past legal experience

13. Statements concerning promptness of service

14. Statements of consumers need for specific

legal service (Examples: A will, title

search for property, review of contract,

commercial contracts)

Section III. Med i a.--The third section of the

questionnaire sought to measure attorneys' attitudes toward

the usage of particular communication media. The attorneys

were asked to evaluate various media with respect to appro-

priateness for use by the legal profession. The attorneys

were asked to respond on a five-point Likert scale com-

prising the following response categories: very appropri-

ate, somewhat appropriate, neutral, somewhat inappropriate,

very inappropriate.

The media list was presented to the attorneys for

evaluation in the pilot questionnaire and was carefully

revised for wording and clarity of meaning. The media list

selected for inclusion in the final questionnaire is pre-

sented below:

1 . Yellow Pages

2. Newspapers

75

3. professional/Academic Journals (i.e., State

Bar Journal, etc.)

4. popular/News magazines

5. Television

6. Radio

7. Billboard

8. Direct Mail

9. Handbills

10. Transit (bus, cab, etc.)

11. circulars/Shopping Guides

12. Trade/Association magazines (i.e., Women s

Wear Daily for women's apparel industry)

section IV. attitude TOW,"* P u b l i c s — T h i s

portion of the instrument measured the relationship the

attorney perceives between hi™ and five p r e d o m i n a n t

publics. * constant-sum scale was employed to measure the

relationship as viewed by the attorneys. Attorneys were

asked to respond based upon the degree of importance that

they attached to serving the interest or welfare of these

five publics.

This question was presented in the pretest and was

reworded based upon the response from members of the pilot

study. The five groups that were presented for evaluation

£ iu,,o in t-hp order which they in the question are as follows m the

appeared on the questionnaire:

76

1 . Courts

2. Client

3. General Public

4. State Bar

5. The Firm or Your Private Practice

Section V. Business Planning.--This section of

q u e s t Z ^ T T o u g h t to gain data fro, the respondents con-

cerning the type o £ business planning used by the attorney

or firm. This section was presented in the pretest and

revised based upon the response. It became readily apparent

that an additional question dealing with informal, non-

bitten business plan was appropriate for this particular

section.

Questions in this section dealt with two basic areas.

v^+-hor the firm or individual attorney The first was whether tne n r i

utilizes a written business plan. If so, five additional

sub-questions were to be answered by the attorney. These

questions dealt with the topics presented below:

1. who within the firm prepared the plan?

2. Was help external to the practice employed in

the preparation of the plan?

3. What are the time scope(s) of the plan?

hn<;iness a c t i v i t i e s are 4. What areas of busines

included in the plan?

5. What marketing activities are included in the

plan?

77

The final question inquired whether an informal, unwritten

business plan was used by the attorney or firm.

Section VI. Readership I n f o r m a t i o n . — A n inventory

question was used in this section to measure the attorney's

joint or individual subscription to various periodicals,

journals, and newspapers. A list was presented in the pre-

test questionnarie and revised based upon the comments of

the responding attorneys. The following is a list of the

publications covered in this section, and they are presented

in the o r d e r in w h i c h they a p p e a r e d in the f i n a l

questionnaire:

1 . Barons

2. Business Week

3. Forbes

4. Fortune

5. Journal of Management

6. Journal of Marketing

7. Newsweek

8. Texas Business

9. Time

10. U.S. News & World Report

11. Wall Street Journal

Section VII. Categorical Pat a .--F actual data were

requested for respondent classification. The majority of

78

the categorical questions was taken from a previous State

Bar Study conducted by the State Bar of Texas in the spring

of 1981 which utilized similar sampling procedures. The

match of the categorical questions with previous research

enabled this author to measure sample representativeness of

the population as a whole.

The data obtained dealt with nineteen items contained

in twenty-two questions and sub-questions. The categorical

areas for which data were collected are presented below:

1. Validation for State Bar membership

2. Zip code for principal office

3. Age

4. Sex

5. Ethnic background

6. Length of time admitted to any bar

7. If degree held in law

8. Where legal training was obtained

9. Extent of current occupation involved in

legal practice

10. Primary legal occupation

11. Number of chargeable and nonchargeable hours

per month

12. Percent of income from legal practice

13. Areas of legal practice concentration

79

14. Volume of practice

15. Areas of board certified specialization

16. Undergraduate degree background

17. Graduate degree background

18. Standard hourly rate

19. Personal net income

Cover Letter

The cover letter that appeared as the first page of

the questionnaire bore the photograph and signature of the

President of the State Bar of Texas, Wayne Fisher, to

enhance the personalized appeal of the State Bar President

to his membership. The cover letter was prepared by the

researcher and submitted to Fisher and the Executive

Committee of the State Bar for review.

Physical Composition of the Questionnaire

The production of the questionnaire was done by the

inhouse print shop of the State Bar of Texas. The ques-

tionnaire was typeset and reproduced on a three page tri-

fold, thus using both sides of each page--six sides

available for printing. This procedure eliminated the

possibility of pages missing during collating. The final

version of the questionnaire was reviewed and approved by

the office of the Executive Director of the State Bar and

the Texas Supreme Court.

80

Mailing Information

The questionnaires were mailed to the sample members

via first class mail. The postage was preprinted on State

Bar envelopes, and the envelopes were addressed by heat

activated labels that were computer-printed from the State

Bar membership rolls.

The return envelopes had business reply pre-printed

postage, and were pre-addressed to the State Bar of Texas

Executive Offices. Copies of both outgoing and return

6nv6lop6S arc pres6nt6d in Appsndix A.

The questionnaires were mailed from Austin, Texas, and

returned to the State Bar of Texas in A u s t i n , T e x a s .

Returned questonnaires were accepted for thirty days from

the date of mailing. This time period was suggested by the

Assistant Executive Director of the State Bar of Texas

based upon response patterns from previous bar mailings.

Sampling Procedure

The p o p u l a t i o n for this study was identified as

licensed practicing attorneys in the State of Texas. The

sample frame selected for the study was the membership roll

of the State Bar of Texas. This frame was considered very

consistent with the population of the study because to

practice law in the State of Texas, an individual must be a

member of the State Bar of T e x a s . Known frame error

81

existed due to retired attorneys still on the bar member-

ship roll. The State Bar had no knowledge of which members

on its roll were retired or not practicing. A previous bar

study from a similar sample produced a 2 percent response

from retired members, and this was accepted as a sample

frame limitation.

Sample Size

The determination of the sample size for this study

was impacted by three major considerations: (1) the

adequacy of the sample size to meet minimal levels of sta-

tistical inference to the population; (2) the adequacy of

the sample size to allow various statistical methods of

analysis to be employed; and (3) the desirability of

matching the sample size of a previous bar study in order

to draw comparative analysis from the two studies.

The minimal sample size based upon statistical

criteria was derived from an appropriate formula for pro-

portions with a finite universe correction factor (Spalding

1976, p. 13).

n P (q) E 2 + p(q) Z N

.5 ( .5)

.05 + .5 (.5) 2.576 32,168

= 650.16 or rounded to 650

82

Where: n = sample size N = population size p = percent of the sample that are practicing

attorneys in the State of Texas, assumes .5 in case to maximize

E = allowable error, .05 in this case Z = the confidence level in standard normal deviate

units, .99 in this case _ q = percent of the sample that are not practicing

attorneys (1-p)

The adequacy of sample size with respect to planned

statistical analysis was considered. Several statistical

ni63sur6s were to be performed but the discriminant pro

cedure appeared to present the most severe constraint in

terms of minimal sample size. In order to adequately

utilize the multivariate discriminant technique, a predic-

tive validation sample of at least 300 was needed. (This

validation sample group in the discriminant analysis sepa-

rated from the remaining cases during the initial analysis

phase as a test of the classification ability of the dis-

criminant function).

The third consideration in the selection of a suffi-

cient sample size pertained to a previous bar study. The

study conducted by the State Bar of Texas had sampled 10

percent of the State Bar membership making a total of 3,500

members who were sampled previously. It was desired that

match between the previous study's sample and this research

be achieved to provide a basis of comparison between the

characteristics of the respondents.

83

In summary, the desired match with the previous State

Bar study provided the most restrictive constraint with

respect to desired sample size. Thus, 10 percent of the

total State Bar membership was chosen as the criterion for

selecting the sample size. The membership roll contained

35,772 as of July 1, 1981, and 3,577 questionnaires were

sent to approximately 10 percent of the total State Bar

membership.

Sampling Technique

The sampling procedure employed in this study was a

systematic random technique. The sample frame was the

State Bar membership roll which is arranged by membership

numbers. The numbers are assigned when the member passes

the State Bar exam and reassigned when a member drops off

the roll.

The systematic sampling technique selected every tenth

name from the list after a random starting point was

obtained. A random number generator indicated the starting

point to be the eigth name on the list.

Statistical Analysis

The analysis of the primary data was achieved through

various statistical techniques. The data were entered into

a computer file for the Statistical Package for the Social

84

Sciences and run under the SPSSH version (1977). The anal

ysis is next explained by section.

Questionnaire Section I. Attitude Statements

The first section of the questionnaire contained two

distinct groups of attitudinal statements. The first group

comprised statement numbers one through twelve. The state-

ments were further divided into three groups representing

the production, sales, and consumer orientation. A

summated score for each orientation was obtained. Next,

the summated score was used as a basis for dividing the

respondents into high, neutral, or low groups for each

orientation. The divisions were accomplished by an

inspection of the summated score distribution for each

orientation.

The test of reliability was performed on the attitudi-

nal statements for each orientation. This was accomplished

by use of the SPSS subprogram Alpha Test of Reliability.

This program generates Cronbach's Alpha as well as the stan-

dardized item alpha. Further, factor analysis was employed

to analyze the groupings of the summated variables.

The next step was to crosstabulate the summated vari-

ables for each of the orientations against each of the

other two orientations. The cells were inspected for ade-

quacy in performing a simple chi-square test of signifi-

cance. The general rule of not more than 20 percent of the

85

cells with expected frequencies of less than five was used

(Bellenger and Greenberg 1978, p. 239). The .01 level of

significance was the criterion for the chi-square test.

The second group of attitudinal statements comprised

numbers thirteen through twenty—two. A summated variable

was converted to a consumer or nonconsumer designation

(hereafter referred to as the "Consumer-orientation

variable). The conversion was based upon the distribution

of the responses across the respondents.

The SPSS subprogram Alpha Test of Reliability was per-

formed on the ten statements that constitute the second

part of Section I. The statements were appraised by their

coefficients of reliability generated by the program with

respect to the measurement of a consumer orientation

designation. Factor analysis was run on these variables to

analyze the variables that tended to load together.

The next procedure was to standardize the data in all

attitude statements of Section I. The process involves the

simple transformation of the raw data in Section I, ques-

tions one through twenty-two, to the following form:

Z = X"ux

G x

Where: Z = Standardized score

Ux = sample mean on the attitudinal statement

86

G x = Standard deviation of the sample on

attitudinal statement

The purpose of this transformation was to improve the

validity of such parametric tests as analysis of variance

(Bartiett 1947, pp. 39-53; Kerlinger 1973, pp. 440-441;

Morrision 1969, p. 158).

The analysis as described for Section I of the ques-

tionnaire prepared the data for combination with variables

in other sections of the questionnaire in order to perform

further analyses. The use of these variables from Section

I are described as appropriate when utilized in combination

with variables from other sections.

Questionnaire Section II. Promotional Appeals

The first step in the analysis of this section was to

run simple summary and d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s on the

fourteen issues evaluated. The next step was to standardize

the raw data from statements one through fourteen. This

was accomplished using the same procedure and formula as

was previously cited in the standardization of data in

Section I of the questionnaire.

Following the standardization process, a one-way analy-

sis of variance was performed. The independent variable

was the consumer-orientation variable computed in Section

I. This independent variable was then run separately using

each of the fourteen promotional issues as dependent vari-

87

ables. The level of significance for the F statistic was

chosen at the .01 level.

The next step to be undertaken was the calculation of

Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for Section

II with the consumer-orientation variable from Section I.

The data were assumed to be of interval level.

Questionnaire Section III. Media

The analysis of Section III corresponds exactly with

the analysis conducted on Section II. Only a simplified

explanation will be repeated. The data in Section III were

analyzed using the simple descriptive and summary pro-

cedures for each of the twelve media presented. Next, the

raw data were standardized.

The one-way analysis of variance technique was per-

formed for each medium with the independent variable being

the consumer-orientation variable from Section I. The

dependent variables were the media in each analysis. The

Pearson product moment correlations were computed between

the consumer-orientation variable and each of the media.

Questionnaire Section IV. Attitudes Toward Various Publics

This section measured the respondent's attitude on a

ratio scale toward the five identified p u b l i c s . The

section was analyzed according to respondents who stated

the client to be one of the following:

88

1. Greater importance than any other group.

2. Equal to one or more groups and of greatest

importance.

3. Less importance than any (one or more) of the

other groups

This was accomplishd by interpretation of the number of

points assigned to each public presented.

The next analytical procedure in this section was the

one-way analysis of variance. The independent variable was

the consumer—orientation variable from Section I. The de-

pendent variables were each of the five publics presented.

Questionnaire Section V. Business Planning

This section was analyzed through simple summary and

descriptive statistics for each question. A one-way anal-

ysis of variance was computed with the dependent variable

being the use of a formal written business plan and the

independent variable being the consumer-orientation vari-

able. The same analysis was performed with the use of the

informal nonwritten business plan as the dependent

variable.

Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were

computed between the consumer orientation variable and the

formal written and informal nonwritten questions. These

correlations were inspected for strength and direction of

relationships.

89

Questionnaire Section VI. Readership

The first step in the analysis of this section was

through summary and descriptive statistics. A summated

value for the total number of newspapers and periodicals

subscriptions was created.

The summated readership variable was used as the

dependent variable in a one-way analysis of variance. The

independent variable was the consumer-orientation variable

from Section I.

Questionnaire Section VII. Categorical Data

Summary and descriptive statistics were the initial

procedures in the investigation of the data obtained from

this section of the questionnaire. There were three ques-

tions from this section that were of direct interest in the

evaluation of the research questions. Q u e s t i o n number

sixteen dealing with the volume of p r a c t i c e as well as

questions number nineteen and twenty pertaining to college

education were pertinent to further analysis.

The volume of practice variable was used as the depen-

dent variable in a one-way analysis of variance. The inde-

pendent variable was the consumer-orientation variable from

Section I.

The respondents holding of a business degree was com-

puted from q u e s t i o n s nineteen and twenty. A one-way

90

analysis of variance was employed with the business degree

variable as a dependent variable and the consumer-orienta-

tion variable as the independent variable.

Questions sixteen, nineteen, and twenty from this

section were paired individually with the consumer-orienta-

tion variable in the computation of Pearson product

moment correlation coefficients. These were inspected

for strength and direction of relationships.

The final procedure utilized data from several

sections. This final procedure was multiple discriminant

analysis. The purpose of the technique is both for

analysis and classification. The groups to be identified

were production, sales, and consumer-oriented marketing

management philosophies. These groups were first measured

in Section I; questions one through twelve created a

summated variable for each of the three marketing manage-

ment philosophies. Based upon the distribution of the

scores, the respondents were classified into either a pro-

duction, sales, or consumer orientation.

The total number of all usable cases were split into

approximately equal groups. The purpose of the procedure

was to use one set of cases to derive the discriminant

function and the other as a validation sample of the model

with respect to its ability to classify the "unknown"

respondents. Obviously, if the unknown sample cases were

91

used in the derivation of the model, a p r e d i c t i v e bias

would be present.

The discriminant procedure utilized a step-wise selec-

tion method of the discriminating variables. In this type

of procedure, the variables were selected for entry based

upon their discriminating power. The first criterion for

inclusion in the model was the computation of a minimum

partial multivarite F ratio. The ratio was set as a mini-

mum of two for inclusion in the model. Further, a second

criterion for inclusion in the model was Wilk's Lambda.

This test used "the overall multivariate F ratio for the

test of differences among the group centroid" (Nie et. al.

1977, p. 447). In effect, the maximization of the F led to

a minimization of Wilk's Lambda which is a measure of group

discrimination.

The discriminating variables originally entered into

the stepwise discriminant program were taken from several

sections of the questionnaire. The data in Section II were

combined in a summated score for the fourteen promotional

issues that were presented to the attorneys. This summated

variable was used as a discriminating variable. The same

procedure was employed for the data in Section III. The

media r e s p o n s e s were summated for the t w e l v e m e d i a

presented and used as a single discriminating variable.

92

The data in Section IV were entered as five separate

variables. The number of points assigned to each public

presented comprised a discriminating variable for inclusion

in the procedure.

Data from Section V were used as potential discrimi-

nating variables. Dummy variables were constructed from

the questions dealing with the use of formal written and

informal nonwritten business plans. These were entered as

two separate variables in the procedure.

The readership information in Section VI was entered

as a single summated variable. The variable was computed

as the number of newspapers and periodicals to which the

respondents reported subscribing.

Several categorical variables were selected as poten-

tial discriminating variables from Section VII. Each of

these variables were converted to dichotomous responses

such that they could be treated as dummy variables. The

categorical questions utilized were as follows:

3. Age, such that forty-six and below was

"young", above was "old".

4. Sex, "male" and "female" groups.

6. Years in any bar, such that sixteen or less

was "few", more was "many".

10. Percentage of work week in legal profession,

such that less than 51 percent or less was

"few", and more was "many".

93

11. Primary legal occupation, such that sole

practitioner and firm partner or associate

was "private practice" and all other

responses were "other".

13. Chargeable hours per month, such that 121

hours or less was "few" and more was "many".

14. Percentage of income from legal profession,

such that 51 percent or less was "small", and

more was "large".

16. Volume of practice, such that "much more,

"slightly more and all the practice you can

handle" was "busy" and "slightly less and

much less practice" was "not busy".

In total, eighteen variables were entered as potential

discriminating variables. In summary, there was one

variable from Section II, one from Section II, five from

Section IV, two from Section V, one from Section VI and

eight from Section VII included in the analysis.

94

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. American Marketing A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 960 ), Marketing Definitions: A G l o s s a r y of M a r k e t i n g T e r m s , Committee on D e f i n i t i o n s , C h i c a g o , Illinois, American Marketing Association.

2. Bartlett, M. S. (1947), "The Use of Transformation," Biometrics, III, 39-53.

3. Bellenger, Danny N. and Barnett A. Greenberg ( 1 978 ), Marketing Research: A M a n a g e m e n t I n f o r m a t i o n Approach, Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1978.

4. Green, Paul E. and Donald S. Tull (1978), Research for Marketing Decisions, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978.

5. Keane, John G. (1981), "How Accounting Firms Can Use Marketing Concept, Techniques To Develop Their Practice," Marketing News, 14, (March 6), 12-13.

6. Kerlinger, Fred W. ( 1 973 ), Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

7. Kotler, Philip ( 1 972 ), "A Generic Concept of Market-ing," Journal of Marketing, 36 (April), 10-15.

(1980), Principles of Marketing, Engle-wood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall.

9. Maravell, Gary M. (1974), Scaling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral Scientist, Chicago, Illinois, Aldine Publishing.

10. McCarthy E. Jerome (1975), Basic Marketing: A Mana-gerial Approach, H o m e w o o d , Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

11. Morrison, Donald G. ( 1969 ), "On the Interpretation of

Discriminant Analysis," J o u r n a l of Marketing Research, 3 (May), 158-163.

95

12. Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. J e n k i n s , Karen Steinbreuner, and Dale H. Brent (1977), Statistical Package for the Social S c i e n c e s , 2nd ed., update, New York, M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company.

13. S p a l d i n g , J. B. (1970), S a m p l i n g F r o m a F i n i t e P o p u l a t i o n , N o r t h T e x a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Denton, Texas.

14. Torgenson, Warren S. (1958), Theory and M e t h o d s of Scaling, New York, New Y o r k , John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

15. Vernons Annotated Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas (1980), Volume 1A, West P u b l i s h i n g , St. Paul, Minn.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY RESEARCH FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the secondary

research. The secondary data are analyzed in an effort to

answer whether attorneys are engaged in the marketing

process and if an implicit marketing management orienta-

tion was identified, and to determine the stated mission

and purpose of the State Bar.

Secondary Research Analysis

The secondary research was conducted to answer the

first study objective presented for this research effort.

This objective was stated as "Determine if practicing law

necessarily engages an attorney in marketing." The solu-

tion of this basic objective suggested three q u e s t i o n s

which are presented for consideration as follows:

1. What is the stated mission and purpose of the

State Bar of Texas?

2. Are attorneys e n g a g e d in the m a r k e t i n g

process?

3. What, if any, is the implicit marketing man-

agement philosophy with respect to clients?

96

97

The questions were of necessity evaluated sequentially.

That is, the answering of question one was pertinent to the

evaluation of question two, and the analysis of question two

was necessary for analysis of question three. Further, the

evaluation of secondary research question three (as pre-

sented above), was pertinent to the a c h i e v e m e n t of the

second study objective.

Mission and Purpose

The mission or purpose of an o r g a n i z a t i o n can be

conceived of as the basic reason for which that organiza-

tion was established (Carlisle 1975, p. 595). Further, the

statement of mission and purpose would state the ends for

which the organization exists. The statement of purpose

for the State Bar of Texas is contained in the Civil

Statutes of the State of Texas, "Title 14, Attorneys at

Law." Specifically, the revised Article II, section one,

reads in part as follows:

The purpose of the State Bar shall be to aid the courts in carrying on and improving the ad-ministration of justice; to advance the quality of legal services to the public; to foster and maintain on the part of those engaged in the practice of law high ideals of integrity, learn-ing, competence in public service, and high stan-dards of conduct; to provide proper professional services to the m e m b e r s of the State Bar; to encourage the formation and activities of the local bar association; to provide forums for the discussion of subjects pertaining to the practice of law, the science of j u r i s p r u d e n c e and law reform, and the relationship of the State Bar to the public and to publish information relating thereto; to the end that the public respons-ibilities of the legal profession may be more effectively discharged (Vernon 1979, p. 34).

98

The stated purpose of the State Bar contains several

statements that were of exceptional note to this study.

The analysis of the mission and purpose from a marketing

perspective shows the State Bar to be concerned with more

than a single group. That is, the State Bar demonstrates a

desire to serve the interest of the courts, the public in

general and its own members. The extension of this stated

purpose to the members of the State Bar helped gain insight

into the multiple publics that an attorney interfaces.

Thus, the mission and purpose statement reveals that

attorneys are not just public oriented, they also have a

stated relationship with the courts and other members of

their profession.

Finally, the State Bar's stated mission and purpose

dealt with the administration of justice under the law.

The other activities of the bar and its members are

directly or indirectly aimed at helping to achieve that

purpose. The relationships between and among the various

groups which attorneys interact were important to compre-

hending the nature and scope of the stated mission and

purpose for the State Bar of Texas. Therefore, as the

State Bar is made up of its member attorneys, the mission

and purpose of the Sate Bar revealed insight into the

perspectives of the attorneys themselves.

99

Attoneys in Marketing

The determination of whether practicing law neces-

sarily engages an attorney in the marketing process required

two basic items: first, a standard to determine what con-

stitutes marketing; and second, by determination of the

relationship engaged in by attorneys with clients during

the practice of law. Armed with a standard and the actual

activities a reasonable analysis could be conducted.

The determination of a standard of what constitutes

marketing led to the examination of a definition of

marketing. The definition suggested by Kotler was utilized

in the analysis. Again, Kotler suggests the following

definition of marketing: "Marketing is human activity

directed at satisfying needs and wants through exchange

processes" (Kotler 1980, p. 10). The clarification of the

exchange concept is pertinent to a concise understanding of

the previous. The same author gives the following defini-

tion of an exchange: "Exchange is the act of obtaining a

desired object from someone by offering something in

return" (Kotler, 1980, p. 13). Thus, marketing occurs any

time any exchange occurs. The exchange may be in any form.

For example, the exchange may be in terms of money, time,

performance of service, or a physical product.

The determination of any relationship entered into by

attorneys in the practice of law was also sought. These

100

data were extracted from the Civil Statutes of the State

of Texas, "Title 14, A t t o r n e y s at Law" (Vernons 1979,

p. 169). Several examples of an exchange relationship were

present. Article 304 note 2 of "Title 14, A t t o r n e y s at

Law" read in part, "relation between attorney and client is

highly fiduciary" (Vernons 1979, p. 174). The existance of

this exchange relationship was reinforced in Article 304 ,

Section II, note 81 through note 109. The title of this

subdivision is "Compensation of Attorney" (Vernons 1979,

p. 185). Thus, the normal practice of law apparently would

engage the attorney in a monetary exchange relationship

with a client.

Another type of relationship investigated involved the

attorney and the courts. Article 304 note 27 reads in part

as follows:

An attorney, after being admited to practice, becomes an officer of the court. . . Attorney as an officer of the court owes a duty to the court not to conceal material facts. . . Lawyers are officers of the court and as such have taken an oath calling for highest type of ethical conduct in t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e of d u t y in t r i a l of cases . . . (Vernons 1979, p. 183).

This citation notes the relationship that exists between

the attorney and the courts. The exchange that occurs in

this relationship might be conceptualized of as profes-

sional in nature. That is, the priviledge of practicing

before the court is exchanged for a m e a s u r e of ethical

conduct.

101

This citation also notes that only after being admitted

to practice does the relationship exist. The admission to

practice in Texas makes an individual a member of the State

Bar (Vernons 1977, p. 224). Therefore, a relationship

exists between the attorney and the Bar. This exchange

relationship could be conceptualized as one where the attor-

ney submits himself to the guidelines of the State Bar for

the privilege of practicing law in the state.

A relationship between the attorney and the public at

large was found. Article 320a Section I, note 35 states,

"Practice of law is a profession affected with the public

interest. . ." (Vernons 1979, p. 226). This citation points-

up a relationship between a practicing attorney and the

general public. This exchange might be explained as a

transaction involving the priviledge of practicing law and

the soical benefit and desirability of having individuals

perform such a service.

In summary, the explicit statements from the governing

rules for attorneys in the State of Texas reveals at least

four different exchange relationships. The attorney in the

practice of law is engaged in an exchange process with the

client, the courts, the State Bar, and the general public.

The investigative findings of the actual attorney relation-

ship were coupled with the definition of marketing.

102

The findings with respect to attorney relationships

revealed that attorneys in the routine practice of law are

engaged in multiple exchange relationships. The definition

or standard of what constitutes marketing in essense was

stated as the presence of an exchange process. Therefore,

the analysis led to the finding that attorneys are engaged

in the marketing process.

Marketing Management Philosophy

The Civil Statutes of the State of Texas were used as

a basis for the determination of the third question

suggested by the first study objective. The question ad-

dressed in this section dealt with the attorney's implicit

marketing management philosophy toward the client. "The Code

of Professional Responsibility" and the "Canon of Ethics"

contained within it revealed time and again a focus upon the

public in general, the courts, the Bar, and the client

(Vernons 1979, pp. 268-271).

The "Ethical Consideration 1-1" notes the professional

responsibility of attorneys to provide every member of the

society with access to the services of an attorney (Vernons

1979 , p. 268). Clearly this focuses the attorney upon the

public. "Ethical Consideration 1-2" notes that respons-

ibility of an attorney to maintain high standards and

encourage all lawyers to do the same. This responsibility

to peers is closely aligned with the State Bar since that

organization is an attorney's membership reference group.

10 3

The search and examination of the marketing management

philosophy held toward the client revealed that it is not

held separately from the orientation toward other publics.

That is, the attorney appears to have a multiple orienta-

tion as distinct from a singular focus that is routinely

considered from a markting perspective. The consumer or

client relationship is addressed directly in Canons four

through seven. An inspection of these writings shows the

client to be of considerable importance. This relationship

between attorney and client is also continuously impacted by

the other publics with which the attorney interfaces.

In summary, a definitive identification of a

traditional marketing management philosophy could not be

derived concisely from the legal statutes. The closest

match would be a consumer or client orientation. This

perspective could be supported since the entire legal system

focuses upon justice for the individual. However, in a

traditional marketing sense, a consumer orientation does not

adequately allow for multiple considerations of other highly

pertinent publics.

104

Chapter Bibliography

1. Carlisle, Howard M. (1976), Management Concepts and Situations, Chicago, Illinois, Science Research Associates.

2. K o t l e r , P h i l i p (1980), P r i n c i p l e s of M a r k e t i n g , Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc.

3. Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil S t a t u t e s of the

State of Texas (1979), 1A, St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing.

4. Lerner, Edward E. (1979), Specifications Searches Ad Hoc Inference with N o n e x p e r i m e n t a l Data, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings from the primary

research. The primary data are reported by questionnaire

items with statistical analysis appropriate to the thrust of

this study's objectives. Special attention is devoted to

the analysis of the research hypotheses and their statis-

tical significance. Finally, an evaluation of the compo-

site information drawn from both the secondary and primary

data is presented.

Primary Research Analysis

Introduction

An overview of the data analysis technique is presented

first. This section contains the analysis of the primary

data. The reliability of the instrument with respect to the

attitude statements is discussed next. This discussion is

followed by a presentation of the summary information for

each of the items in the questionnaire. A discussion of

appropriate cross tabulations, analysis of variance, corre-

lations, and discriminant analysis is then p r e s e n t e d .

Following this discussion, an analysis of each research

question and its statistical significance is undertaken.

105

106

Data Analysis

The data from the questionnaire were coded and entered

into a data file. The raw data file was then entered into

the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for

computerized processing. Numerous SPSS subprograms were

used to process the responses to the questionnaires. The

SPSS subprograms that were employed included, Reliability,

Frequencies, Crosstabs, Pearson Product Movement Correla-

tion, Factor, and Discriminant. The data analysis was

conducted on a total of 1,077 cases. It should be noted

that data were missing from some cases. There- fore, some

of the statistical procedures were performed on fewer than

the full 1 ,077 cases.

Statistical Analysis

This section of the chapter reports the findings and

relevant statistics associated with the data analysis. The

reliability of the instrument is discussed first. Following

the reliability discussion, a presentation is made of the

findings for each item on the questionnaire with summary

statistics. Next, pertinent findings of cross tabulations

between variables are presented. The results of the anal-

ysis of variance procedure are presented next. The findings

of Pearson's Product Movement correlations between variables

are then discussed, followed by results of the discriminant

107

analysis. Finally, discussion of sample v a l i d a t i o n is

presented.

Reliability of the I n s t r u m e n t . — T h e reliability of

the instrument focused upon attitudinal statements in sec

tion one of the questionnaire. Statements one through

twelve composed the production, sales, and consumer-oriented

scales. Statements thirteen through twenty-two were com-

bined to form the consumer- or nonconsumer-oriented scale,

A summary of the reliability statistics is presented in

Table I. The statistics presented are Cronbach's Alpha

Coefficient of Reliability, the summated statements group

mean, and the analysis of variance F statistic probability

level.

The analysis of the production statements showed a

reliability measure of .60 with a significant F at the .0001

level. The reliability coefficient for the sales statements

was .73 with a highly significant F statistic of .0001. The

consumer statements had a reliability coefficient of .68 and

a significant F statistic at the .0001 level. These reli-

ability coefficients were somewhat low. However, given the

exploratory nature of the study and that the scales were

developmental, the reliability of the scales were deemed

sufficient.

The reliability of the consumer- versus nonconsumer-

oriented statements was somewhat higher. The reliability

10 8

for this group of statements was .85 with a significant F

statistic at the .0001 level. This reliability coefficient

was acceptable.

Factor analysis was performed on the statements as an

additional check due to the marginal reliability coeffi-

cients of the composite orientation statements of section

one. The method employed was common factor analysis with

varimax rotation. A summary of the factor analysis is

presented in Table II. The factor analysis tended to

support the grouping of the production, sales, and consumer

statements for the composite orientation variables.

Analysis by Questionnaire Item.--The first twelve

items in the questionnaire were used to form the summated

production, sales, and consumer-oriented variables. The

frequencies and means for each statement are presented in

Table III. Several interesting points were drawn from an

evaluation of the statements independently.

The attorneys tended to be split with respect to

clients choosing on the basis of quality (see question

seven) . The summary found 45 percent of the attorneys on

the disagree side. This was interesting given that 89

percent of the attorneys responded on the agree side to

quality being the key to attracting and holding clients

(see question ten).

109

The attorneys agreed with the possible division of

clients based upon needs. Eighty-four percent of the

attorneys responded on the agree side for this statement

(see question three).

The second group of statements in section one comprised

numbers thirteen through twenty-two. These statements

constituted the items used in the summated consumer- versus

nonconsumer-oriented variables. The individual analysis of

these statements presented interesting insights.

Forty-four percent of the attorneys were unable to

distinguish selling from marketing (see question thriteen) .

They encountered less difficulty in distinguishing adver-

tising from marketing (see question fifteen). That is,

the attorneys tended to equate marketing and selling while

tending to distinguish advertising from marketing.

The attorneys demonstrated constrasting views of

marketing and the cultivation of contacts with potential

clients with respect to attorney professionalism. Thirty-

two percent of the attorneys said marketing was inconsistent

with attorney professionalism (see question seventeen).

Yet, 84 percent of the attorneys considered the cultivating

of contacts of potential clients for their future needs as

being consistent with attorney professionalism (see question

twenty-two) . Forty-eight percent of the attorneys agreed

that actively seeking clients with immediate needs was

110

consistent with attorney professionalism (see question

twenty). Clearly, the attorneys did not understand the

components of marketing. Sixty percent of the attorneys

agreed that attorneys needed legal service marketing

education (see question sixteen).

The second section of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e contained

fourteen promotional issues. The frequencies and means for

these issues are presented in Table IV. The attorneys were

asked to respond to these issues with respect to their

professional appropriateness. These issues were used to

calculate the summated promotional issue variable.

The attorneys clearly disapproved of the statements

concerning the quality of service issue (see question four).

Sixty-nine percent of the attorneys stated that it was

inappropriate. This is especially interesting given that

45 percent said that quality was a basis for selecting an

attorney and 89 percent said it was the key to attracting

and holding clients.

The attorneys were about equally divided on the pricing

issues (see questions two and three). The attorneys had a

slightly more favorable response to the fixed fees statement

as compared to pricing of specific services. Thirty-five

percent of the attorneys said specific pricing was appro-

priate while 52 percent said fixed hourly rates were

appropriate.

Ill

The attorneys were about equally divided on the issues

of law schools attended (see question nine) and statements

of past legal experience (see question tweleve). The

attorneys found statements of consumer specific needs

slightly more appropriate than inappropriate, with 43 and 34

percent respectively (see question fourteen). Fifty-two

percent of the attorneys felt statements concerning the

promptness of service were inappro- priate as compared to 29

percent selecting appropriate (see question thirteen).

The attorneys tended to consider as appropriate the

issues of hours of operation (see question one), location of

offices (see question five), statements of certification

(see question six), telephone numbers (see question seven),

and types of cases to handle (see question eight). An inte-

resting comparison can be drawn between the responses to

questions eight and twelve. Seventy-nine percent of the

attorneys said statements concerning the types of cases to

handle are appropriate and 39 percent of the attorneys said

statements concerning past legal experience were appropri-

ate. This seemed somewhat inconsistent. The attorneys said

it was appropriate to present consumers the legal areas in

which they want to conduct practice but thought it inappro-

priate to offer evidence of experience in that area or in

related areas.

Finally, 57 percent of the attorneys selected years of

practice (see question ten) and 53 percent selected profes-

112

sional affiliations (see question eleven) as appropriate

promotional issues. The overall evaluation of the promo-

tional issues again presented several inconsistent responses

by the attorneys with respect to marketing issues.

The third section of the questionnaire presented twelve

media for the attorneys to evaluate with respect to their

professional appropriateness. The frequencies and means for

each of the media are presented in Table V.

Attorneys tend to find as appropriate only two of the

media. Eighty-two percent of the attorneys said the yellow

pages were an appropriate medium (see q u e s t i o n one).

Seventy-two percent said professional and academic journals

were appropriate (see question three). Newspapers were seen

as appropriate by 37 percent of the attorneys (see question

two). These were the only three media that 30 percent or

more of the attorneys said were appropriate.

The attorneys tended to find all the remaining media as

inappropriate. Handbills, transit, and billboards received

the lowest average score ranging from 1.56 to 1.58 on a one

(Low) to five (High) ordinal scale. Clearly, the legal com-

munity has an unfavorable view of these media with respect

to their professional appropriateness.

The fourth section of the questionnaire dealt with

attorney attitudes with respect to the degrees of importance

they attached to serving various publics in the practice of

113

law. Frequencies and means for this section are presented

in Table VI. The analysis of this section revealed the

"client" to be the most important public based upon the mean

assignment of 51.39 points. This point assignment mean was

more than double the second ranking public of the "firm or

private practice" at 19.52 average points. These two groups

were followed by the "courts" with 14.63 average points, the

"general public" with 10.03 average points and the "state

bar" with 6.10 average points.

The fifth section of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e dealt with

business planning aspects of legal practice. The first

question dealt with attorney use of formal written business

plans. Five percent of the attorneys said they used a

formal written business plan. A similar q u e s t i o n was

presented to the attorneys concerning their use of informal

nonwritten business plans. Forty percent of the attorneys

responded "yes" to this question. The summary for formal

and informal business plans questions is presented in Table

VII. These figures tend to be consistent with question

eighteen from section one, which asked if a firm should have

a written business and marketing plan. Twenty percent of

the attorneys said they should.

The remaining questions in section five were directed

only to the attorneys who had responded affirmatively to the

use of a formal written business plan. It should be noted

114

that the response percentages are based on 39 respondents.

The responses to the remaining questions of section five are

presented in Table VIII through Table XII.

Forty-one percent of the responding attorneys said the

written business plan was prepared within the firm by a

committee. Sixty-two percent said an outside consultant or

firm was not used in preparation of the formal written plan.

That is, the plan was prepared internal to the firm. Forty-

four percent of the responding attorneys said that the

written business plan contained a one-year scope. Twenty-

six percent said the plan included a five-year scope and 18

percent had a plan that included a time scope of greater

than five years. These figures are presented in Table X.

The content of the formal written business plan was

investigated. A summary of responses to this question is

presented in Table XI. It was found that 69 percent of the

respondents' plan contained a statement about manpower,

financial, physical facilities, and marketing needs of the

firm. The actual components of the marketing statement were

investigated further and are presented in Table XII. The

specialization of the firm received the highest response

frequency of 82 percent, followed by promotion and price

determination at 77 and 69 percent, respectively.

In summary, the business planning section revealed that

the majority of attorneys use neither formal or informal

115

business plans. Further, the use of an informal plan was

used more extensively in comparison with the scant use of a

formal business plan. Based on the limited number of formal

business plans, the written plans being utilized appeared to

be rather comprehensive, with the time scope extending well

past a single year.

The sixth section of the questionnaire investigated

certain readership information among attorneys. A summated

variable was constructed from the number of newspaper and

periodicals subscribed to for each respondent. The average

number of daily newspapers read was 1 .07, with 57 percent

reading one daily and 32 percent reading two daily news-

papers. It should be noted that these figures excluded

the Wall Street Journal as it was dealt with specifically

in a subsequent question. The summary figures for newspaper

readership are presented in Table XIII.

The attorneys were asked to provide information con-

cerning their subscriptions to particular news and business

reading material. The summary of the responses to this

question is presented in Table XIV. The Wall Street

Journal was most frequently mentioned by 62 percent of the

respondents. Time and Newsweek were next with 45 and 39

percent, respectively. It was interesting to note that some

attorneys did subscribe to the Journal of Marketing and

the Journal of Management even though they constituted

116

less than 1 percent of the respondents. The average

readership for the reading material presented was 2.39

subscriptions per respondent.

The final section of the questionnaire dealt with

several categorical areas. The data from this section pro-

vided a basis for classification of respondents. The cate-

gorical data summaries are presented in Table XV through

Table XXXVII. It should be noted that several of the ques

tions in this section were included at the request of the

State Bar. These questions had no direct bearing on the

study and are only dealt with in summary fashion in the

tables.

The geographic dispersion of the attorneys was examined

by Zip codes. The summary for this information is presented

in Table XV. Seventy-one percent of the attorneys were from

metro areas, with urban and rural attorneys representing 20

and 9 percent, respectively. The median age group range of

the respondents was between thirty-six and forty-five years

old. The age summary is presented in Table XVI. The re

spondents were overwhelmingly white and male at 9 5 percent

and 91 percent, respectively. These figures are presented

in Table XVII and Table XVIII. The median group range for

which the respondents had been admitted to any legal bar was

between ten and fifteen years (see Table XIX).

117

Ninty-seven percent of the attorneys held a law degree

and this information is summarized in Table XX. The legal

education of the attorneys was obtained at various institu-

tions. Thirty-four percent of the attorneys received their

legal education at the University of Texas and the remaining

attorneys were distributed across seven other Texas schools

and out-of-state institutions. These schools are summarized

in Table XXI.

The majority of attorneys considered themselves to be

in at least part-time practice of law. Ninty percent of the

attorneys responded yes to this query. Eighty-three percent

of the attorneys said from 76 to 100 percent of their work

week was in the practice of law. The information for these

two questions is contained in Table XXII and Table XXIII.

Seventy-one percent of the attorneys were either a firm

partner or associate, or a sole p r a c t i t i o n e r as their

primary legal occupation. This information is presented in

Table XIV.

The questionnaire questioned the respondents concerning

the number of hours they practice law per month. The median

category range for both chargeable and nonchargeable hours

per month was 176 to 225. The median category range for

chargeable hours was 121 to 150 hours per month. These

figures are summarized in Table XXV and Table XXVI. Eighty-

two percent of the attorneys derived 80 percent or more of

118

their income from the practice of law. This information is

presented in Table XXVII.

The practicing attorneys responded in m a j o r i t y to

having all or more practice than they could handle. This

information is presented in Table XXVIII. Twenty-three

percent of the attorneys had much more and 29 percent had

slightly more. Twenty-five percent said they had all they

could handle and 23 percent had either slightly or much

less.

The attorneys described their educational background

and it is summarized in Table XXIXf Table XXX, Table XXXI,

and Table XXXII. Ninty-three percent of the attorneys held

an undergraduate degree (and 12 percent held a graduate

degree) other than a juris doctorate. Twenty-nine percent

of the undergraduate degree holders had business degrees and

31 percent of the graduate degrees were in business.

The attorneys provided information concerning their

standard hourly rates and their personal net income from

legal practice. This information is presented in Table

XXXIII and Table XXXIV. The standard hourly rate median

category was $61 to $75. It was interesting to note that 31

percent of the attorneys charged more than $100 per hour and

21 percent charged more than $125 per hour. The personal

net income median category of the respondents was $30,000 to

$39,999.

119

Analysis by cross tabulation.—The data were analyzed

by cross tabulation variables in the questionnaire with

other variables in order to gain further insight to the

topic of study. In order to accomplish the cross tabulation

procedure, variables categories were collapsed to obtain

meaningful results from the chi-square statistic. This

statistic was inspected at the .01 level for significance.

The two summated variables from section one were crossed

with the summated promotional appeals variable, summated

media variable, summated readership variable and selected

items in the categorical section.

The three summated variables from the first part of

section I were used to classify the respondent as having a

production, sales, or consumer orientation. These orienta-

tions were combined as value categories of a single variable

for each respondent and cross tabulated with the variable

mentioned previously. The cross tabulation analysis for

this section revealed six variables to be significant with a

chi-square statistic at the .01 level.

The summated promotional appeals variable was signifi-

cantly different when cross tabulated with the composite

orientation variables (see Table XXXIX). The composite

orientation variables were significantly different when

cross tabulated with the number of points assigned to "the

general public" variables (see Table XXXIX). It should be

120

noted that a substantial disparity existed between the size

of the groups, with the consumer-oriented group comprising

nearly 79 percent of the 857 attorneys that were classified.

The cross tabulation revealed a significant difference

between the composite orientation variable and the "use of a

formal written business plan" variable. The analysis showed

forty-two respondents answering "yes" and 76 percent of

those being classified as consumer-oriented (see Table XL).

The final cross tabulations that had a significant chi-

square were found among the composite orientations and the

individual summated p r o d u c t i o n - , sale-, and consumer-

oriented variables. Each of these three cross tabulations

were significant which tended to support the division of the

composite orientation variable (see Table XLI, Table XLII,

and Table XLIII).

Several significant chi-squares were also found when

variables were cross tabulated with the consumer-oriented

variable from the second part of section I. The consumer-

oriented variable was divided into consumer-versus non-

consumer-oriented respondents. Based upon this analysis,

six significant differences were found.

The cross tabulation of the consumer-oriented variable

with the number of points assigned to "the client" revealed

a significant difference between groups (see Table XLIV) .

A significant difference was also found between the con-

121

sumer-oriented variable and the "use of the formal written

business plan" variable (see Table LXV), and the "use of

the informational nonwritten business plan" variable (see

Table LXVI). It was interesting to note that more than 64

percent of the respondents were classified as consumer-

oriented. Sixty-nine percent of those who answered "yes" to

the use of an informal business plan were designated as

consumer-oriented•

Three of the summated variables were also found to be

significant when cross tabulated with the consumer-oriented

variable. The summated promotional appeals variable, sum-

mated media variable, and the summated readership variable

were all significantly different. It was important to note

that the consumer-oriented variable revealed differences on

each of the summated variables. The implications of these

differences are discussed later with respect to the research

hypotheses.

in summary, several significant chi-squares were found

at the .01 level from the cross tabulation analysis. The

composite orientation variables (from section I, part I)

revealed significant differences for the summated, promo-

tional appeals score, the points assigned to "the general

public", the use of a formal written business plan, and the

summated variables for the production, sales, and cosumer

scores. The consumer-oriented variable was significant when

122

cross tabulated with the number of points assigned to "the

clients", the use of a formal written business plan, the use

of an informal business plan, the summated p r o m o t i o n a l

appeals score, the summated media score, and the summated

readership score.

Analysis by correlation.—Analysis was conducted by

use of Pearson's Product Moment correlations. The analysis

was conducted using the consumer-oriented variable with the

promotional issues, the media issues, the use of formal and

informal business plans, and the number of points assigned

to each of the five publics. Further analysis was conducted

with the categorical data of section seven.

Correlation analysis of the consumer-oriented variable

with each of the promotional issues revealed interesting

results. All of the correlations were significant at the

.01 level. The correlation coefficients were all relatively

small, the largest being .25. This was interpreted as some

relationship existing between the consumer-oriented variable

and each of the promotional appeals that was not zero (see

Table L).

The results of the correlation analysis between the

consumer- oriented variable and each of the media were

essentially the same as with the promotional issues. Each

of the correlations was significant but with relatively low

coefficients. The highest coefficient for any of the media

123

was .27. This was interpreted as some relationship existing

betwen the consumer-oriented variable and each of the media

that was not equal to zero (see Table LI).

The correlation coefficients for the business planning

questions were both significant. The use of a formal

written business plan had a .14 correlation coefficient and

the informal plan had a correlation coefficient of .16. The

relatively low coefficients indicated some relationship

existing between the variables that was not equal to zero

(see Table LII).

The correlation analysis for the c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

variable w i t h e a c h o£ the five p u b l i c s of s e c t i o n IV

revealed only one significant result. The client group was

signficant with a correlation coefficient o£ -.08. This was

interpreted as some r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n the

consumer-oriented variable and the client group scores that

was not equal to zero (see Table LIII).

The correlation analysis of the consumer-oriented vari-

able with the various questions in the categorical data sec-

tion of the questionnaire revealed no significant relation-

ships at the .01 level. The significance level of .01 was

adhered to because of the substantial size of the sample.

in summary, the correlation analysis did not provide

substantial insight into the relationship between the vari-

ables that were appraised. Although significant coeffi-

124

icients were found, the coefficients were consistently

small. This indicated that none of the variables tested had

significantly high correlation with the consumer-oriented

variable.

Analysis bv one-wav analysis of variance.—The next

step in the analytical procedure was investigation by the

use of one- way analysis of variance. The analysis was

first used to study the relationship between consumer-

oriented versus nonconsumer-oriented attorneys and the

promotional issues of section two. The consumer-oriented

variable from the second group of statements in section one

was used to divide the respondents into the consumer- or

nonconsumer-oriented groups.

The one-way analysis of variance for the consumer-

oriented variable with the promotional issues showed all the

promotional issues to be significant at the .01 level. That

is, the mean responses to each of the promotional issues

when analyzed by consumer- versus nonconsumer-orlentation

was significantly different (see Table LIV). It was also

important to note that the mean scores for the consumer-

oriented group were consistently higher than the non

consumer-oriented group. Therefore, the attorneys classi-

fied as having a consumer orientation rated each of the

promotional issues relatively more appropriate than

nonconsumer-oriented attorneys. The summated promotional

125

score variable also showed the consumer-oriented attorneys

with a significantly higher mean than nonconsumer-oriented

attorneys.

The one-way analysis of variance between the consumer-

oriented variable and the media issues revealed similar

results to the promotional issues. All of the media issues

were significant at the .01 level, with consumer-oriented

groups displaying a consistently higher mean than the

nonconsumer-oriented group (see Table LV) . The summated

media score variable was significant at the .01 level.

Again, the consumer- oriented group displayed a higher mean

for the summated score than the nonconsumer-oriented group.

Therefore, the consumer- oriented group consistently rated

the various media as being relatively more appropriate than

the nonconsumer-oriented group.

One-way analysis of variance was conducted on the five

groups presented in section four of the questionnaire. The

respondents were asked to assign 100 points across the five

groups to reflect the degree of importance to which they

attached serving the interest or welfare of the groups in

their practice of law. The analysis showed only the client

group to have significantly different means between the

consumer-oriented and nonconsumer-oriented groups (see Table

LV). Surprisingly the nonconsumer-oriented group's mean was

56.5 and the consumer- oriented group's mean was 50.6. The

126

difference seemed to be explained in the consumer-oriented

group's greater degree of importance attached to the firm or

private practice. The difference between the group means

for this public was significant at the .04 level. The

consumer-oriented g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s 1 9 . 0 2 and the

nonconsumer-oriented group's mean was 15.6.

The fact that both groups' means were greater than 50

percent of the allocated percentage points indicates the

client group's importance in the practice of law. The fact

that the client group's points' mean was only slightly

greater than 50 percent of the points indicates the

attorneys' recognition of other publics as also dramatically

impacting their practice. That is, the practice of law

involves more than a single myopic orientation toward the

client. Conceptually, the aggregate weight of the other

four groups presented was only slightly less than the client

weight. This should indicate to marketers the need to

understand all orientations that dramatically impact the

practice of law.

The one-way analysis of variance was used to analyze

the business planning section. A significant difference

between consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented attorneys was

found with respect to the use of a formal written business

plan. The analysis was significant at the .01 level (see

Table LVI). This was to be expected as the fifty-one attor

127

neys who responded yes to the use of the formal written

business plan were classified as having consumer

orientation.

The summated readership variable from section six was

used in a one-way analysis of variance with the consumer-

oriented variable. The analysis showed a significance level

of .07 and was therefore rejected. That is, the means of

the consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented groups with respect

to readership were not significantly different at the .01

level.

The consumer-oriented variable was used in one-way

analysis of variance with the volume of practice variable

from section seven. The analysis showed no significant

difference between the consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented

group means•

in summary, the analysis of variance conducted with the

consumer-oriented variable showed significant results with

several variables. Each of the media and promotional issues

from section two and three was found to be significantly

different. Only the client group in section four was found

to have significantly different means for the two groups.

In section five, the use of a formal written business plan

was significant because all attorneys who used a written

business plan were classified as consumer-oriented.

128

One-way analysis of variance was also run using the

composite orientation variable with several variables from

section two through seven. The composite orientation

variable divided attorneys into production-, sales-, and

consumer-oriented groups.

The first analysis was conducted between the composite

orientation variable and the promotional issues of section

two. Eight of the promotional issues were found to be

significantly different as was the summated promotional

score variable (see Table LVII). The direction of diffe-

rence was revealed by the Duncan Test at the .05 level.

Seven of the nine promotional issues showed consistency

in the ascending order of the means. That is, the means

consistency ranked from production, to consumer, to sales.

This was interpreted as being consistent with the orienta-

tion philosophy of the three groups. Attorneys with sale-

orientations would be expected to generally have higher

scores (most appropriate) on the promotional issues and on

their summated scores across all the issues. Production-

oriented attorneys would be expected to have the lowest

scores (least appropriate) on the issues.

The consumer groups had the highest mean on two issues:

"statements of certification" and "professional afflia-

tions." in these two instances the production group had the

lowest mean followed by the sales and consumer groups. In

129

both cases, the production and sales means were not signi-

ficantly different. The same was true for the sales and

consumer means for both issues. However, the production

and consumer means were significantly different as measured

by the Duncan Test.

The composite o r i e n t a t i o n v a r i a b l e was used in a

one-way analysis of variance with each of the media from

section three and the summated media score (see Table LVII).

Four of the twelve media revealed significant differences

among the production-, sales-, and consumer-oriented groups.

The summated media score was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

different among the three groups.

Three of the four significant media issues showed the

production mean to be significantly lower than the consumer

and sales means. The means ranked from p r o d u c t i o n to

consumer to sales. These followed the dominate pattern

revealed in the promotional issues. The same was true for

the summated media score. The production mean was signi-

ficantly lower than the consumer and sales means and the

consumer and sales means were not significantly different.

The "professional/academic journals" media was found to

have significantly different means. That is, the production

and sales means were not significantly different from each

other, and sales and consumer means were not significantly

different from each other. However, the product groups mean

130

was

mean.

found to be significantly different from the consume!

The one-way analysis of variance conducted with the

composite orientation variable and each of the groups in

section four revealed no significant differences at the .01

level. The same was true for both the use of formal written

and informal nonwritten business plans from section five.

No significant differences were found among the groups with

respect to the summated readership score from section six.

No significant differences were found in any of the

categorical variables from section seven analyzed with the

composite variable.

in summary, the one-way analysis of variance using the

composite orientation variable as the independent variable

with the various dependent variables revealed several

significant differences. Eight of the fourteen promotional

issues and the summated promotional issue score were found

to have significantly different means between or among the

groups. Four of the twelve media issues means were signi-

cantly different, as was the summated media score. The

dominate pattern among the significant issues from the

promotional and media sections, showed the sale- oriented

mean to be highest followed by consumer-oriented and

production-oriented with the lowest mean. Further, the

production group mean was significantly different from the

131

consumer and sales means, and the latter two groups were not

significantly different. The analysis showed distinguish-

able differences among the promotional and media issues when

analyzed by the production-, sales-, and consumer-oriented

groups of attorneys.

Analysis by discriminant p r o c e d u r e . - - T h e m u l t i p l e

discriminant procedure was employed in an attempt to

identify variables that would permit classification of the

attorneys into one of the three marketing o r i e n t a t i o n

groups. The three orientaton groups were production, sales,

and consumer. The procedure used different p r e d i c t o r

variables.

The overall results of the discriminant procedure were

not favorable. A dramatic imbalance existed among the

number of attorneys classified into each of the groups. The

sales-oriented group was the smallest with 57 attorneys in

the group (see Table LIX). It was necessary to balance

the number of respondents in each group used in the discrim-

inant analysis. Therefore, all the sales respondents were

included with a sample of sixty respondents each drawn from

the p r o d u c t i o n and consumer oriented g r o u p s . T h e s e

restrictions meant that approximately 180 respondents in

total would be used in the discriminant analysis.

The 180 respondents in the analysis were divided into

roughly equal groups by the discriminant program. This

132

procedure was followed to hold out a validation sample for

the derived discriminant functions. Therefore, ninty cases

were used in the analysis sample.

The discriminant analysis found three of the eighteen

predictor variables to be significant. The three variables

were as follows.

1. Use of the formal written business plan.

2. Number of chargeable hours per month.

3. Use of the informal nonwritten business plan.

These three predictor variables were used to derive the

two canonical discriminant functions (see Table LX).

The Wilk's Lambda shows only a small amount of discri-

minatory power existed in the variables used even though it

is statistically significant. The sum of the eigenvalues

can be interpreted as a measure of the total variance

existing in the discriminating functions. Hence, 20 percent

of the variance is explained in total by both the functions.

The presence of a poor model was borne out in the

classification stage of the analysis. The model was able

to classify correctly 49.41 percent of the cases that were

used to derive the functions. The model was able to class-

ify correctly 33.33 percent of the cases not in the valida-

tion sample (see Table LXI and Table LXII), that is, the

model predicted correctly the cases not used to derive the

model with the same probability as random chance for three

equal groups.

133

In summary, the discriminant analysis did not provide a

model with which to profile group membership. The variables

introduced as predictor variables had relatively little

predictive power statistically. The statistics from the

derivation stage of the analysis were reinforced by the low

hit ratio in the classification stage. The classification

percentage was equal to random chance. T h e r e f o r e , no

attempt was made to interpret the discriminant weight or

loading to derive a profile of group membership.

Sample Validation

The results of the categorical data from the study was

compared with the results of a State Bar of Texas Study

conducted in January of 1981. The current study was mailed

in July 1981. Ten different categorical questions were

inspected to check for similarities and differences between

the two responding groups.

Both samples were drawn from the State Bar membership

rolls by use of systematic random sampling. D i f f e r e n t

starting points were used to avoid duplication of respon

dents. The January 1981 study received 2065 usable respon-

ses from a 10 percent mailing to the total Bar membership.

This yielded a 50 percent response rate. The current study

received 1077 usable responses for a 30 percent response

rate from a mailing to 10 percent of the Bar membership.

134

A cross tabulation analysis was used to inspect for

differences or similarities in the responding groups (see

Tables LXIII through LXXIII). A chi-square test of signi-

ficance was calculated on each of the ten categorical

variables included in both studies. Six of the ten

categorical variables were significant at the .01 level.

That is, the test indicated the two samples' respondents

were different with respect to that variable.

The ZIP code, age, practice of law on at least part-

time basis, number of chargeable hours per month, percentage

of income from legal profession, and hourly rate variables

were all found to be significantly different. It should be

noted that all of the significantly different variables

could be considered ordinal except for the ZIP code

variable. The five ordinal variables all had median values

in the same categorical group for both samples.

The sex, ethnic, years admitted to any bar, number of

chargeable and non-chargeable hours, and personal net income

variables were not significantly different at the .01 level.

These variables indicated the two samples tended to be

similar.

Data from the two studies were judged overall to be

highly similar to each other. The variables that displayed

significant differences showed consistent median groups with

only small differences in categorical percentages. Stat is-

135

tically, the fact that both samples contain extremely large

sample sizes results in small percentage changes in cells

reflecting large absolute frequency changes in each cell.

Therefore, due to the extremely large sample size the test

may be overly sensitive to even the . 0 1 level. This

occurence was documented in the statistical literature as

Lindley's Paradox ( 4 , p. 1 7 6 ) .

Analysis of the Research Hypotheses

The discussion presented in this section analyzed the

results of the primary data with respect to each of the

research hypotheses. The research hypothesis was stated

first followed by a statement of acceptance or rejection.

The primary data were examined for statistically significant

differences. The acceptance or rejection of the research

question was based on the statistical examination.

A n a l y s i s of R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s I. T h e f i r s t

research hypothesis states, "There are no attitudinal

differences between attorneys demonstrating a consumer

orientation on the basis of holding a business degree.

R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s I w a s r e j e c t e d . T h e r e a r e

attitudinal differences between consumer-oriented attorneys

with business degrees and c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d attorneys

without business degrees. The results of one-way analysis

of variance showed consumer-oriented attorneys with business

degrees to be significantly different from consumer-oriented

136

a t t o r n e y s w i t h o u t b u s i n e s s d e g r e e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

p r o f e s s i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of t r a d e a s s o c i a t i o n m a g a z i n e s

( s ee Table LXXIV). The d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e

.01 l e v e l . At t h e . 05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e n e w s p a p e r s ,

t e l e v i s i o n , and r a d i o a l l r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t

means f o r t h e two g r o u p s . In a l l f o u r i n s t a n c e s , a t t o r n e y s

w i t h o u t b u s i n e s s d e g r e e s f o u n d t h e media t o be r e l a t i v e l y

more a p p r o p r i a t e t h a n d i d t h e a t t o r n e y s w i t h b u s i n e s s

d e g r e e s .

A n a l y s i s of R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s I I . - - T h e s e c o n d

r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s t a t e s , " T h e r e a r e no a t t i t u d i n a l

d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n a t t o r n e y s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a c o n s u m e r

o r i e n t a t i o n v e r s u s a nonconsumer o r i e n t a t i o n on t h e b a s i s of

m e s s a g e c o n t e n t a p p r o v a l . " R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s I I was

r e j e c t e d . The a n a l y s i s of each of t he f o u r t e e n p r o m o t i o n a l

i s s u e s i s p r e s e n t e d below ( see Table LIV).

1. H o u r s o f O p e r a t i o n . - - T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - and n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of " h o u r s of o p e r a t i o n . " The

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y ' s m e a n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r .

2 . P r i c i n g o f S p e c i f i c S e r v i c e s . - - T h e r e w a s a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - and n o n c o n s u m e r -

o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of " p r i c i n g of s p e c i f i c

s e r v i c e s . " The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

137

3 . F l a t H o u r l y R a t e s . — T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s o f " f l a t h o u r l y r a t e . T h e

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

4 . S t a t e m e n t s C o n c e r n i n g Q u a l i t y o f S e r v i c e . T h e r e

w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d

n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s w i t h r e s p e c t t o s t a t e m e n t s

c o n c e r n i n g " q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e . " The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

g r o u p mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

5 . L o c a t i o n of O f f i c e ( s ) . - - T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of " l o c a t i o n of o f f i c e ( s ) . " T h e

consumer—orien ted g r o u p mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

6 . S t a t e m e n t o f C e r t i f i c a t i o n i n S p e c i a l i z a t i o n

A r e a s . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n -

sumer- and n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of

" s t a t e m e n t s of c e r t i f i c a t i o n in s p e c i a l i z a t i o n a r e a s . " The

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

7 . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r ( s ) . — T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s o f " t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r ( s ) . " T h e

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

8 . T y p e s of C a s e s You Want To H a n d l e . — T h e r e was a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e be tween consumer - and nonconconsumer -

o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of " t y p e of c a s e you want t o

138

h a n d l e . " The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r .

9 . Law S c h o o l s A t t e n d e d . — T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s o f " l a w s c h o o l s a t t e n d e d . T h e

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r .

10 . Y e a r s o f P r a c t i c e . - - T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t

f b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r — a n d n o n c o n s u m e r — o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s o n t h e b a s i s o f " y e a r s i n p r a c t i c e . T h e

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r .

11 . P r o f e s s i o n a l A f f i l i a t i o n s . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of " p r o f e s s i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s . The

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

1 2 . S t a t e m e n t s of P a s t L e g a l E x p e r i e n c e . — T h e r e w a s a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n consumer— and n o n c o n s u m e r —

o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s of " s t a t e m e n t o f p a s t l e g a l

e x p e r i e n c e . " T h e c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

13 . S t a t e m e n t s C o n c e r n i n g P r o m p t n e s s of S e r v i c e . — T h e r e

w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - a n d

n o n c o n s u m e r o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s on t h e b a s i s o f " s t a t e m e n t s

c o n c e r n i n g p r o m p t n e s s o f s e r v i c e . " The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

g r o u p ' s mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

139

14. Statements of Consumer Needs for Specific Legal

Services.—There was a significant difference between

consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented attorneys on the basis of

"statements of consumer needs for specific legal services."

The consumer- oriented group's mean was significantly

higher.

The summated score for the promotional issues was

inspected for significant difference between the consumer-

and nonconsumer- oriented attorneys. There was a

significant difference between consumer- and nonconsumer-

oriented attorneys on the basis of their summated scores for

the appeals. The consumer-oriented group's mean again was

significantly higher.

In summary, all fourteen promotional issues presented

had mean responses that were significantly different between

consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented attorneys. The summated

score for the promotional issues was significantly different

between the two groups. In each case, the consumer-oriented

group's mean was significantly higher. Research Hypothesis

II was rejected.

Analysis of Research Hypothesis III.--The third

research hypothesis states, "There are no attitudinal

differences between attorneys demonstrating a consumer

orientation versus a nonconsumer orientation on the basis of

media approval." Research Hypothesis III was rejected. The

140

i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s of t h e t w e l v e media w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

consumer - v e r s u s n o n c o n s u m e r — o r i e n t e d a t t o r n e y s i s

p r e s e n t e d n e x t ( s e e T a b l e LIV) .

1 . Ye l low P a g e s . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

be tween t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

2 . N e w s p a p e r . — T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

be tween t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

3 . P r o f e s s i o n a l / A c a d e m i c J o u r n a l . - - T h e r e w a s a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s . T h e

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r .

4 . P o p u l a r / N e w s M a g a z i n e s . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

g r o u p ' s mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

5 . T e l e v i s i o n . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

be tween t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

6 . R a d i o . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n

t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean w a s

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

7 . B i l l b o a r d . — T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

be tween t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

141

8 . D i r e c t M a i l . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between the two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

9 . H a n d b i l l s . — T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s means

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

10. T r a n s i t . — T h e r e w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

11. C i r c u l a r s / S h o p p i n g Gu ides .—There was a s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

g r o u p ' s mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

12. T r a d e / A s s o c i a t i o n M a g a z i n e s . - - T h e r e w a s a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s . T h e

c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s m e a n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r .

The summated v a r i a b l e f o r t h e med ia was i n s p e c t e d f o r

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t means b e t w e e n t h e c o n s u m e r - and

nonconsumer -o r i en t ed a t t o r n e y g r o u p s . T h e r e w a s a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in t h e summated s c o r e mean b e t w e e n

t h e two g r o u p s . The c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d g r o u p ' s mean was

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r .

I n s u m m a r y , a l l o f t h e t w e l v e m e d i a i s s u e s w e r e

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n t e r m s of mean s c o r e s when

c o m p a r e d b e t w e e n c o n s u m e r - and n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

142

attorneys. The summated score variable for the media was

also significantly different between the groups. In each

case, the consumer-oriented group's mean was significantly

higher.

A n a l y s i s of Research H y p o t h e s i s IV.--The f o u r t h

research hypothesis states that "There are no attitudinal

differences between attorneys demonstrating a consumer- or

nonconsumer- orientation with respect to the use of a formal

written plan." Research Hypothesis IV was rejected. The

analsyis of consumer- versus nonconsumer-oriented attorneys

on the basis of use of a formal written business plan showed

a significant difference at the .01 level (see Table LV).

All attorneys who utilized a formal written business plan

were classified as having a consumer orientation.

A n a l y s i s of R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s V . - - T h e f i f t h

research hypothesis states, "There are no attitudinal

differences between attorneys demonstrating a consumer

orientation versus a nonconsumer orientation with respect to

the use of an informal nonwritten business plan." Research

Hypothesis V was accepted. There was not a significant

difference between consumer- and n o n c o n s u m e r - o r i e n t e d

attorneys on the basis of use of an informal business plan.

A n a l y s i s of Research H y p o t h e s i s V I . — T h e s i x t h

research hypothesis states, "There are no attitudinal

differences between attorneys demonstrating a consumer and

143

nonconsumer orientation with respect to the degree of

importance assigned to each of the following.

a. The Courts

b. The Client

c. The General Public

d. The State Bar

e. The Firm or Private Practice

Each of the five groups was analyzed for s t a t i s t i c a l l y

significant d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the c o n s u m e r - and

nonconsumer-oriented groups' means. Research Hypothesis VI

was accepted with respect to the courts, general public,

State Bar and the firm or private practice groups. Research

Hypothesis VI was rejected with respect to the client group

(see Table LV).

The client group was also analyzed by recoding their

responses into one of the three following groups.

1. The client group received more p o i n t s than any

other single group.

2. The client group received the greatest number of

points assigned but the points were equal to the number

assigned to one or more other groups.

3. The client group was assigned points less than the

number assigned to one or more other groups.

The tabulation analysis of these response groups with the two

attorney groups showed no significant difference (see Table

LXV) .

144

In summary, Research Hypothesis VI was rejected with

respect to the client group and accepted with respect to the

court, general publics, State Bar, and firm or private

practice groups. Therefore, of the five groups studied in

this section, the only significant difference found in group

means between the consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented

attorney groups related to the client group.

Analysis of Research Hypothesis VII.--The seventh

research hypothesis states, "There are no differences

between attorneys demonstrating a consumer versus

nonconsumer orientation with respect to the number of

periodicals and newspapers to which they subscribe." There

was not significant difference between the groups on the

basis of the number of periodicals and newspapers read.

Research Hypothesis VII was accepted.

Analysis of Research Hypothesis VIII.--The eighth

research hypothesis states, "There are no differences

between attorneys demonstrating a consumer orientation

versus a nonconsumer orientation with respect to the volume

of practice handled." There was no significant difference

between the two groups on the basis of the volume of

practice handled. The cross tabulation analysis produced an

insignificant chi square. Research Hypothesis VIII was

accepted.

145

Analysis of Research Hypothesis I X . — T h e ninth

research hypothesis states, "There are no differences among

attorneys' marketing management philosophies that would

permit classification of attorneys into production sales

or consumer orientation." Research Hypothesis IX was

rejected. The one-way analysis of variance conducted with

the composite orientation variables and the first twelve

statements from section one showed significant differences.

All twelve statements were significant at the .0001 level.

Eleven of the twelve statements revealed the intended group

mean to be higher than the remaining two groups. The first

statement, intended to be a production-oriented statement,

revealed that the sales group mean was higher, but not

significantly higher than the production group mean (see

Table LXVI).

Based upon the one-way analysis of variance, it was

determined that attorney groups could be distinguished

according to implicit marketing management orientation.

Unfortunately, the discriminant was unable to provide a

significant model by which to classify attorneys into the

three orientation groups (see Table LXI and Table LXII).

In summary, the nine research hypotheses were evaluated

in light of the primary research findings to determine their

acceptance or rejection. The first four research hypotheses

and Research Hypothesis IX were rejected. Research

146

Hypothesis V, VII, and VIII were a c c e p t e d . R e s e a r c h

Hypothesis VI was rejected with respect to client group and

accepted with respect to the courts, general public, State

Bar, and the firm or private practice group.

Overview of the Research Analysis

The information that was obtained from both the

secondary and the primary research was pertinent to the

overall investigation of this study. In order to gain

further insight into the topic under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , an

analysis of the composite results from both the secondary

and the primary research was undertaken.

The secondary analysis clearly pointed to the fact that

the practice of law engages attorneys in the marketing

function. The attorneys were shown to be involved in the

exchange process. In comparison, the results of the primary

research showed the attorneys to be somewhat unsure of what

constitutes marketing. Specifically, a majority of the

attorneys were either neutral about or agreed that marketing

meant selling. Slightly fewer than one-third of the

attorneys considered marketing as inconsistent with attorney

professionalism and a clear majority said cultivating and

seeking clients is consistent. The a t torneys did not

recognize these activities which are marketing activities,

as personal selling and prospecting.

147

The implication of this analysis points up the need to

educate attorneys regarding marketing. Specifically, the

attorney could benefit from education on legal service

marketing. Emphasis should be placed on attorney education

before an attempt to apply marketing techniques to their

profession. More than half the a t torneys agreed that

attorneys should educate themselves about legal service

marketing. The implication for marketers is that at least a

partially willing consumer for marketing services education

is waiting. The legal profession in Texas, at least in

part, is willing to take a cautious look at what marketing

has to offer the profession. To date, it appears that

marketers have attempted to stimulate selective demand for

specific marketing techniques without first establishing

primary demand for the overall product.

Marketers constantly suggest the need to analyze the

environment in which an organization operates. Marketers

have not sufficiently analyzed the legal marketplace for

effective marketing techniques to be marketed to the legal

community. The secondary research analysis suggested that

the attorney is faced with multiple groups that command

c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n . The attorney is faced w i t h

servicing the interest of the client, the courts, the Bar,

the general public, and his own practice. The majority of

studies in the marketing literature showed the focus to be

148

upon the consumer. Little consideration has been devoted by

marketers to appraising the impact of the other groups upon

the attorneys practice.

The primary research substantiated the consumer or

clients place of importance in the p r a c t i c e of l a w .

However, by comparison, the other four groups in aggregate

account for 49 percent of the attorney's interest. This

suggests that the combined interest of the other groups may

be equal to the weight of the client's interest in a given

situation.

An analysis of the relative interests of the various

groups presented other significant implications. It was

important to note that each of the other four groups act in

effect as both an interviewing and moderating filter. That

is, the courts may impose guidelines as to acceptable media

for an attorney to use in communicating with potential

clients. If the client or consumer has indicated a desire

to have information on the radio or television and the

courts have not allowed these media, then the court has

intervened. That is, the court has filtered the attorneys'

client orientation by imposing a standard not commensurate

with the client's desire. The State Bar might serve as a

moderating filter with respect to the image produced through

promotion by an attorney. The attorney might desire to

communicate aggressively with potential clients but uses

149

a less aggressive appeal in order to avoid direct confron-

tation with attorney peers and the State Bar. Potentially,

each of the groups could have both filtering effects in

various situations.

Another view suggested by the information from the

question concerning the degree of importance attached to

serving the interest of the various groups dealt with

potential conflict (see Table VI). Given that the attorneys

are primarily concerned with the interests of the client,

the point distribution for the remaining four groups may be

an indicator of the degree of conflict realized between

serving the interest of the consumer and the other groups.

This interpretation would reveal the interest of the firm to

be most often in conflict with those of the client and the

State Bar's interest would conflict the least with those of

the client.

The primary research revealed that the attorneys could

be identified as having distinguishable marketing management

philosphies. The attitude statements showed significant

differences among the production-, sales-, and consumer-

oriented attorneys. Yet, the discriminant analysis was

unable to produce a model that would permit classification

of the attorneys into the three orientations on the basis of

the various variables contained in the questionnaire. In

keeping with the previous analysis, the attorneys marketing

150

management philosophies may be tempered dramatically by the

impact of the other relevant groups. The overall analysis

may suggest that the other groups moderate and intervene in

filtering business decisions to such an extent that the end

result is m a r g i n a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s in

practices by the attorney of all groups. This might explain

the inability to describe or profile differences in the

attorney holding various orientations.

Possibly the most important implication for marketers

revealed in the overall analysis of the research concerned

attorney orientations. Clearly, it is not enough to know

the attorneys' marketing m a n a g e m e n t o r i e n t a t i o n . An

appraisal of the total macro orientation towards the various

relevant groups must be undertaken before an adequate

understanding of the attorneys and their environment can be

comprehended. A r m e d w i t h the i n s i g h t of t h e m a c r o

orientation, then appraisal of a p p r o p r i a t e marketing

techniques for legal service marketing can be made. The

macro orientation toward the client, firm, courts, State

Bar, and general public is critical to an understanding of

legal service marketing.

151

Chapter Bibliography

1. C a r l i s l e , Howard M. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , Management C o n c e p t s a n d Situations, Chicago, Illinois, Science Research Associates.

2 . K o t l e r , P h i l i p ( 1 9 8 0 ) , P r i n c i p l e s o f M a r k e t i n g , Engelwood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e H a l l I n c .

3 . V e r n o n ' s Anno ta t ed Rev ised C i v i l S t a t u t e s o f t h e S t a t e of Texas ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1A, St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing.

4 . L e r n e r , Edward E. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , S p e c i f i c a t i o n S e a r c h e s Ad Hoc I n f e r e n c e w i t h N o n e x p e r i m e n t a l D a t a , New Y o r k , John Wiley and Sons I n c .

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study sought to explore attorney attitudes toward

legal service marketing in the State of Texas. Items of

specific interest were the marketing management philosophies

of attorneys, attitudes toward various promotional and media

issues and attitudes toward serving the interest of various

groups in the practice of law.

An overview of the legal service marketplace and its

nature were presented as background material. The legal

environment perspective and the marketing perspective were

both given attention. The legal environment was investi-

gated to reveal traditional views of marketing held by the

legal profession. This was done by inspection of the legal

literature and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Special emphasis was placed on the investigation of the

Bates Decision and its impact on the legal profession. The

results of the Bates Decision in terms of changes in the

marketplace were reviewed. Relevant activities of the State

Bar and the courts since the Bates Decision were presented.

The review of pertinent marketing literature presented

perspectives on the scope of marketing, marketing management,

152

15 3

service marketing, and the marketing of professional ser-

vices. A review of legal service marketing in marketing

and business literature was presented. The conclusion from

the literature review of both the legal and m a r k e t i n g

perspective was that both needed a broader perspective of

the legal service marketing issue and a greater understand-

ing of the other's perspective.

The research undertaken collected data from both

primary and secondary data sources. The secondary research

focused primarily upon the Civil Statutes of the State of

Texas and "Title 14 Attorneys at Law" in particular. The

secondary research first sought to expose the stated mission

and purpose of the State Bar of Texas. Next a determination

was made as to whether attorneys are engaged in the market-

ing process. Finally, an attempt was made to identify

attorney's implicit marketing management philosophy with

respect to clients suggested in the legal literature.

The primary research procedure was undertaken next. A

brief discourse on attitude and fact measurement was pre-

sented. The review of this material was pertinent to the

development of the survey instrument.

A questionnaire was constructed by the researcher. It

was submitted to a pilot sample of attorneys and revised.

The final questionnaire was then submitted to 3,577 members

of the State Bar of Texas. The study p o p u l a t i o n was

154

liscensed attorneys in the state of Texas. The study sample

was selected from the State Bar membership roles. A

systematic random sampling procedure was utilized to select

a sample of 10 percent of the population.

The State Bar of Texas was a participant in the study.

The questionnaire was mailed to the attorneys as an inquiry

of the Bar. A total of 1,091 questionnaires were returned;

1 ,077 were useable. This yielded a response rate of 30.1

percent of the total mailing.

The primary data were coded and processed in a computer

file. The statistical analysis was conducted utilizing the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version H.

The statistical analysis included frequencies, one-way

analysis of variance, cross tabulations, and discriminant

analysis.

The analysis of the research findings was presented

next. The results of the secondary research were reported

first. The analysis showed the practice of law does engage

an attorney in the marketing process. The investigation of

the mission and purpose of the State Bar revealed multiple

groups to be of importance to the State Bar and therefore to

attorneys. The analysis showed the Bar to be concerned with

serving the interests of the client, the courts, the general

public, and members of the Bar, and thus the practice of law

in general. The inspection of the legal statutes for the

implicit marketing management orientation found that the

155

closest match was that of a consumer orientation. However,

it was noted that the traditional marketing consumer

orientation did not adequately allow for the substantive

impacts of other highly relevant groups whose needs were of

importance in the practice of law.

The report of the primary research finding was

presented next. The reliability of the questionnaire with

respect to the attitudinal measures was shown to be

adequate. This was demonstrated through the use of

Cochran's Alpha Test of Reliabilty and factor analysis.

Frequency responses for each item on the questionnaire

were presented and discussed. The responses suggested many

interesting findings. The attitudinal statements in section

one revealed some inconsistencies in the attorneys'

responses. The attorneys seemed somewhat inconsistent in

their appraisal of quality as a client criterion for

selection of an attorney in comparison with the substan-

tially larger number of attorneys who said quality was the

key to attracting and holding clients. The attorneys were

somewhat inconsistent in their views of marketing and its

activities as they related to the practice of law. The

attorneys tended to see marketing and selling as equivalent.

Further, the attorneys tended to distinguish between the

seeking of clients with immediate and future needs, the

former being inconsistent and the latter being consistent

with attorney professionalism.

156

The analysis of the promotional issues with respect to

attorney professionalism revealed the attorneys' view of the

various issues. The attorneys tended to approve clearly

hours of operation, statements of certification in special-

ization areas, telephone numbers, types of cases you want to

handle, and location of offices. The attorneys were clearly

against pricing of specific services, statements concerning

quality of service, statements of past legal experience, and

statements concerning promptness of service.

The analysis of the media issues showed the attorneys

to be clearly in favor of only two of the media as adver-

tising vehicles—the yellow pages and professional/academic

journals. The attorneys clearly disapproved of newspapers,

popular/news magazines, television, radio, b i l l b o a r d s ,

direct mail, transit, circular/shopping guides, and trade/

association magazines as vehicles for advertising.

The analysis of the degree of importance attached to

serving the interests of the various groups in the practice

of law revealed the client to be of paramount importance.

The interests of the firm, the courts, the general public,

and the State Bar f o l l o w e d in d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r of

importance.

The analysis concerning attorney use of formal written

business plans brought to light that 5 percent make use of

this business tool, and 40 pecent employed an informal

written business plan.

157

The readership information revealed that the attorneys

tended to read at least one daily newspaper. The respon-

dents tended to subscribe to at least two of the business

and news periodicals and 62 percent subscribed to The Wall

Street Journal.

The analysis of the categorical data was presented

next. The respondents were representative of a wide geo-

graphical dispersion from across the state. The respondents

tended to be white males between the ages of thirty-six and

forty-five, holding a law degree, producing 121 to 150

chargeable hours per month, derived 80 percent or more of

their income from the practice of law, having all or more

practice they can handle, charging $61 to $75 per hour and

having a personal net income between $30,000 and $39,999.

Cross tabulation analysis was conducted for both the

composite orientation variable and the consumer-oriented

variable against numerous variables from sections two

through seven of the questionnaire. The composite orienta-

tion variable was used to divide the r e s p o n d e n t s into

production, sales, and consumer orientations. Significant

differences in the groups were sought at the .01 level for

the chi-square. Significant differences were found with the

summated promotional appeals score variable, the points

assigned to the general public variable, the use of a formal

written business plan variable, and the summated variables

for the production, sales, and consumer scores.

158

The consumer-oriented variable was used to divide

attorneys into consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented groups.

The cross tabulation analysis revealed significant

differences for the chi-square at the .01 level for the

consumer-oriented variable with the following variables:

number of points assigned to "the client", the use of a

formal written business plan, the use of an informal written

business plan, the summated score for the promotional

issues, summated score for the media issues, and the

summated score for readership.

Correlation analysis using Pearson Product moment

correlations was conducted using the consumer-oriented

variables with the following variables: promotional issues,

the media issues, the use of formal and informal business

plans, and the point assignments to the five publics. The

.01 level of significance was selected.

The analysis showed all of the promotional issues to be

significant but with small correlation coefficients. The

largest was .25. The analysis with the media issues

revealed each media to be significant but with a relatively

small correlation coefficient. The highest correlation

coefficient was .27.

The correlation coefficients on both business planning

questions were significant but relatively small. The

"client" group from section four was significant but

extremely small.

159

Overall, the correlation analysis showed consistently

small coefficients that were significant. The variables

analyzed did not reveal substantive correlations with the

consumer-oriented variable.

The one-way analysis of variance brought to light

several significant findings. The analysis was conducted

with both the composite oriented variable and the consumer-

oriented variable as the independent variable. The .01

level of significance was selected.

The analysis revealed significantly different means for

the consumer- and nonconsumer-oriented groups with respect

to each of the promotional and media issues. The response

to "the client" group in section four was significantly

different. The use of the formal written business plan was

found to be different since all responding attorneys who

used a written plan were classified as consumer-oriented.

The composite orientation variable had significantly

different group means with respect to eight of the

fourteen promotional issues and the summated promotional

score variable. Four of the twelve media issues and the

summated media score variable were significant.

A discriminant analysis was conducted to produce a

statistcal model utilizing predictor variables from the

questionnaire that would permit classification of

the attorneys into a production, sales, or consumer

160

orientation. The discriminant anaysis failed to render a

model that would allow significant c l a s s i f i c a t i o n with

greater probability than random chance.

Investigation was directed toward answering the nine

research hypotheses which were evaluated with respect to the

findings from the primary research. In summary, the first

four research hypotheses and the ninth research hypothesis

were rejected. Research Hypothesis V, VII, and VIII were

accepted. The client group in Research Hypothesis VI was

rejected and the hypothesis was accepted for the four

remaining groups.

In summary, the total research effort was directed at

achieving seven study objectives. The study revealed that

the practice of law does engage attorneys in the marketing

process. The attorneys were categorized by a t t i t u d i n a l

statements as having a p r o d u c t i o n , sales, or consumer

orientation. The analysis produced no significant diffe-

rences in the categorical profiles of the attorneys with

respect to their d i f f e r e n c e s in m a r k e t i n g m a n a g e m e n t

philosophies. The study showed attorney attitudes toward

fourteen promotional content issues. The research provided

insight into attorney attitudes toward twelve media issues

with respect to their p r o f e s s i o n a l a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s in

promoting legal services. Attorney perceptions concerning

the relative importance of serving five relevant groups in

the practice of law were i n v e s t i g a t e d . The analysis

161

revealed the consumer or client group to be most important

followed in decending order by the interests of the firm,

the courts, the general public, and the State Bar. Finally,

the research provided insight into attorney use of written

business plans. The research effort found that an extremely

small percentage of attorneys utilize w r i t t e n b u s i n e s s

plans. The practice of law, t h e r e f o r e , does engage an

attorney in the marketing process indicating a need to

educate attorneys concerning marketing and its applications

in the delivery of legal services.

The results of the study reflect the need for marketers

to understand the m a c r o e n v i r o n m e n t within w h i c h the

attorneys operate. Marketers must arrive at a thorough

understanding of the legal marketplace and its participants.

In particular, the substantial role of the courts and the

State Bar in determining permissible marketing alternatives

for the profession as a whole within the state must be

comprehended. In short, both groups need an education

concerning each other.

A l t h o u g h the a n a l y s i s of a t t o r n e y s ' m a r k e t i n g

m a n a g e m e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s revealed a primary c o n s u m e r

orientation, substantive moderating and intervening impact

of the other relevant groups may filter the a t t o r n e y ' s

business and marketing decisions to such an extent that

differences in marketing management orientation have little

162

impact on the attorney's practice. Therefore, it is not

enough for marketers simply to know the attorney's marketing

management orientation. To apply marketing technology to

the delivery of legal services, it is m a n d a t o r y that

marketers understand the scope of the law practice and the

relevant groups that impact the decisions of the practicing

attorney.

Conclusions

The body of evidence from this research effort strongly

points to the opportunity that exists for marketing to

assist the legal community in the delivery (or marketing) of

legal services. The Bates Decision has set at naught the

long standing prohibitions and stringent restraints on the

use of most marketing techniques available to an attorney

who was attempting to stay within the professional guide-

lines. The situation in the legal community in Texas is

uncertain. The Disciplinary Rules have been suspended in as

much as they conflict with the Bates Decision. An appro-

priate question is, how might marketing assist the legal

community in appraising and assessing the current situation

and provide insight into the new environment?

This research has clearly shown that an opportunity

exists for marketing to step into the legal environment and

offer its "tool box" of marketing experience and techniques.

The most serious limitation to marketing achieving that step

16 3

is marketing's own somewhat myopic view of marketing appli-

cations. That is, marketing has tended to view the

marketing of legal services in a more general rather than

specific manner. In particular, marketing must engage

itself in extensive and intensive study of the total legal

environment. That total investigation, as supported by

this study, should include, at a minimum, legal consumers,

attorneys, the State Bar of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court

and other regulating court systems, law firm practices, law

schools and relevant course content to the topic of this

study, and certainly the interest of the society as a whole.

All of these areas should be studied and examined in detail

with respect as to how marketing of legal services would

impact their support of the legal environment. In short,

marketing should conduct a business and marketing audit of

the legal system to gain a holistic view of the delivery of

legal services. This is not a new concept applied in total

rather than part as has been the tendancy in the wake of the

Bates Decision.

Once marketers have done their homework, the develop-

ment of the situational and environmental analysis, the next

step would be to appraise key problems and opportunities

that exist in the legal environment where marketing techno-

logy could be useful. Based on the findings of this study,

such techniques and concepts as market segmentation, product

16 4

positioning, strategic planning, and basic sales skills may

all have a place in the legal environment. These concepts

will have to be applied within the parameters set by the

legal community. Marketers have essentially scoffed at the

concept of attorney professionalism when it conflicted with

basic marketing philosophy. This study has shown that

marketing techniques must be consistent with the laws and

attitudes that pervade the legal environment if attorneys

are to utilize them.

Armed with a complete situational analysis and key

problems and opportunities marketers would be equiped to

play a substantitive role in the education of the legal

environment. This education should include the following;

alternatives, appropriateness, applications.

The availability of the various marketing alternatives

under the new relaxed standards would be of interest to

attorneys, the State Bar of Texas, and the Texas Supreme

Court. In short, the legal community needs an appropriate

"short course" concerning marketing and how marketing may

help each member of the legal community better fulfill their

responsibilities in the delivery of legal services.

The opportunity exists for the marketing community to

take an active role in reshaping the thinking of the legal

community with respect to marketing legal services. By

taking an active role in educating the attorneys and courts

165

on the issue of marketing legal services, a more favorable

attitude toward this issue may be accomplished. However,

this can only be achieved if marketers go into this educa-

tional process with a consumer orientation for the legal

community. That is, marketers must service the needs of the

total legal community rather than just the business,

marketing, or advertising dimension of the legal field.

After the legal community is educated as to the avail-

ability of marketing alternatives as applied in the legal

environment and they perceive marketing as being willing to

operate within the bounds of attorney professionalism, then

specific applications of marketing techniques could be

readily introduced. These applications could be presented

through seminars held by the State Bar of Texas. Similar

information could be presented through continuing legal

education at law schools and as original information to law

students. For example, legal office site location analysis

may be useful in stimulating demand for particular services

when coupled with segmentation. Such an analysis might

investigate what effect on demand office location in a high

traffic retail mall would have for low usage segments of the

population.

In summary, the analysis of specific applications can

only be conducted after a comprehensive educational process

for both the legal community and marketers seeking to assist

166

that group. The State Bar of Texas and legal educational

institutions should work closely with markets logistics

academics and business consulting firms to generate synergy

for the mutual benefit of both groups.

Recommendations for Further Study

The implications of this study suggest several areas

for further research and action needed in both the legal and

marketing communities. This study was exploratory in nature

and should be viewed in such a light. The study suggests

more extensive data are needed on business functions in the

practice of law. For example, an evaluation of accepted

informal standards held by attoneys with respect to client

solicitation would be helpful for marketers. This would be

useful in evaluating appropriate marketing communication

techniques with the client but still within the boundaries

set by profession as professionally appropriate.

Information on the "typical attorney or types of

lawyers who would be most inclined to utilize marketing

techniques should be investigated. This study might address

the type of attorney most likely to use marketing techniques

in the near future as opposed to those who are more reluc-

tant and utilize the techniques more g r a d u a l l y over an

extended period of time. This type of investigation might

attempt to apply adopter categories such as innovators,

early adopters, late adopters, and laggards to attorneys

16 7

with respect to marketing legal service. The brand adoption

process should also be investigated as to its ability to

help describe and analyze the attorneys on the same issues.

An appropriate topic of investigation as suggested by

this study would be to distinguish the attitudes of market

sensitive attorneys from other attorneys. That is, investi-

gate the attitudes of attorneys who are private practice

with a legal firm or sole practitioner separate from other

types of attorneys. A determination of what makes an

attorney "market sensitive" would be of importance. An

analysis of business practices in general of market sensi-

tive attorneys in comparison to business practices of other

attorneys would also benefit a general understanding of the

marketing of legal services issue.

Further investigation into the composite of respondents

that lead to the findings and conclusions of this study are

appropriate. As with most survey research, the problem of

the nonrespondent groups are of concern. The results of the

study may be significantly biased by nonrespond ing

attorneys. The nonrespondent may be so totally adverse to

the topic that no response was given. The nonrespondent may

also be the "very busy" attorney. It may be these attorneys

who utilize one or more explicit or implicit business and

marketing strategies. The length of the questionnaire may

have hampered these "very busy" attorneys from responding.

16 8

Other investigation techniques should be used in further

research to avoid some of the nonresponse problems. As with

this study, the tradeoffs among time, costs, and the extent

and intensity of the generated information must be balanced.

An implication which c o n s i s t e n t l y was e v i d e n c e d

throughout the research pertains to the need of communica-

tion between the legal profession and the marketing pro-

fession. An investigation of alternative educational

processes for both attorneys and m a r k e t e r s should be

undertaken. A possible remedy would be b u s i n e s s and

marketing seminars and focus groups sponsored by the State

Bar. A two-way flow of communication is needed for the

attorneys and marketers to understand each other. Another

possibility would be lectures and mini courses offered

through law schools. These courses could be directed at

both graduating law students and practicing attorneys as

appropriate.

In summary, marketers must educate themselves as to the

total macroenvironment of the legal marketplace. Marketing

educators teach the need for environmental analysis of the

marketplace. Marketing as a discipline should apply its own

teaching to the distribution of marketing technology with

respect to the legal service marketplace.

Benefits of the educational process of both attorneys

and marketers might be reflected in increased attorney use

169

of marke t ing t e c h n i q u e s . The e d u c a t i o n of a t t o r n e y s m i g h t

be r e f l e c t e d in a l e s s h o s t i l e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e v a r i o u s

mass m e d i a . A t t o r n e y v i e w s of b o t h n u m b e r and t y p e of

p r o f e s s i o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e m a r k e t i n g p r a c t i c e s m i g h t be

d r a m a t i c a l l y i n c r e a s e d . The e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s f o r

m a r k e t e r s should r e s u l t in more a p p r o p r i a t e mix of marke t ing

t e c h n i q u e s f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e m a r k e t .

An o p p o r t u n i t y c l e a r l y e x i s t s f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o

p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n s of b u s i n e s s and m a r k e t i n g p l a n n i n g

t e c h n i q u e s t o t h e l e g a l s e r v i c e a r e a . S p e c i f i c a l l y ,

a p p r o p r i a t e r e s e a r c h s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

f e a s i b i l i t y of a p p l y i n g m a r k e t i n g p l a n n i n g , m a r k e t

s e g m e n t a t i o n s t r a t e g y , p r o m o t i o n a l s t r a t e g y , p r i c i n g

s t r a t e g y , and d i s t r i b u t i o n s t r a t e g y i n l e g a l s e r v i c e

m a r k e t i n g . T h e p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f m a r k e t i n g

t echno logy t o t he d e l i v e r y of l e g a l s e r v i c e can r e a l i z e i t s

t r e m e n d o u s p o t e n t i a l o n l y t h r o u g h m u t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n

between the l e g a l f i e l d and t h e marke t ing f i e l d .

170

APPENDIX A

171

Dear Texas Lawyer:

This is a confidential membership questionnaire.

As President of the State Bar, I cannot stress enough the impor-tance of possessing accurate pertinent information on the bar member-ship. This information is invaluable in representing your interests on both the state and national levels. The ability to document information from the bar membership is a powerful tool in presenting and asserting your views on various issues. This information will assist both the courts and the State Bar in making on-going decisions concerning programs, policies, ana standards ot practice in Texas

The collection ot information through this confidential questionnaire will help present a factual profile of the membership as well as insights into attitudes on various issues of importance to every lawyer in Texas. Since only a 10% sample of our total membership is being asked to re-spond, your response is critical to gathering an accurate measure of our membership. By using a small sam-ple, a costly and time-consuming census can be avoided if you will respond now.

The end result of the heightened level of information from our membership will be more responsive ser-vice and programs to members of the State Bar and ultimately to the people ot the State ot Texas. The informa-tion you supply will help guide our future directions and actions. As a participant in the study, you have a special voice in speaking for the Bar membership. This is a simple and direct medium that will be heard clearly in Austin.

You may be assured of the confidential nature of this study. Results will be reported only in aggregate form and respondents will remain anonymous. Please take time today to provide your bar association with the information needed to fulfill our mission and purpose. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and valuable time.

1 Please mail the completed Questionnaire by Monday, August 17, 1981.

Sincerely

Wayne Fisher President, State Bar of Texas

CONFIDENTIAL MEMBERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 172

Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree are neutral, disagree., or s i rongiy d isagree, by p lac ing an X in the appropr ia te space, There

are no right or wrong answers to these s ta tements We simply want you' op "-nun with respect to your p rac t i ce Of law.

Strongly Agreft

(8) 1. Consumers of legal serv ices are pr imari ly in terested in the pr ice.

(9) 2. Consumers of legal serv ices will no; util ize a t torneys unless the at torney or f i rm makes a substant ia l el for t to s t imulate their interest in its services,

( !0) 3. Consumers of legal serv ices can be grouped (into di f ferent

market segments) depending upon their needs with respect to legai services.

Agra® Nautral Diaagraa Strongly Dliagraa

4. Cl ients know the feature d i f fe rences (such as an area of special ty) of compet ing a t torneys or f i rms.

( " ) 5. Legal serv ices are sold rather than uougnt

( " ) 6. Legal serv ice consumers m any group (with •:imi |nr -meds) wil l seek the serv ices of an at torney or f i rm wh ich comes closest to or specia l izes in their need.

( ,4) 7. Cl ients choose f rom among compet ing at torneys or f i rms on the basis of obta in ing the best quali ty,

( ,5) Q. Cl ients can be induced to uti l ize more iegal serv ices through var ious sales st imulat ing devices.

(16) 9. Develop ing ef fec t ive serv ices and p rograms for a se lec ted group(s) is the key to a t t rac t ing and holding cl ients.

( ,T) 10. Improv ing serv ice quali ty is the key to a t t rac t ing and holding cl ients.

(1fl) 11. Organiz ing a s t rong vo lume or iented f i rm (at torney) and s ta j l is the key to a t t rac t ing and holding cl ients.

C9) 12. An at torney or f i rm should de termine the needs of their cl ient group(s) and then adapt their serv ices and organizat ion to sat isfy the cl ients

(20) 13. Market ing legal serv ices means sell ing legal serv ices

( " ) 14. Develop ing new business for a legal f i rm (or at torney) is

important enough to put a partner (member) in cnarge wi th f i rm-wide responsibi l i ty.

w /

(-') 15. Market ing legal serv ices means adver t is ing legal services,

(ZJ) 16, A iegal f i rm (or at torney) has a need to educa te themselves

about legai serv ice market ing

C4) 17 Market ing for an at torney or legal f i rm is inconsistent wi th at torney profess ional ism.

( " ) 18 An at torney or legal f i rm should have a wr i t ten business and market ing plan.

p ) 19. It is oest for an at torney or f i rm to hoid business deve lopment , strategy meet ings outs ide regular business hours

( H 20. Act ive ly seeking new cl ients wi th immedia te needs is consis tent wi th at torney pro fess iona l ism

(*") 21. Less than 10 percent of an a t to rney 's or a legal f i rm's total business t ime should be spent on planning and prepar ing for business deve lopment .

(29) 22 Cul t ivat ing con iac ts wi th potent ia l c l ients for their future needs is consis tent wi th at torney profess ional ism,

Please continue at top of page 3

173

li, In your opinion, how professionally appropriate are the following appeals (message content) for an attorney or a law firm to utilize in promoting or advertising legal services? Please check the appropriate space for each appeal presented,

Vary Somewhat Somewhat Very Appeals Appropriate Appropriate Neutral Inappropriate Inappropriate

1. Hours of operation _ _

2. Pricma of specific services _

3 hourly rates -

4. Statements concerning quality of service _

5. Location of cffice(s) _ _

6. Statement of certification in specialization area(s)

7. Telephone number(s) „ _

8. Types of cases you want to handle _

9. Law school(s) attended _

10. Years of practice _ _ - , _

11 Professional affiliations (State Bar, American Bar, etc.) _ „ "

12, Statements of past legal experience ....

13, Statements concerning promptness of service . _ _ _

14, Statements of consumers need for specific legal service (Examples: A will, title search for property, review of contract c o m m e r c i ^ c o n t racts) _ _ _ _ _ _ _

In your opinion, how professionally appropriate are the following media for an attorney or firm to utilize in promoting or advertising legal services? Please checK the appropriate space for eacn media presented.

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Appropriate Appropriate Neutral Inappropriate Inappropriate

(") 1, Yellow Pages

H 2. Newspaper

('*) 3. Professional/Academic Journals (I a., State Bar Journal, etc,)

(") 4, Popular/news magazines

(4>) 5, Television

(") 6, Radio

(fc0) 7 Billboard

(*'} 8 Direct Mail

(") 9. Handbills

(*;) 10. Transit (bus, cab, etc.)

(M) 11. Circulars/Shopping Guides

{**) 12. Trade/Association magazines (I.e., Women's Wear Daily For women's apparel industry)

IV. Please assign 100 points across the following groups to reflect me degree of importance which you attach to serving the interest or welfare of the five groups in your practice of law.

(5») To the courts

(M) To the client _

(•,1) To the general public

(") To the state bar

(H) To the firm or your private practice

100 pts. 3 Please continue at top of page 4

174

(T1) 1. Do you as an attorney in private pract ice or your legal f i rm have a wri t ten business plan, tor acquirmq and KeeDina clients? (Check oniy one,) ^

Yes . No . . (Skip to Question 2) Do not know . (Skip to Question 2)

C2) 1(a) If yes, was the plan prepared within tho f irm by (check only one) an individual other than a managing partner a managing partner i :

a commit tee Other (please specify) _

( }) 1(b) Was an individual or firm, external to your legal pract ice, used as a consultant in tne development or preparat ion of the business plan?

Yes No Do not know

1(c) Does the t ime scope of the plan include a (check all that apply); H s ; 1 Vf P ^ n ( " ) ! , 3 yr, plan ( n ) I i 2 yr, plan (») ' ; 4 yr. plan

1(d) Does the business plan include a statement about (check all that apply)' (80) A, Manpower needs of the f i rm [ i (fl) B. Financial needs of the f irm I : (") C. Physical facil ity needs of the f irm ( ,0) D Market ing needs of the f irm i i {' ) E. Other yene ia i area (please specify)

( ? 8 ) [ J 5 yr plan (™) l i greater than 5 yr. plan

1(e) Does the business plan include a statement about (check all that apply). ( " ) A. How pr ices/fees are to be determined. i : ( u ) B. How often fee schedules are to be reviewed i , (M) C. What types of cases or areas of special izat ion

the f i rm will engage in [ j ('*) D. Goals for increasing revenue for the firm, \ ; (1fl) E. Plan for promot ion of the f i rm to potential cl ients. Li ( , r ) F . Number and location of office(s). M

(1B) 2, Do you as an attorney in private pract ice or your legai f i rm have an informal, non-writ ten business plan for acquir ing and keeping clients?

Yes No Do not know

*/l. READERSHIP INFORMATION

('•) 1. What newspaper(s) do you read daily; (please specify)

2. Which of the fol lowing do you subscr ibe to individually or jointly? (Check all that apply)

') 1. Barons ! j 2) 2. Bus inessWeek i ; 3) 3. Forbes ' , 4) 4. Fortune i ,

" ) 5, Journal of Management [ j ) 6. Journal of Market ing t.;

CATEGORICAL DATA

) 1. Are you a member of the State Bar of Texas?

( v ) 7 Newsweek (?h) 8. Texas Business (**) 9. Time (JU) 10, U.S. News and Worid Report (3t) 11. Wail Street j ou rna l

yes no

2. Indicate the zip code of the area in wnich your pr incipal of f ice is loca ted .

( " )

( 1 # )

(4° )

3, What is your age? i.; under 30 [.! 30 to 35

4, Please indicate your sex: i ! female

5, Please indicate your ethnic background: I.- Amer ican Indian

Asian-American

36 to 45 46 to 55

male

Black Hispanic

56 to 65 over 65

White Other .

please specify

Please continue at top of page 5

(4I) 6. How long have you been admitted to any bar? L i iess than 1 year I J 10 to 15 years I I 1 to 4 years [ J 16 to 20 years i . i 5 to 9 years I I 21 to 25 years

(4?) 7. Do you have a degree from a school of law? U yes l j no

(43) 8 At which of the following did you receive your iegal training? [ J Bayior University ! j Southern Methodist L i St Mary's University LJ Texas Southern University 1 ) South Texas College of Law l ' j Texas Tech University

• 26 to 30 years • over 30 years LJ never admitted to any bar

175

• University of Houston • University of Texas • Other

(46) 1D.

please specify

Does your current occupation involve you in the practice of law or otherwise in the legal profession on at least a part-time basis? U yes U no • I am retired (skip to question 17)

What percentage of your LJ 0% I. J 1 % t o 2 5 %

work week is involved in the practice of law or otherwise in the legal profession? [ I 26% to 50% • 76% to 100% Lj 51% to 75%

11. What is your primary legal occupation? ! J sole practitioner [ J Firm partner or associate

No in firm L.J Corporalion lawyer (House Counsel) [J bank {trust officer)

law school faculty federal govt, salaried lawyer judge military lawyer state govt salaried lawyer

LJ county government salaried lawyer LJ city govt, salaried lawyer IJ other

please specify

(49) 12. How many hours, both chargeable and non-chargeable, do you devote to the practice of law in an average month? 1 i Less than 80 M 121 to 150 [ j 176 to 225 n 80 to 120 l j 151 to 175 LJ over 225

(50) 13. On the average, how many chargeable hours do you produce per month? LI less than 80 I i 121 to 150 11 80 to 120 I i 151 to 175

IJ 1 76 to 225 I J over 225

i 14. What percent of your earned income in 1980 (excluding investment income) was derived from the law profession (including judges, law school faculty, government attorneys, and corporate attorneys)? LJ 80% or more ! J 60% to 79% LJ iess than 50% I i 50% to 59%

15. Which of the following areas of the law constitute at least 10% of your practice: (Check all that apply): (52) L i Admiralty (&J) I i Administrative (b4) L i Anti Trust (") l i Appellate (56) i i Aviation (50 LJ Banking n r. n l n i. (") L

Bankruptcy Business Commercial Consumer Corporation

(oi) ! ! Criminal J Environmental J Estate Planning i Family Law (inc. divorce; I General Practice

(66) l I Health Law (b9) ! : Immigration ( °) Li International L\) i : Labor C' : > ) L : Military (n ) 1 i Natural Resources

(74) I J Patent, Trademark C6) LJ FJersonal Injury (Plain.) (76) ! i Personal Injury (Def.) (70 I ...j Public Law (78) L i Public Utility Law ('*) I j Probate & Trust (wo) i J Real Estate (8) Li School Law O L i Securities

( I 0 ) L J Taxation ( n ) L i Trial (1-) I i Other

(,3) 16. (For practicing attorneys only) With respect to your volume of practice, do you normally have: 1 [ j Much more piactice than you can handle. 2 t J Slightly more practice than you can handle 3. I j AH the practice you can handle. 4. i , Slightiy less practice than you can handle. 5. I ; Much less practice tnan you can handle

(43) 17. Are you certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in: (Check ail that apply.) ( u ) i i No. not certified in any specialty.

please specify

(1S) t i Civil Trial? C6) i > Criminal? (,?) 1 ; Estate Planning & Probate7

(,B) I j Family? i,&) i i Immigration & Nationality?

l j Persona! Injury Trial? (21) i j Labor?

n 18 Do you plan to seek Board certification in the next year? (Check all that apply,) P ) i , No do not plan to seek certification. C1) I i Civil Trial? (") ! i Family? L4) : Criminal? (-') = j Immigration & Nationality (?h) I J Estate Planning & Probate?

; Personal Injury Trial? : Labor?

Please continue at top of page 6

{-°) 19 Do you have an undergraduate degree from a college or university7

• yes H no

19a. If yes, please specify ^ 7 5

institution^') degree(3J) major(") year reca.( N

(M) 20. Do you have a graduate degree otner than a juris doctorate7

[ J yes f J no (skip to 21)

20a. If yes, please specify:

institution^0) degree!42) major(44) year fecd.(4b)

(4e) 21. When you charge on an hourly basis, what is your average or standard hourly rate7

• less than $25 l-i $41 to $50 H $76 to $99 • $25 to $30 H $51 to $60 L i $100 to $124 [ i $ 3 1 to $40 • $61 to $75 LJ $125 or more

(49) 22. What was your personal net income before taxes in 1980 from your work as a member of the legal profession? Deduct all business, but

not personal expenses. [ j under $10,000 U $40,000 to $49,999 U $125,000 to $149,999 i ! $10,000 to $19,999 i 1 $50,000 to $74,999 LJ $150,000 to $199,999 f j $20 000 to $29,999 I i $75,000 to $99,999 • $200,000 to $250,000 LJ S30JJ00 to $39^999 I .• $100,000 to $124,999 U over $250,000

\m/

2 > 2 < cr ~~

•- < Q OO rn UJ CO pW - 3 Q. uj < O u S -Z uj ^ 2

^ C j tn

J o « <«

£ £ - O ~ i o < 2 w &- - -

G~ } ^ I CO cr ~~

u- < |

Z «*> 177

i

UJ QC

CO CO UJ 5

CO

CO

D <

i f ) </> < mJ o

l/> CO

> CD Q <

CL

O < •— CO o a.

CO UJ O LL LL

O

D O LU X UJ

C/)

< -x £ LU co l— oo r ^

CN GO < X X

QC O l u

< CQ

00

LU Q_

< h -co

o 2 I— CO 3 <

• /

y. -

m r

x

178

APPENDIX B

179

TABLE I

RELIABILITY STATISTICS FOR SECTION I

Statements Alpha Mean F-

Probability

Section I—Part I

Production .60 12.76 .0000

Sales .73 11 .47 .0000

Consumer .68 14.64 .0000

Section I—Part II

Consumer—Nonconsumer .85 32.91 .0000

180

H M &q

PQ < Eh

5S O M Eh O 63 05 Cm O W > J W 5 Eh EC O D O PS EC Eh

W 55 O

* X M Eh <C S CO

S w & Eh O h Eh

(J W C « Cm

C 12 55 O M Eh

Q W EH C Eh O

CO &

W D X a <

ss o EH

CO

w CO 12 c CM CO w «

Cm O CO

H CO

>H t-3 <

<C OcS o Eh U < fa

H < >

5H 0 0 -p £ O Eh CO Cm

<T» CN ro

ro LT) o o

ro

o

CN LO r-ro

CN oo LO o o

o o

m

vo

V£>

<T> <J\ O r-CO

o o o r ro V£>

r-LO o ro

r-ko in CN o • o I

ro

r-

LO

LO oo VD o

IT) as o 0 CN • o 1

c o •H -p o

«p 3 CO c 'O CD <D 0 rH

•H <0 CM CO o

CD N CO

•H CD 'O CP >i rH <D C rH •H co CM-h •H -P g 3 T5 u 3 •H 0 C rH CO g CD M 0 CO g •P u x: CP QJ CP

•H 0 •H 4J 0 0 u C M-l 0TSH CM CD XI rH U -P — 0

CD rH o co C CO -P U •H rH CO -P CO £ >1 3 O C -P

CD g 0 O CO CO C *H CO g 0 CD CD VJ 4J 0 CP CM O O 0 CO • O 0 CO

•H • •H 4J CO •H CO 0 > <D > -P 0 0 > U u O u CO -P O U -P <D •H CD •H 0 0 ^ : CO u CO CD -P > CO ^ 4J

4J CM x: u U -H c rH rH -P 0 CD H fO ^ CD co CD CO CO CO g g cnx: CP CO MH CP CO CD CD -P CD CO CD CO 0 4J »0

1—1 rH CD 4J rH C 0 CO C iH rH •H 0 0 -P M-l •H MH C CO MH M C CO 0 0 3 -H c 0 0

T) 4J •H MH 5h CO CD CO CO C CO MH -H u -P U >1 CO 4J -1 *H 0 CD CO CD CD -P CO 0"ox; g CD g C CO CD g 4J 3 U 3 U U 3 0 CO 0) CO 0 3 CD CO -P C C -P C -P CO •P C C 0 0 c 0 4J C 0 -h CM CJ •H u CO CO •H U — 3

• •

CM •

ro

u 0 g 3 CO C o u

c o

•rH 4J o 3 H3 0 U CM

CO <D i-H CO CO

5J 0 e 3 CO c o u

c o •rH .p o 3 *0 0 Vj CM

XI u 3 to

cn c co

0 O -P c a> CD C M

<1> MH O MH •H 4-1 T3 0 0 — U >t 3 -P -P rH CO (0 0

M-l O

<D CO g

o CO *H

MH x; -p

o c X

0 u o

to 0 CO U >1

CO fO CD c u o

•H -p rH CO -P U (0 (0

-p c c 0 (0

-P x; cn 3 O XI c CO XI -P

u 0 x; •p fO U HD i—I o CO CD

u CO

CO a> o •rH > u CD CO

CO Cn 0 iJ

LO

C x: co -p -H MH £ O

CO CM CD 3 O O 'H M > CP VJ

a? >i co c CO 0

jC C -P •H CO 0) U 0 0 CO g 3 rH CO iH C -H o £ o CD CO O •H CD > CD U C CD CO

CO rH rH CO -H

E CD "H J CO

O O -P 4J CO CD CO o rH a co CD 6 • O T> O CD

CD x: c

CO >1 CD -P C CO M CD O XI -P -P 0 CO X!

-P C7> C -P <D CM B O

a» c •H c CO •P

X 4

H CD JC

e -p •H C 4-1 -H

O JQ O

CT» C M-l O e CO

M CO O CD

N >i -H CD

g O u M-l CD CO O O x; o

CO •H CO <0 XI CD x; -p

c o

CO •H o CD Cu

CO CO

CO g -P u C -H CD M-l

O

>i 4-»

co 3 a1

181

* 0 CD D C •H 4J C 0 U 1 M M

W CQ < Eh

actor

Two

96S60 * .

27336

.36805

. 1 1946

,26813

o 1

o o o o

O -P CD o c 03 O pL4

c -p 0 C "H CD -P g 03 CD 4J CO •P C CD 05 a) i—i -P -H 03

U ) u o

-P c CD 6 0) -p 03 -P C/D

VD 00 VD CO

o

ro ro CP VO o o T~ LO LO CP LO o o CM ro o CN r— • • • • o o o o

c 0

u *H u CD -p CD g o g 3 3 CO D CO T3 CD CO C O rH c 0 03 0 u W U

03 CP cn CD C rH *H 4J

CD 03 Vj i—I 0 D g g

•rH CD 4J N CO

CO 0) rH 03 CO

CO D O H 03 >

C 4J

HC3 CD O D T3 C •H Jm

CP D O U

C XI 03 -P U

CO g

03

cn O

CX

T3 C 03

CO CD O •H > u cu CO

o -p

0) M

CD X! -P

CO

CO -P C CD •H rH o

CO CP — c CLrH D 13 O "H H O cpx:

cd XI

CO -P c <D

CO • <L> CO O CD O

•H >

•rH > u

H CD cd O CO 13

00

CD > •H -P O CD M-l 13 13 M-l CD C CD -P 03 O

CP CD C rH

*H CD 04 CO O

rH 03

cn c

CD > CD Q

a 03 u -P 4J 03

o - p

>i CD

CD Xi • -P CO •P

CO C •H CD

•H S>1 rH •P o *H rH ( P 03 C D -H CPTD

rH CD O o x:

•H > * 0 U C CD 03 CO cn

CP C C -H

-H - P > o O 03 U U CLi-P g -P H 03

g

•H M-l

13 CD O -P -P C CD •

•H CD CO U M -P O C CD <D

CD XI -H g -P rH D O

rH CO O -H > c

4H -H cn M-l 13 C 03 H O -P O ^ CO X i •P CO 13 T3

c c 03 03 03

cp— cn C >1 c CD c

•H ^ c o 03 -P M cn -P .p U 03 o

CD x: JL)

CD c

•H g u CD -P CD HD

'O rH D O X! CO g

CO

o - p

c o

•H -P 05 N

•H C 03 cn u O

a, o o cn c H3 -p c

CD •H

4-! O u u O -H CD

>iX! CD -P C

N -P O 05

-P 03

U O -P -P CO -P

CD x: -P

4H CO

CP

03 13 Q)

C <

CN

CD 13 C 03

OU'H 03 P 03 CO

-P C 03 O

•H M-i •H c CP

•H CO

T3 CD

CD T3 •H CO C o o

CD U 03

CD > O XI 03

U O

M-l O (D D iH 03 >

CD rH XI 03 •P •H

o t ? CD

C 03

x; 4J •H

•

CO 13 M CD O -P -P O O 03 CU M-l (D

rH 13 c c O 03

182

w

CQ C En

H

125 O M Eh U W C/3 CO

E h

O fa

CQ

<

w c a

s w

Q Q D

< Eh

£ fa £ fa Eh <

Eh

to W M U z w D O M « fa

- P d*P

G 3 £ 0 0 o «

asuodsatf i r e a w

r n a a j f i p s T a

A x b u o a ^ s

( 2 ) a a ; i 6 B S T a

( e ) T P J ^ n a N

( f r ) a a j B v

( g ) a a j c f i v

A x 6 u o j q . s

- P

c CD g d)

- P

OS

4J CQ

LO CO r - i n <T>

• • • CN CN CO

r o

CN

L O

LD

CN

V O LO L D

vx> v o ^

VD r - c m

CN r -^ r -

o o o T - ^ LO >—

<— r -O L O

KO w VD ^ —

co r-o i n KO

< o C N

^ i n LO —

<o r -r - r - o o

CO CN CN r -

CO CO CO T-

r -r -CN

u a .

CD •

U CD

os a •H

CO U

CD a

a • H <D

> j C - P

0) CO G

OS TJ a>

CD - P rH CO

CD M-l 0 <D -p co c Vj -H CD g >i 3 rH CO -H G O 05 U g

0 0 CO CO CN CN —

T~ 00 O CO r - 00 o o r -0 ^ T CM VD 0 0 T— r - <— r— r - >— T— * — >«—

< — CN LO KD o r - 0 0 CN CN —' VD T— r— 1—' r— ' w

r - ^

CO 4J - P O

> 1 0 C CD 4J cu 4J (U 04 CO 0 G g CO CD G G JH - P <D c n CD O OS

0 u A CD ^ C IH ~G rH «P O CO CD 0 rH - P M-J CO C x ; V-i •H OS M-l - P 05 4-> 4J CD £ cd •H O CD - H MH > 1 • <D

cd MH - p CO CO JC rH c CO U •H rH g 4J as

o

- P 03 •H CD 03 CO 05 u 05 as

o •H O g T5 •H •H •H CO - P •P •H CD CD O MH > CO C CO > - P CD U CD T3

cd os (U u C C 3 a u rH CD H 4J CD CD 4J CO 0 o CO C CO CD CO ^ U (0 CO

3 JQ 4 J 0 *H CD UH CO CO

fH 3 C rH UH Q) • M-l 0 > 1 CD 05 CO CO •H A3 M-l x ; CO CD ^4 c n > i tr> •H 4J CD CD OS G OS CD CD 03 CD no u x ; CD U

OS

rH G •H rH C "H - p u 0 CO

MH M CO CD 0 0 > OS 4J CD

MH o cu x : M-J • p 0 4 U £ - P o 0 - P ^ - P 0 C 3 0 0 G OS •H

CO 4J 05 *H CO G OS >

CO A3 g CD • CO — c n u CD g

4J CO Ju C rH CO G CD cd CD g (U CD CD T5 - H 03 CO OS •H CO • g N U rH O g CD TD - p - P 4J 3 •H - H 3 « •H 3 a . C CD G JC CD rH £ CO rH <+-l g > CO 3 CD rH CD O 0 4 03 c n c •H •H u G 0 CU •H 3 g CT- 3 0 - P u 4J CD 0 M CD 0 rH CO 0 CD 0 u 3 O CO CO U C F ' U - P o — O i J XI

•

CN •

CO • •

LO

183

- P 0\0 C 3 £ 0 o

CJ PCS

T 5 CD D C

• H 4 J C 0

u 1 I

H H M

W P3 OQ C Eh

a s u o d s a n

U P 0 f t [

( X ) a e j c f i p s T a

A x 6 u o j q . s

( 2 ) e e ^ f i B S T a

( e )

( { > ) e a j f i v

( S ) 3 0 j f i v

A i f i u o j ^ g

CM CT CN r— O CN

• • • 0 0 0 0 0 0

LO l o

r o

CO oo v o

CM

0 0 oo oo

0 0 00 CM o

VO xr LO 0 0 00 -

VD 00 0 0 ^

kO 00 cm

CM ^

c p c n o > CN r - 0 0 — '

<£> VD 00 ^

o CN

a * l o r -r - r -

0 0 CM 0 0 CM CM —

c n l o oo r * KO CM r - — CM ^

r - o r - 00 00

r - 00 LO ^ ^ —

r - o CN

—-

oo O l o —

V£> ^ (Tl r -VD LO 0 0 <D LO — ' V£> —

O V£> *—

< p oo CM >—

LO LO LO —

CP 0 0 CN w

^ 00 oo

oo <P CN CM

LO o o 00 ^

x ; a o D • H o a> x : C m x : • H CJ) - P

g CO > 1 r V u CD C CD N 03 CD M-l • H

CO r H c u 03

• H r H 0 • H r H U

CO - H > 1 CD u z CD OA CD C CO g — U D CO 0 U

- p CO - P 0 c C CD • P a; 0 <D 03 0 g O C 4 J <D C

4 J CD U OJ - P 03 O 03 CO

+J * H i—I M-l CD • 0 ] > - H

U g 0 CO T 3

0 CD 0 * H CO r H CD CO CO CD

O a c

r H x : • H CO V4 03 - P > CD - H CP - H g CD CD ^ <D 0 X ! J — CO O 4 J

c n C M-i

•H 0 - P 0 w Q - i - H g co 0 03 U JQ

CO

c p cu c x ;

>1 - p

*rH - P r H

g o

S-i M-l

03 D CP

- P CO

CO g

0 • H J 3

CU M-l CO 0 o u x ;

o - p o X ! a

CO - P c 0

• H r H

CO >1 0 c u o - P - P X ) 03 0

CP C

03 - P

VD

D CO 0 0 ' O • H ( j» N * H c C

" H >-4 03 - H i—1 03 CO • H > CO r H - P CD a 0 3 X I a d x ;

c n • • H 0 0 D CO > U T 5

• P 0 CD u Cn C O CD 03

u x ; • H CO CP CD - P > C CP o CD CD • H C D CO no > - P - H

' O CD • H O 4 J C O 0*> 4 J CD O

• H * H c O H 03 > • H CD CD U

CD U • p M-l CO - P £i Q) 03 MH - P

CO r H CD M 03 c D 0 03 r H g o> 0 O 03 • H C

Cn - P • H CO •

CO CD CO Ou g > s CO • P r H 0 03 0 - p c CO 1—1 U M c CD CD CD CD 0 ^ 0

• H i—1 > 0 0 • • H r H 0 03 CD o g CO Q a < 4 J o

•

0 0 •

> i 0

^ •

CO 0 - P

x : c - p a)

• H CO i—I

• H O

> i CP - P C • H - H pH T 3 03 r—j 3 o c p x ;

0 ' O o c

>1 r o 0 0 M - P c cu

• H Vj 0

CD x ; - p

CO

CD g

3 i—I 0 >

CP no c c

o

c n c

•rH T J rH o

x :

03

CP C

• H >

u 0 CO

- P CP O C 03

- P - P 03

O

- P CO

05 T J C 03

03

> O u Cu g

0 C

CT> 0 C H - p N 03

C OS CT>

O

c n c

• H - p

o 03

4 J - p

03

O -P

184

o\P •P G D O (J

T3 0) D G •H -P G o U

w i j CQ < Eh

a s u o d s a n

uvsu

(I) a a j r b p s T a

A x 6 u o j q . s

( 2 ) e a j f i p s T Q

( e ) T i M i n a N

( f r ) e a j t B v

( g ) a a a b v

Klbuojc^s

-P c cu g CU •P 03 •P CO

CM VO

ro CO

ro CM

CO

<T> LD

CM

CN in

CO CM

00

CN

^ CN CM — CM

ld ro ro t - ro o oo

oo ^ o ^

lo < —

00 <J\ CN CM

O 00 <J\ r -

T— 00 in ^ —

m cm CN t~ o\ ro

ro

ko <-cn ro ro ^

o r -0 0 r - r -

CM kd CM

CM VO r - ro ro

ro o *- CN cn —

r - <x> r- cn cm

o ro ^ CM CN w

cn m

<j\ cn in vc —

<J\ t -cn VO T

CN ^ CM ro cm CN —

in m oo in in —

oo CN ro cn cn

r- <j\ cm ro o> ro

'O Cn C 1 C

CU 03 *H • H C C rH

rH g CO CP (1) in — JH CO a> a o 4J D CO CU 0 ""O CO c

T3 U C -P 05 CT> 05 G CU

HD cu g H 4J CQ-H 3 C (D H CO o cu o a CU

x : -h -h o a) rH > a; • H

o > g a» -p u ^ S-i CO <u

•H - H > , CO UH CU ^ M-l

x ; -h co rH • M 4J (D-H 05 CO o x : -p cn cu

M-l 03 CU U >i O CO rH *H CU -P > C CO a O CP U VJ T5 03 4-> c cu O CU u • H CO 4J CU 03 C 4J - P C 0 d) rH 03 C *H M 03

Q) CU 4J JH cn C x ; X! 03 05 <u < -P 4J N I S «H

•

CM •

ro T— t—

r - ^ CN CN —

in in in —

o o

X! cn D

rH 0 0) 03 c Cn cn cu JH cu 05

rH -p x : c O •

03 05 >i -p G -P

U • H • H O 0 rH MH 0 4 ^—s • H

g VJ JQ CO • H a) • H CO XI CO cu CO g G c • H cu 0

• H g 0 4 CO > — ' CO D >1 CU

JO a> u u c cu

£ JH c CU CU 0 -P G •P •H -p 03

cn 03 0 4 1 C g

*H 05 u a* o •H O ^ -P MH

rH D <u g a x ; > U -P O -H O *H O MH -P £

1 HD u CU d CU > G rH >1

T) rH 05 CU 03 03 03 CP G

CO CP Q) U

CO CO CU rH 0 c 05 rH 03 x : U 4J CU 4J 0 03 g ^ D

CO >1 0 >iX!

CO CU JQ CU -P cu C 05 C -H 0 • }H ^ £ •H CO 0 CO 0 > cu -P cu •P -P

0 -P > -P c 0 •H 03 rH • fC <u CO > CU CP > -p

u U CO c G CO • rH 0) 0 g -H 03 -H g 03 CO — CU -P CO CO cn x : a; G *H CU rH g -P M 0 0 rH

rH 05 u u MH O 03 CP •H cu 03 G G

Cn Q) 4H -P g Cp-h 0 c 1—1 03 G -H •H rH O CU •H CO CO -p CJ> 03 D O • P H CO cu c CPT5 -H CU <u M •H CU CU > g MH M CO rH -1 u u 0 05 •H 0 cu 05 -H U 2 -P <C -p CO s MH a

•

in •

KO •

r-r— T * —

o> 00 00 r -

VO CM CN —

CT> G

•H -P CD

T3 r* i—I }*4 D 03 0 g

x ; 0}

c 03 g Jh

•h co 4-1 CO

a; rH C 03 *H CP CO CU D

rH X>

Jh G o a>

4J >l-P cu •

U £ 03

G

O -P •P 03 cu > G 03 < X! 0-i

00

c OS

185

•P o\P C 3 £ O O u Pd

'O CD D c •H -p c 0 u 1 I H M M

w J CQ < E-?

asuodsan UPaW

(I) eajBpsxa Ax6uoj[q.S

(£) aejfipsxa

(E)

(fr) aaafiv

(S) aaa£v AxBuoaq.s

-P c Q) g (D -P

-P CO

00 T— o> * CN t— • • • 00 00 00

CT> CX> 00

VO 00 on

^ CN CN CN

00 r-CM CN CM

CN KD r*> CN CN

00 00 <T\ r-

00 VD K£> w

00 O CN KO 00

CM CM >—

O CM V£> 00 00 —

m oo 00 —

CN CN r-LT) CO 00 w-

<3* CN kd

vo vx>

0 -P g E>i cn <L) CO -P co

M-i 03 CD u c •P -H CO CO

x: x: 4J «P -H •H £

VJ o

>< * CD 4J c c

D X>

-P C CD -p

CO 0) - g . >1-H <D CD 4J U C CO CO fD -P CD C C

U 0 -P -P CO

I

a

O -P -P CO

(D CO g •—I a D 0

<D CO •H *H

CP CD

CD C CO CD CD *V *3

U o <4-1 CO

CD -P C (0 -H CD (0 CO JQ D X>

(0 •HT3 -P i—i CD

•P O CD

O S (D C

£ CO CO C -H O rH O CO

C D CO X}

M-l

CO CD g co en a c o

CO

C CD c ^

O CO <0 CD -P H TD

-P O ft

•H CO CO -P D O

CP C

CO CO CO

•H 3 <D ^ CD M-J CD CD O C

CO CO CD C •H CO D

CD CO ft

cn C

m x; g x:

cn

CD >i-P >i rH (0 CD CD > T5 •H (D -p g O g <

O CN

C O -P -P CO

C -P CD O CO U -CD g -P ft U C •H CD

O 4-1 ftX> r- CO r-1 &-I

C CO CD o CO CD XJ M-i X! CD -P H T3 Cn

•H C CO CO D -H W O U CD M XI CO i-3 O (0 ft

A> CN CN T-

co

c CD 4-> o ft <D C

x; -P CD •H

-P D 4-1

CM

CO 4J O <0 4J C o o

cn C •H 4J CO >

D O

CM CN

I c o •H CO CO CD M-I O U ft >i CD C U O -P 4J CO

x; -P

o

4J c Q) -P CO • •H g CO CO C *H O 1—l O CO

186

fa •J

CQ C EH

53 O H EH U fa CO CO

w PH D o CO fa CO H

CO

12 < fa 2 Q IS <

ij < 55 O M EH C S o

CO P h

fa P ^

M u z fa D a fa « fa

•P o\o C D £ O 0 CJ C*J

esuodsen UPEW

^ r- CN in oo ro m oo CN *•— M M M O O ^ • • • • • • • • • • 00 CN 00 CN ^ CN CO

(I) e^Bfjd -oaddeui

AZBA

FVOOOOOLOOOOO O 00 00 00 ^ O F M M D O ^ O O ^ CN ID r- 00 — 00 — CN^LO^LOt— o ^ -

CN — r— —" «sF >— ,— T

(2) e^pxjd -oaddeui q.^qM3uios

(^OLT)00(^(^CNVD IT) CN CN CN OOCNI LIOCNOOR LO 0*-^CN<J»r-R^CM CN — CN — *— •— LO V— CN LOr-^ CM r- CM CM — *— '

(e) xea^naN OOVDVOCNCM^r^CN ^ (Ti O 00 i>inoor-r-^ooooo ^Or-(Nr-LOr-CN]r- —' 00 LT) —' t- CM T-

(£) aq.PTJd -oaddv

q.BlJM9UIOS ooooo^^o^r^cN oo o vd oo o^^rr^r-cNooa>r-00CNG>CMLP/00CM*— T— 00 00 ^CNOOOO^CMOOOO CN CN ' 00 — *— —' 00 00 CN ' 00 CN " 00 N—

(g) eq.BTJd -oaddv

AaaA

I-OF^VDOOOOO^ 00 IT) 00 OOF^COCNT^^R-O r-^v£r-a^<—r^^-- oo in in ovooo^^t-r-oj

LO —' m —' R^^^WR-WCM^-"

•

CD 4-1 *—1

0 TD

C • > 1 c rO

CQ • P • H . C a> • H

o i—! c 0 • H ( 0 0 4 J

> D • H

u D 1 - P • - P • (U • rO c *73 CO CT> O CO rO <U

C CO • H • T 3 • o • H w 4-1 fO X--V C

- p c • H • c <u • H CD CO D CD • c 0 UH CO u o - P U 0 • P <D

Q) • H • H <D <u • H u fO > i 4 J O e 4 J o • P o M-l CD <v

> i ( 0 • H

CD r o <D ( 0 c M-J O C J Q CO - P 4 J JH a . 0 0 0 e <D o CO CD CO o 4-1 • H D CO CO r o

• P CU > I 4 H 0 4 J C rO —• u CO 0 <4-1 i—1 CO 0 fO O 1—1 cu

0 • P - P N CD 0

cu i w D C • c C • H C 4-1 0 MH 0 cr> O CD 0 ) o a ; i—1 O 0 sz o

C . c g o • H e r o X ! o CO • H CD • H - p CD • H 0 . CO CO CO u o - P - P > fO - P O a> Q) VJ D • H ( 0 fO V4 O rO (D r—1 QA £ rO 0 S-i r*H - P 0 0 4 J & a> > I rO a> DG a* fa CO CO i J CO CO EH EH i - 3 >H

CN ro in 00 <y%

187

- P d p

c 3 £ o o

U ft

CD D C

- P

C 0 V

1 I

H >

w J PQ < Eh

a s u o d s e n

U P 3 p \ f

(I) - o a d d p u i

A j c e A

r— r— r G\ <£> o

• • • • 0 0 CN CN CO

( 3 ) e ^ P T J i d

- o ^ d d p u i

q . p q M a u i o s

( e ) I ^ ^ n a n

( f r ) a q . P T J d

- o a d d v

q . e t [ M 0 u i o s

( S ) a ^ B T J d

- o j r d d v

A j b a

c n o o o o — -

V O h ^ T -

*— CN CN r— w CN —

LO 0 0 CO r -

^ r -^ LO O r -

^ CN CN r o CN — ' 0 0 •>—

CN CM

r - IT) VD CN CN ^

V£> O O O CN O « -CN — " r— — '

^ CN CN —

00 ^ LO 0 0 o o ^

c o o o v o t -<T» CN t— ( N CN — CN —

00 00

CO

<T\ <7) t -

C0 <?\ o o 00 ^

CO CN CN r -

•

03 CD MH CQ O 0

C CD CD CO

• P •i—l CO 03 U CD

- P CD c cn a •p — ' X cm

CD g CO 0 c r H 0 05 CM •H CT> - P 0 03 • r H c •H » • H

- P i—1 • - P c C * H O CO CD M-! -p 05 CD g CD CM a CD 03 c 4J M-J 0 03 (—I V-4 0 a

- P 05 03 CO C OQ CO CO

O - P -p * H C c c • CO 03 CD CD CD CO O g g o CD *H CD CD - H

M-J U - P - P > 0 CD 03 m u u g - P - P CD

ft < cn cn CO

• • • *—• CN 00 r"~ < — * —

o * CD r H M-J

CM r H 0 CO " H

£ £ u (D •

0 < c • H M-l > CO

CD - p

n o • • U O CD CO 03 0 CD U C i—1 > < - P

a - p C CO g u 0 U 05 CD O CD X CM g K 0 3 CO

c o o

M I—I Cu <0

a

M-J

o

u o

> M-J u CD J 2 co o

CO ^ - P r H 03 C 03 CD - P CD CO O

CD 03 CD H CD

- P H 4 J 05 O 4-> G

• P - H - H O CO M-J - p O

188

w J CQ C Eh

H M H

53 O H EH U w CO CO

o w Zu D CO

CO CO 53 H < u s

Q < CO w M u 53 w D a w « Cn

Q w s

4J cAP c D £ o o CJ

asuodsBH UP0K

(I) 0q.PTJd -oaddeui

A;T0A

(3) 3^^T:rd

-o;rddpui q.pqMeuios

IPaq.ri0N

(fO ©q-exjcd -oaddv

^pqM0Uios

(S) 0q.<exjd -ojcddv

Aj[0A

-p c CD E <D -P CO -P CO

00 00 O o o r- 00 V£> * — r- 00 CT> LO CTi LO LO • • • • • • • • • • CN 00 CN * -

* — « - < - r— r—

O LO OO CN r- r-lo —' rn CM >—

cn — OO^00<-I^L0r-0^*-CN^r-^ (Nroo^o^^voromi^vDoo^ PO^LO—LT)^V£>—LD —'VD >»•

vo lo — oo cn r-- — CN

oo^ooooooocor^oocTk^a^^ LO00f-00CN00<^CN"<sr00LOCN^ CN

lo oo lo o r* s— lo lo *~~

^ vo LO VD»-r-

LO T- O KQ r- r— V£> —' <— r-

r* ko ^

<T> O CN 00 r- 00 LO CN KO 00 00 —* CN — 00 —' LO

^ oo r- ro r** —' — cn —

CX) oo oo oo CN *— CN —

^ CN 00 00 CN 00 LO CN t— o 00

LO "si"1 — OOLOOOLOOOlDOOOOMDOOOOCNOO LO ^^^^OO^-'^^CN^-'OO

CO rH CD 03 CD C 03 U 0 CM CD *H a. CO £ 05 CO 0 Ou Q) rH CO MH »—1 £ 0 <D <D u >» 55 Qa

• • •

<— CN 00

CD

CO I—I 03 c u D o — o

O -P •H Q) s cd * *V rH co as o c < M \ D

o

CO

co 0) c •H N cG a> 03 g

CO

o -P CD

XI rc o

0} rH D

<1> c -H X* c 0 TJ 05 CO \ •H S rH CO 03 rH -P 03 •rH 0 4-> •H •H rH > 0 J2 O X> CO D CD *H i—1 CD c 04 i—1 H3 rH C 03 0 CD 03 •H •H CO Oa EH & CQ a CC Eh

• • • • • • •

LO «vD r- 00 o

189

asuodsan upaptf

-P d»P c 3 £ o o-u &

(T) a^HTJd -ojddcui

AaaA

(3) sr^xjrd -oaddeui ^ei{M9uios

(e) leaq-naN

TJ <L> D C

•H •P C 0 u 1 I > w ij CQ < Eh

(fr) aq.PTad -ojddv

q.HqMauios

(S) -OJtddY

A j c b a

kO KD

r-• •

CN

r-cr. m lo

ro LO (Ti

ro

ro lo ro ro VO CN ^ CN CN •— CN

00 LO LO 00 — LO T—

ro vo o t— CN (N CNJ —

ro *— co ^ ^ 00 —

•

Cn Q)

— CO

CO c CD 0

CO G g <D •H 0

V3 N £ •rH D O fC o

g -U C7»

g C C C >i <D •H 0 r-H >1 g Clj •H -rH u

a) CU 4J -p 0 ^ Q CO (C x: •H D 4J CO O M T3 cn \ 0 n3 C

CO cn <u •rH u CO 5 fC < I—1 i—1 \ CO (D 3 <D C u

O 13 0 Ctf U <0 g Oi •H H 0 a o En S H3

• •

T— CN * — * —

TABLE VI

FREQUENCIES AND MEANS FOR SECTION IV

190

Count

Categories Courts Client General Public

State Bar

Firm or Private Practice

0 88 (9)

18 (2)

168 (17)

256 (26)

106 (11 )

1 to 10 423 (52)

26 (3)

563 (57)

639 (64)

325 (33)

11 to 20 283 (29)

43 (4)

188 (19)

86 (9)

276 (28)

21 to 30 136 (14)

131 (13)

45 (5)

9 (1 )

195 (20)

31 to 40 38 (4)

183 (18)

19 (2)

— 53 (5)

41 to 50 16 (2)

238 (24)

5 (1 )

1 (*)

21 (2)

51 to 60 —

11 1 — —

15 (2)

61 to 70 —

61 (6)

— — 2

(-) 71 to 80

— 121 (12)

2 (*)

— 2 (*)

81 to 90 —

35 (4)

— — 4 (-)

91 to 100 —

43 (4)

3 (*)

1 (*)

2 (*)

Mean Response 14.63 51 .39 10.03 6.10 19.52

•indicates the actual count representing less than 1 oercent of the responses for that column.

191

TABLE VII

FREQUENCIES FOR SECTION V USE OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL BUSINESS PLANS

Count (Row %)

Statement Yes No DO Not Know

1. Do you as an attorney in private practice of your legal firm have a written business plan, for acquiring and keeping clients?

51 (5)

860 (89)

59 (6)

2. Do you as an attorney in private practice of your legal firm have an informal, non-written business plan for acquiring and keeping clients?

373 (40)

476 (51 )

80

I (9)

192

TABLE VIII

FREQUENCIES FOR "WAS THE PLAN PREPARED WITHIN THE FIRM BY?" WITH RESPECT TO USE OF FORMAL WRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

Response Category Count Column

An individual other than a managing

partner 9 23

A managing partner 10 25.6

A committee 16 41

Other 4 10.4

TOTAL 39 100

*Based upon 39 usable responses,

193

TABLE IX

FREQUENCIES FOR "WAS AN INDIVIDUAL OR FIRM EXTERNAL TO YOUR LEGAL PRACTICE USED AS A CONSULTANT IN THE DEVELOPMENT

OR PREPARATION OF THE BUSINESS PLAN?" WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF A FORMAL WRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

Statement

Count (%)

Statement Yes No Do Not Know

Was Individual or Firm External To Firm Used To Prepare Formal 10 24 5

Business Plan (26) (62) (12)

*Based on 39 usable responses.

194

TABLE X

FREQUENCIES FOR "DOES THE TIME SCOPE OF THE PLAN INCLUDE A (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?" WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF

FORMAL WRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

Scope of Plan Includes Count %**

1 year plan 17 44

2 year plan 9 23

3 year plan 8 21

4 year plan 1 2

5 year plan 10 26

Greater than 5-year plan 7 18

* Based on 39 usable responses. ** Respondents were asked to "check all that apply", therefore,

total will not equal 100%.

195

TABLE XI

FREQUENCIES FOR "DOES THE BUSINESS PLAN INCLUDE A STATEMENT ABOUT (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?" WITH RESPECT TO THE USE

OF A FORMAL WRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

Response Category Count %**

Manpower Needs of the Firm 34 87

Financial Needs of the Firm 35 90

Physical Facility Needs of the Firm 31 79

Marketing Needs of the Firm 27 69

Other General Areas 11 28

* Based on 39 usable responses. ** Respondents were asked to "check all that apply", therefore

column total will not equal 100%.

196

TABLE XII

FREQUENCIES FOR "DOES THE BUSINESS PLAN INCLUDE A STATEMENT ABOUT (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?" WITH RESPECT TO THE

USE OF A FORMAL WRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

Response Category Count %**

How prices/fees are to be determined 27 69

How often fee schedules are to be reviewed 18 46

What type of cases or areas of special-ization the firm will engage in 32 82

Goals for increasing the revenue of the firm 26 67

Plan for promotion of the firm to potential clients 30 77

Number and location of offices 16 41

* Based on 39 usable responses.

** Respondents were asked to "check all that apply", therefore column total will not equal 100%.

197

TABLE XIII

FREQUENCIES FOR NUMBER OF NEWSPAPERS READ DAILY (EXCLUDES THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)

Number of Newspapers Read Daily Count %

0 60 6

1 577 57

2 321 32

3 45 4

4 9 1

5 1 *

TOTAL 1 ,013 100

Mean 1.07 Newspapers Read Daily per Respondent

* Less than 1%.

198

TABLE XIV

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)"

Reading Material Count %

Barons 50 5

Business Week 189 19

Forbes 157 16

Fortune 148 15

Journal of Management 9 1

Journal of Marketing 5 1

Newsweek 377 39

Texas Business 134 14

Time 439 45

U.S. News & World Report 213 22

The Wall Street Journal 607 62

Mean 2.39 Publications Subscribed to per Respondent

199

TABLE XV

FREQUENCIES FOR "INDICATE THE ZIP CODE OF THE AREA IN WHICH YOUR PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS LOCATED"

Zip Code Area Count %

State of Texas 927 92.3

Outside State of Texas 76 7.6

Bexar 78 7.8

Dallas 192 19 .1

Harris 254 25.3

Tarrant 59 5.9

Travis 72 7.2

Metro Subtotal 635 65.3

Bell 5 0.4

Cameron-Hidalgo-Wilacy 13 1 .3

Coll in 1 0.1

Ector-Midland 22 2.2

El Paso 15 1 .5

Fort Bend-Brazoria 7 0.7

Galveston 2 0.2

Jefferson 27 2.7

Lubbock 22 2.2

McClennan 9 0.9

Nueces 21 2.1

TABLE XV—Continued

200

Zip Code Area Count

Potter-Rawdall

Smith-Gregg

Taylor

Wichita

Urban Subtotal

Rural Subtotal

Total

20

11

10

4

189

83

1 ,003

2.0

1.1

1 .0

0 . 4

1 8 . 3

8 . 3

100.0

20.1

TABLE XVI

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHAT IS YOUR AGE?

Response Category Count %

Under 30 202 19

30 to 35 307 29

36 to 45 274 26

46 to 55 132 12

56 to 65 107 10

Over 65 43 4

TOTAL 1,065 100

Media Age Category is "30 to 35" years.

202

TABLE XVII

FREQUENCIES FOR "PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SEX"

Response Category Count %

Male 9 6 4 9 1

Female 92 9

TOTAL 1,058 100

TABLE XVIII

FREQUENCIES FOR "PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ETHNIC BACKGROUND"

Response Category Count %

American Indian 6 1

Asian American 1 *

Black 7 1

Hispanic 24 2

White 1 ,010 95

Other 8 1

TOTAL 1 ,048 100

* Less than 1%.

203

TABLE XIX

FREQUENCIES FOR "HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ADMITTED TO ANY BAR?"

Response Category Count %

Less than 1 year 73 7

1 to 4 years 224 21

5 to 9 years 286 27

10 to 15 years 176 16

16 to 20 years 85 8

21 to 25 years 69 6

26 to 30 years 45 4

Over 30 years 112 10

Never admitted to any bar 5 *

TOTAL 1 ,075 100

Median Category is "5 to 9" years,

* Less than 1%.

204

TABLE XX

FREQUENCIES FOR "DO YOU HAVE A DEGREE FROM A SCHOOL OF LAW?"

Response Category Count %

Yes 1 ,027 97

No 27 3

TOTAL 1 ,054 100

TABLE XXI

FREQUENCIES FOR RECEIVE

AT WHICH OF YOUR LEGAL

THE FOLLOWING DID EDUCATION?"

YOU

Response Category Count %

Baylor 93 9

St. Mary's 79 8

South Texas College of Law 83 8

Southern Methodist 126 12

Texas Southern 4 *

Texas Tech 40 4

Houston 11 1 11

Texas 353 34

Other 159 15

TOTAL 1 ,048 100

* Less than 1%.

205

TABLE XXII

FREQUENCIES FOR "DOES YOUR CURRENT OCCUPATION INVOLVE YOU IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW OR OTHERWISE IN THE

LEGAL PROFESSION ON AT LEAST A PART-TIME BASIS?"

Response Category Count %

Yes 1,026 95

No 3 1 3

Retired 20 2

TABLE XXIII

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR WORK WEEK IS INVOLVED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW OR OTHERWISE

IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION?"

Response Category Count %

0% 32 3

1% to 25% 58 6

26% to 50% 30 3

51% to 75% 57 5

76% to 100% 874 83

TOTAL 1 ,051 100

Median Category is "76% to 100%".

206

TABLE XXIV

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY LEGAL OCCUPATION?"

Response Category Count %

Sole Practitioner 244 24

Firm partner or associate 494 47

Corporation Lawyer 123 12

Bank (Trust Officer) 8 1

Law School Faculty 6 1

Federal Government Salaried Lawyer 23 2

Judge 18 2

Military Lawyer 11 1

State Government Salaried Lawyer 21 2

County Government Salaried Lawyer 33 3

City Government Salaried Lawyer 8 1

Other 52 5

TOTAL 1 ,041 100

207

TABLE XXV

FREQUENCIES FOR "HOW MANY HOURS, BOTH CHARGEABLE AND NON-CHARGEABLE, DO YOU DEVOTE TO THE PRACTICE OF

LAW IN AN AVERAGE MONTH?"

Response Category Count %

Less than 80 97 10

80 to 120 65 7

121 to 150 92 9

151 to 175 269 28

176 to 225 330 34

Over 225 117 12

TOTAL 970 100

Median Category is "151 to 175" hours.

208

TABLE XXVI

FREQUENCIES FOR "ON THE AVERAGE, HOW MANY CHARGEABLE HOURS DO YOU PRODUCE PER MONTH?"

Response Category Count %

Less than 80 181 20

80 to 120 202 22

121 to 150 213 23

151 to 175 179 19

176 to 225 110 12

Over 225 38 4

TOTAL 923 100

Median Category is "121 to 150" hours.

209

TABLE XXVII

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR EARNED INCOME IN 1980 (EXCLUDING INVESTMENT INCOME) WAS DERIVED FROM THE LAW

PROFESSION (INCLUDING JUDGES, LAW SCHOOL FACULTY, GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS, AND CORPORATE ATTORNEYS)?"

Response Category Count %

80% or More 854 83

60% to 79% 75 7

50% to 59% 47 5

Less than 50% 56 5

TOTAL 1 ,032 100

Median Category is "80% or More"

210

TABLE XXVIII

FREQUENCIES FOR "(FOR PRACTICING ATTORNEYS ONLY) WITH RESPECT TO YOUR VOLUME OF PRACTICE,

DO YOU NORMALLY HAVE?"

Response Category Count %

Much more practice than you can handle 203 23

Slightly more practice than you can

handle 254 29

All the practice you can handle 221 25

Slightly less practice than you can

handle 163 19

Much less practice than you can handle 32 4

TOTAL 873 100

Median Category is "Slightly more practice than you can handle.

211

TABLE XXIX

FREQUENCIES FOR "DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY?"

Response Category Count %

Yes 968 93

No 7 1 7

TOTAL 1,034 100

TABLE XXX

FREQUENCIES FOR HOLDERS OF UNDERGRADUTE DEGREE IN BUSINESS*

Response Category Count %

Yes 281 24

No 695 71

TOTAL 984 100

* Data was derived from question 19a. "If yes please specify".

212

TABLE XXXI

FREQUENCIES FOR "DO YOU HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE OTHER THAN A JURIS DOCTORATE?"

Response Category Count %

Y e s 125 12

N o 887 88

TOTAL 1,012 100

TABLE XXXII

FREQUENCIES FOR HOLDERS OF GRADUATE DEGREE IN BUSINESS*

Response Category Count %

Yes 39 31

No 86 69

TOTAL 125 100

* Data was derived from question 20a. "If yes plese specify."

213

TABLE XXXIII

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHEN YOU CHARGE ON AN HOURLY BASIS, WHAT IS YOUR AVERAGE OR STANDARD HOURLY RATE?"

Response Category Count

Less than $25 10 1

$25 to $30 10 1

$31 to $40 19 2

$41 to $50 69 7

$51 to $60 124 12

$61 to $75 253 25

$76 to $99 193 19

$100 to i $124 106 11

$125 or 1 More 213 21

TOTAL 997 100

Median Category is "$61 to $75".

214

TABLE XXXIV

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHAT WAS YOUR PERSONAL NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES IN 1980 FROM YOUR WORK AS A MEMBER OF THE

LEGAL PROFESSION? DEDUCT ALL BUSINESS, BUT NOT PERSONAL EXPENSES

Response Category Count %

Under $10,000 94 9

$10,000 to $19,999 104 1 1

$20,000 to $29,999 181 18

$30,000 to $39,999 169 17

$40,000 to $49,999 113 12

$50 ,000 to $74,999 161 16

$75,000 to $99,999 64 7

$100,000 to $124,999 42 4

$125,000 to $149,999 23 2

$150,000 to $199,999 18 2

$200,000 to $250,000 7 1

Over $250,000 6 1

TOTAL 982 100

Median = 4.16

Media Category is "$30,000 to $39,999"

215

TABLE XXXV

FREQUENCIES FOR "WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF THE LAW CONSTITUTE AT LEAST 10% OF YOUR PRACTICE

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?"

Response Category Count %

Admiralty 27 3

Administrative 130 12

Anti-Trust 44 4

Appellate 100 10

Aviation 1 1 1

Banking 99 9

Bankruptcy 75 7

Business 384 36

Commercial 268 25

Consumer 136 13

Corporation 373 35

Criminal 235 22

Environmental 38 4

Estate Planning 178 17

Family Law (inc. divorce) 382 36

General Practice 363 34

Health Law 16 2

Immigration 21 2

216

TABLE XXXV—Continued

Response Category Count %

International 35 3

Labor 43 4

Military 17 2

Natural Resources 128 12

Patent, Trademark 32 3

Personal Injury (Plain.) 206 20

Personal Injury (Def.) 104 10

Public Law 49 5

Public Utility Law 24 2

Probate & Trust 263 25

Real Estate 392 37

School Law 23 2

Securities 65 6

Taxation 125 12

Trial 343 33

Other 70 7

* Respondents were asked to "check all that apply", therefore column total will not equal 100%.

217

TABLE XXXVI

FREQUENCIES FOR "ARE YOU CERTIFIED BY THE TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION IN (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?"

Response Category Count % **

No, not certified 938 93

Civil Trial 26 3

Criminal 8 1

Estate Planning and Probate 10 1

Family 13 1

Immigration and Nationality 3 *

Personal Injury Trial 17 2

Labor 8 *

* Less than 1%.

** Respondents were asked to "check all that apply", therefore the column will not total 100%.

218

TABLE XXXVII

FREQUENCIES FOR "DO YOU PLAN TO SEEK BOARD CERTIFICATION IN THE NEXT YEAR

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?"

Response Category Count %**

No, do not plan to seek 863 87

Civil Trial 59 6

Criminal 25 3

Estate Planning and Probate 20 2

Family 34 3

Immigration and Nationality 5 *

Personal Injury Trial 29 3

Labor 3 *

* Less than 1%. ** Respondents were asked to

the column will not total "check all that apply", 100%.

therefore

TABLE XXXVIII 219

CROSS TABULATION OF COMPOSITE ORIENTATION AND SUMMATED PROMOTIONAL APPEALS*

Orientation Categories Summated Row

Promotional Score Production Sales Consumer Total

0 to 20 Count 8 1 11 20 Row % 40.0 5.0 55.0 2.3

Column % 6.5 1.8 1 .6 Total % 0.0 0.1 1 .3

21 to 30 Count 4 3 22 29 Row % 13.8 10.3 75.9 3.4

Column % 3.2 5.3 3.3 Total % 0.5 0.4 2.6

31 to 40 Count 20 4 84 108 Row % 18.5 3.7 77.8 12.6

Column % 16.1 7.0 12.4 Total % 2.3 0.5 9.8

41 to 50 Count 56 16 240 312 Row % 17.9 5.1 76.9 36.4

Column % 45.2 38.1 35.5 Total % 6.5 1 .9 28.0

51 to 60 Count 27 22 222 271 Row % 10.0 8.1 81 .9 13.7

Column % 21 .8 38.6 32.8 Total % 3.2 2.6 25.9

61 to 70 Count 9 11 97 117 Row % 7.7 9.4 83.9 13.7

Column % 7.3 19.3 14.3 Total % 1 .1 1 .3 11 .3

Column 124 57 676 857 Total 14.5 6.7 78.9 100.0

-2 -= 27.96 p = .0018

220

TABLE XXXIX

CROSS TABULATION OF COMPOSITE ORIENTATION AND DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO SERVING THE INTEREST OR

WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

Points Assigned Orientation Categories to Row

General Public Production Sales Consumer Total

0 to 5 Count 47 33 271 351 Row % 13.4 9.4 77.2 41 .0

Column % 37.0 57.9 40.1 Total % 5.5 3.9 31 .6

6 to 10 Count 49 11 180 240 Row % 20.4 4.6 75.0 28.0

Column % 39.5 19.3 26.6 Total % 5.7 1 .3 21 .0

11 to 15 Count 8 0 51 59 Row % 13.6 0.0 86.4 6.9

Column % 6.5 0.0 7.5 Total % 0.9 0.0 6.0

16 to 20 Count 11 4 76 91 Row % 12.1 4.4 83.5 10.6

Column % 8.9 7.0 1 1 .2 Total % 1.3 0.5 3.3

21 to 30 Count 3 4 28 35 Row % 8.6 1 1.4 80.0 4.1

Column % 2.4 7.0 4.1 Total % 0.4 0.5 3.3

31 to 100 Count 6 5 70 81 Row % 7.4 6.2 86.4 9.5

Column % 4.8 8.8 10.4 Total % 0.7 0.6 8.2

Column 124 57 676 857 Total 14.5 6.7 78.9 100.0

* X2 = 23.41 p = .0093

TABLE XL

CROSS TABULATION OF COMPOSITE ORIENTATION AND USE OF FORMAL WRITTEN

BUSINESS PLAN*

221

Orientation Categories Response Row

Categories Production Sales Consumer Total

No Count 104 45 540 689 Row % 15.1 65 78.4 88.6

Column % 88.1 86.5 88.8 Total % 13.4 5.8 69.4

Yes Count 3 7 32 42 Row % 7.1 16.7 76.2 5.4

Column % 2.5 13.5 5.3 Total % 0.4 0.9 4.1

Do Not Know Count 1 1 0 36 47 Row % 23.4 0.0 76.6 6.0

Column % 9.3 0.0 5.9 Total % 1 .4 0.0 4.6

Column 118 52 608 778 Total 15.2 6.7 78.1 100.0

X 2 _ 13.36 p = .0097

TABLE XLI

CROSS TABULATION OF COMPOSITE ORIENTATION AND SUMMATED PRODUCTION SCORE*

222

Summated Orientation Categories

Summated Row Production Score Production Sales Consumer Total

0 to 8 Count 0 7 22 29 Row % 0.0 24.1 75.9 3.4

Column % 0.0 12.3 3.3 Total % 0.0 0.8 2.6

9 Count 0 4 28 32 Row % 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.7

Column % 0.0 7.0 4.1 Total % 0.0 0.5 3.3

10 Count 1 9 88 68 Row % 1 .0 9.2 89.8 11 .4

Column % 0.8 15.8 13.0 Total % 0.1 1 .1 10.3

11 Count 5 9 91 105 Row % 4.8 8.6 86.7 12.3

Column % 4.0 15.8 13.5 Total % 0.6 1.1 10.6

12 Count 17 8 169 194 Row % 8.8 4.1 87.1 22.6

Column % 13.7 14.0 25.0 Total % 2.0 0.9 19.7

13 Count 23 8 136 167 Row % 13.8 4.8 81 .4 22.6

Column % 18.5 14.0 25.0 Total % 2.0 0.9 19.7

TABLE XLI—Continued

223

Sumraated Production Score

Orientation Categories Sumraated

Production Score Production Sales Consumer Row

Total

14 Count Row %

Column % Total %

31 24.0 25.0 3.6

6 4.7

10.5 0.7

92 71 .3 13.6 10.7

129 15.1

15 to 19 Count Row %

Column % Total %

47 45.6 37.9 5.5

6 5.8

10.5 6.7

50 48.5 7.4 5.8

103 12.0

Column Total

124 14.5

57 6.7

676 78.9

857 100.0

X 2 = 147.11 p. < .001

TABLE XLII

CROSS TABULATION OF COMPOSITE ORIENTATION AND SUMMATED SALES SCORE*

224

Orientation Categories Summated Row

Sales Score Production Sales Consumer Total

6 to 7 Count 10 0 30 40 Row % 25.0 0.0 75.0 4.7

Column % 8.1 0.0 4.4 Total % 1 .2 0.0 3.5

8 Count 18 0 55 73 Row % 24.7 0.0 75.3 8.5

Column % 14.5 0.0 8.1 Total % 2.1 0.0 6.4

9 Count 26 0 75 101 Row % 25.7 0.0 74.3 11 .8

Column % 21 .0 0.0 11.1 Total % 3.0 0.0 8.8

10 Count 25 0 168 193 Row % 13.0 0.0 87.0 22.5

Column % 20.2 0.0 24.9 Total % 2.9 0.0 19.6

11 Count 21 4 114 139 Row % 15.1 2.9 82.0 15.2

Column % 16.9 7.0 16.9 Total % 2.5 0.5 13.3

12 Count 10 5 84 99 Row % 10.1 5.1 84.8 1 1 .6

Column % 8.1 8.8 12.4 Total % 1 .2 0.6 9.8

TABLE XLII—Continued

225

Orientation Categories Summated Row

Sales Score Production Sales Consumer Total

13 Count 10 9 75 94 Row % 10.6 9.6 79 .8 11 .0

Column % 8.1 15.8 11.1 Total % 1 .2 1 .1 00

• 00

14 Count 3 10 48 61 Row % 4.9 16.4 78.7 7.1

Column % 2.4 17.5 7.1 Total % 0.4 1.2 5.6

15 to 19 Count 1 29 27 57 Row % 1.8 50.9 47.4 6.7

Column % 0.8 50.9 4.0 Total % 0.1 3.4 3.2

Column 124 57 676 857 Total 14.5 6.7 78.9 100.0

X2 = 247.86 p. < .0001

TABLE XLIII 226

CROSS TABULATION OF COMPOSITE ORIENTATION AND SUMMATED CONSUMER SCORE*

Summated Orientation Categories

Summated Row Consumer Score Production Sales Consumer Total

0 to 10 Count 24 12 0 36 Row % 66.7 33.3 0.0 4.2

Column % 19.4 21.1 0.0 Total % 2.8 1 .4 0.0

1 1 Count 16 5 8 29 Row % 55.2 17.2 27.6 3.4

Column % 12.9 8.8 1.2 Total % 1 .9 0.6 0.0

12 Count 35 12 28 75 Row % 46.7 16.0 37.3 8.8

Column % 28.2 21.1 4.1 Total % 4.1 1 .4 3.3

13 Count 15 5 72 92 Row % 16.3 5.4 78.3 10.7

Column % 12.1 8.8 10.7 Total % 1 .8 0.6 8.4

14 Count 26 12 153 191 Row % 13.6 6.3 80.1 22.3

Column % 21 .0 21 .1 22.6 Total % 3.0 1 .4 17.9

15 to 100 Count 8 11 415 434 Row % 1 .8 2.5 95.6 50.6

Column % 6.5 19.3 61 .4 Total % 0.9 1 .3 48.4

Column 124 57 676 857 Total 14.5 6.7 78.9 100.0

X 2 _ 337.38 < .0001

227

TABLE XLIV

CROSS TABULATION OF CONSUMER ORIENTED AND DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO SERVING THE INTEREST

OR WELFARE OF THE CLIENT*

Points Assigned

Orientation Categories

Points Assigned Row to Client Non-Consumer Consumer Total

10 to 20 Count 27 42 69 Row % 39.1 60.9 7.0

Column % 7.9 6.5 Total % 2.7 4.2

21 to 25 Count 13 28 41 Row % 31 .7 68.3 4.1

Column % 3.8 4.3 Total % 1 .3 2.8

26 to 30 Count 22 68 90 Row % 24.4 75.6 9.1

Column % 6.4 10.5 Total % 2.2 6.9

31 to 40 Count 62 121 183 Row % 33.9 66.1 18.4

Column % 18.1 18.6 Total % 6.3 12.2

41 to 50 Count 83 155 238 Row % 34.9 65.1 24.0

Column % 24.2 23.9 Total % 8.4 15.6

51 to 60 Count 33 78 111 Row % 29.7 70.3 11.2

Column % 9.6 12.0 Total % 3.3 7.9

TABLE XLIV—Continued

228

Points Assigned Orientation Categories

Points Assigned Row to Client Non-Consumer Consumer Total

61 to 70 Count 21 40 61 Row % 34.4 65.6 6.1

Column % 6.1 6.2 Total % 2.1 4.0

71 to 80 Count 40 81 121 Row % 33.1 66.9 12.2

Column % 1 1 .7 12.5 Total % 4.0 8.2

81 to 90 Count 15 20 35 Row % 42.9 57.1 3.5

Column % 4.4 3.1 Total % 1 .5 2.0

91 to 100 Count 27 16 43 Row % 62.8 37.2 4.3

Column % 7.9 2.5 Total % 2.7 1 .6

Column 343 649 992 Total 34.6 65.4 100.0

X z = 22.38 p. < .0001

TABLE XLV

CROSS TABULATION OF CONSUMER-ORIENTED AND USE OF FORMAL WRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

229

Orientation Categories Response Row

Categories Non-Consumer Consumer Total

No Count 328 532 860 Row % 38.1 61 .9 88.7

Column % 95.9 84.7 Total % 33.8 54.8

Yes Count 3 48 51 Row % 5.9 94.1 5.3

Column % 0.9 7.6 Total % 0.3 4.9

Do Not Know Count 11 48 59 Row % 18.6 81 .4 6.1

Column % 3.2 7.6 Total % 1 .1 4.9

Column 342 628 970 Total 35.3 64.7 100.0

X 2 _ 29.54 p. < .0001

TABLE XLVI

CROSS TABULATION OF CONSUMER-ORIENTED AND USE OF INFORMAL NONWRITTEN BUSINESS PLAN*

230

Orientation Categories Response Row

Categories Non-Consumer Consumer Total

No Count 200 276 476 Row % 42.0 58.0 51 .2

Column % 60.6 46.1 Total % 21 .5 29.7

Yes Count 116 257 373 Row % 31 .1 68.9 40.2

Column % 35.2 42.9 Total % 12.5 27.7

Do Not Know Count 14 66 80 Row % 17.5 88.5 8.6

Column % 4.1 11 .0 Total % 1 .5 7.1

Column 330 599 929 Total 35.5 64.5 100.1

X2 = 23.30 p. < 0001

TABLE XLVII 231

CROSS TABULATION OF CONSUMER-ORIENTED AND SUMMATED PROMOTIONAL APPEAL SCORES*

Summated Orientation Categories Promotional Row

Appeals Score Non-Consumer Consumer Total

0 to 20 Count 13 11 24 Row % 54.2 45.8 2.2

Column % 3.5 1 .5 Total % 1 .2 1 .0

21 to 30 Count 28 14 42 Row % 66.7 33.3 3.9

Column % 7.6 2.0 Total % 2.6 1 .3

31 to 40 Count 70 68 138 Row % 50.7 49.3 12.8

Column % 19.1 9.6 Total % 6.5 6.3

41 to 50 Count 140 237 377 Row % 37.1 62.9 35.0

Column % 38.1 33.4 Total % 13.0 22.0

51 to 60 Count 78 243 321 Row % 24.3 75.7 29.8

Column % 21 .3 34.2 Total % 7.2 22.6

61 to 70 Count 38 137 175 Row % 21 .7 78.3 16.2

Column % 10.4 19.3 Total % 3.5 12.7

Column 367 710 1077 Total 34 .1 65.9 100.0

= 68.33 p. < .0001

TABLE XLVIII

CROSS TABULATION OF CONSUMER-ORIENTED AND SUMMTED MEDIA SCORES*

232

Summated Orientation Categories

Summated Row Media Score Non-Consumer Consumer Total

0 to 15 Count 33 31 64 Row % 51.6 48.4 5.9

Column % 9.0 4.4 Total % 3.1 2.9

16 to 20 Count 120 99 219 Row % 54.8 45.2 20.3

Column % 32.7 13.9 Total % 11.1 9.2

21 to 25 Count 86 120 206 Row % 41 .7 58.3 19.1

Column % 23.4 16.9 Total % 8.0 11.1

26 to 30 Count 62 145 207 Row % 30.0 70.0 19.2

Column % 16.9 20.4 Total % 5.8 13.5

31 to 35 Count 27 100 127 Row % 21 .3 78.7 11 .8

Column % 7.4 14.1 Total % 2.5 9.3

36 to 40 Count 15 86 101 Row % 14.9 85.1 9.4

Column % 4.1 12.1 Total % 1 .4 8.0

TABLE XLVIII—continued

233

Orientation Categories Summated Row

Media Score Non-Consumer Consumer Total

41 to 50 Count 13 64 77 Row % 16.9 83.1 7.1

Column % 3.5 9.0 Total % 1 .2 5.9

51 to 60 Count 11 65 76 Row % 14.5 85.5 7.1

Column % 3.0 9.2 Total % 1 .0 6.0

Column 367 710 1077 Total 34.1 65.9 100.0

* X 2 = 106.56 p. < .0001

TABLE XLIX

CROSS TABULATION OF CONSUMER-ORIENTED AND SUMMATED READERSHIP SCORES*

234

Summated Orientation Categories

Summated Row Media Score Non-Consumer Consumer Total

0 to 2 Count 87 145 232 Row % 37.5 62.5 21 .5

Column % 23 .7 20.4 Total % 8.1 13.5

3 Count 96 142 238 Row % 40.3 59.7 22.1

Column % 26.2 20.0 Total % 8.9 13.2

4 Count 60 129 189 Row % 31 .7 68.3 17.5

Column % 16.3 18.2 Total % 5.6 12.0

5 Count 45 78 123 Row % 36.6 63.4 11 .4

Column % 12.3 11 .0 Total % 4.2 7.2

6 Count 14 51 65 Row % 21 .5 78.5 6.0

Column % 3.8 7.2 Total % 1 .3 4.7

7 Count 9 36 45 Row % 20.0 80.0 4.2

Column % 2.5 5.1 Total % 0.8 3.3

TABLE XLIX-continued

235

Orientation Categories Summated Row

Media Score Non-Consumer Consumer Total

8 Count 3 12 15 Row % 20.0 80.0 1 .4

Column % 0.8 1 .7 Total % 0.3 1.1

9 to 14 Count 53 117 170 Row % 31 .2 68.8 15.8

Column % 14.4 16.5 Total % 4.9 10.9

Column 367 710 1077 Total 34.1 65.9 100.0

X 2 = 16.64 p. = .01

236

TABLE L

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR SUMMATED CONSUMER VARIABLE WITH PROMOTIONAL ISSUES

Promotional Issues R

Significance (less than or

equal to)

Hours of Operation .12 .000

Pricing of Specific Services .21 .000

Flat Hourly Rates .17 .000

Quality of Service .15 .000

Location of Offices .10 .000

Certification/Specialization Areas .18 .000

Telephone Numbers .11 .000

Types of Cases You Want to Handle .20 .000

Law School(s) Attended .12 .000

Years of Practice .17 .000

Professional Affiliations .14 .000

Past Legal Experience .19 .000

Promptness of Service .20 .000

Consumer Need for Specific Legal Services .25 .000

237

TABLE LI

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR SUMMATED CONSUMER VARIABLE WITH MEDIA ISSUES

Media Issues R

Significance (less than or

equal to)

Yellow Pages .14 .000

Newspaper .23 .000

Professional/Academic Journal .13 .000

Popular News Magazines .27 .000

Television .23 .000

Radio .23 .000

Billboards .17 .000

Direct Mail .27 .000

Handbills .18 .000

Transit .16 .000

Circular/Shopping Guides .21 .000

Trade Association Magazines .25 .000

238

TABLE LII

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR SUMMATED CONSUMER VARIABLE WITH USE OF

BUSINESS PLAN

Type of Business Plan R

Significance (less than or

equal to)

Formal Written

Informal Nonwritten

14

16

.000

.000

TABLE LIII

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR SUMMATED CONSUMER ORIENTED VARIABLES WITH

THE FIVE PUBLICS

Group R

Significance (less than or

equal to)

The Courts .01 .323*

The CIient -.08 .007

The General Public .04 .129*

The State Bar -.02 .305*

The Firm or Your Private Practice .01 .351*

* Not significant at the .01 level.

239

fa i-3 PQ < M & < >

P W EH 25 fa M PS o 1 Ph co w fa S D D co co co £ M O u ^ <

> fa 53 H DC C J EH M

EH W PS O J O S PQ fa O C PS Eh fa Oi

U 12 fa < ffi H EH PS C Q > 523 <

fa O co M CO >» J < £ < >H c s 1 1 fa 55 C

>i 5m AJ 0 •H i—1 C 0 •h m -P jq x: o o o o O CN o o o o o O o o 05 -P iH o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o Xi 03 o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o co 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

^ CO cr Oi 0) <D

J fa ^

0 •H 00 in r- ro 00 CM 00 in r- vo r^ 00 r^ -P LO o LO r— 00 <5* <D cr> CN *— 00 00 <T\ r-ro CO r- o ro T— r- O r— ro ro 00 LO r- o in

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

CO LO CM 00 a> o <JS ro LO 00 r- r— <j\ r— fa CO cm CN ro CN ro kD r-

5M 0) vo as vo r- m o r- ro CM o in ro o vo g C CM t— CN vo r- 00 CN VD LO ro ro 3 03 <p r— CM 00 r— <J\ c\ CM 03 CD o T— r— t— o *— o r— o T O t— T— < — CP C S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o as

CJ

5m d) g o vo T— m V0 X— 00 a> 00 o CM ro 00 3 C < — VO CN 00 00 o <=* LO o> CN 00 00 r * in 0) (0 LO r- a> T— CM ro VD LO r— <T> in r- r^ c 0) r— CN CM t— r— CN T CM r— CN r— CM CM ro T 0 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

O o o O o o O o O o O o o o o C 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 0 5 3

CD Q> MM CD O 0 rH

<u c XI MM rH a) Q) CO 5M 05 0 c

-p 05

•H 5-1

CO CD

0 MM •H

u >1 c 05 -P a> c 05

CO -P •rH x: CO a. .p ns > <u •H —' X & <D o rH c 0 a) g 0) 0 •H (0 0 4J CO • 0 C 5m > 3 •H c o i—i u CD 0 5-1 a1 4J CO 4J 0 4J 05 04 CO O O CD

a1

05 ^ c •H (D cr> 5m -h CO CO CP O 05 05 0) -P CD CP <D >

c CO •H a) £ T5 03 ^ rH c g u rH O •H w 4-4 u C •H M •H 3 CD 05

C •H CO c CD •rH ro CO D <L) rH 03 -p c CO 03 C 0 MM CD 5M O 4J —' 0 4J Q) •H m CO Sm C 0 •H •H -P a) •H u c u 4J O M 05 <D 0 '—1 •H -P o 05 a M-i 0) 0 0) 05 •H M-l c 0. O O 03 AJ

03 CD 5M c U-! O *H XI CO 4J 05 03 C CP 0 5m a. 0 0 4J g Q) O O MM 0 MM (D g

0) CD CO >i u M-l 05 D CO CO 05 rH *H 0 O 0 rH 0 3 CU i—1 M-l 0 N C 05 — 03 U 5m co 0 <4-1 u CO 0 •H O rH a C <D CO CO CO U Oa

CO 0 3 4J CD 4-> rH 0) 0 0 g -p -P CD 4J -H H MM 0 c o c C 03 c M-l 0 M-i •H c c o C MM <V H

O CP x: CD -H o 0 "i—1 0 0 x: O CO Q) Q) -H Q) -H Q)

i—1 c g > •rH g u JC o CO *- g g > g O AJ

05 CO •H TD 0 5M 4J 0) 0) a W CO CO Q) U O CD U CD <D 05 C U o 0 -P CD 05 4J Oa a; d) 4 M-l 05 AJ AJ CD 4J Oi g 0 3 •H X 05 CO O 05 CO i—i CU 03 0 PQ 05 05 CO 05 CO g •H 0 u •H -P 0 4J Q) >1 fO CD U -P -P 4J D -P rn PM fa co J CO Eh E-J J CU CO CO CO CO 0 g 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

5m CN ro ID vo r- 00 cr> O T— CN ro m Pu T

r~ T— r~

240

> J

w

PQ < Eh

P W Eh IS W M &

C I PS W s D W W S3 W O D U CO

CO W M ffi

Eh < M

& P 0 w fa s

W fa u as 53 Eh <

M Q & 13 < <

> fa

fa |J O PQ

C U1 M M (3d cn c >H > J <

13 <

>H < s 1 w !2i o

>i M -P 0 •H * s rH G 0 •H 03 -P XI X! o O O O o O O O o o O O o fD 4-1 H o O O O o O o o o o O o o JQ 03 o o o O o O o o o o o o o 0 CO D • • • • • • • • • • • • • M CO CT1

Ph 0 CD P3

fa ^

0 •rH r- CM o T— r- r- *£> <J\ CN o KO -P VD r- LO <j\ m LO V£> r— o m r-(0 00 ID KD o cn r— Ch ro vo in in

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

fa CN r— CO V£> 00 00 vo <o 00 ro 00

fa CN VO x— 00 LO in CN r- 00 CN i> 00

0 r— r— o r- o V£> i> 00 r- in 00 g c o ID o G\ 00 T— CT> o 00 o 00 00 D 03 o <o o in VD * — & CN o 00 m CO (U r— *— o t— T— T t— T— t— r— r— x— 00 C • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 o O r— o o o O o o o o o U CN

5-1 0 g o <y\ <D vo ro r^ CN 00 (Ts 00 o r-D C o o 00 00 ro O 00 00 r- r- 00 r— CO 03 T— oo r- r— CN ro vo in CN cr» in vo C CD CN 00 *— oo f**) ro CN ro CM CN CN 00 00 0 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 c 1 l 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CN 0 52

fc. •

0 •

•H — '

,— CO rH 0 m 4J rH c CO >1 CO JQ u 0 rH D 03 D CO C -H HD •H 0 0 •H 03 C u

• N P •H 03 CO o •H 03 >

o 0 4J D cn SH rH •H c 0 o 03 03 0 0 £ «H •H S 0 U U <D (0 N CP s 03 0 T5 C f0 X c c a. o 05 ^ cn (0 •iH 0 CO cn O D 03 o a •H •» < < 0 S a -P c

< 03

\ ^ 0 03 0 CO •H CO CO i—1 CO CO JG •H g — HD 0 0 H3 M S 1—i D o o C 0 D cn C 03 0 c •rH JQ \ 0 s 0 SB CO 03 u 0 PQ 53 0 T3 m CO — ' CO CO g CO CU 0 •rH \ •rH U s rH U CO ^ 0 "U H d. CO 0) CO 03 rH •P 03 <C • £ 0

Z 03 CO -P 05 •H 0 4J •H •H rH \ 0 4J 03 0 Cu 0 03 i—1 > 0 JD o JQ CO D 0 • fd •rH 1—1 CO MH -P a <D •H rH 0 T5 C O HD -H 0 g TJ rH £ 0 CO 04 rH rH u C 03 U 03 — fa g 0 <V CD 0 0) tC •H •H <3 4 •H D as >i 13 PM CM EH PQ P as EH CJ EH m

241

fa CQ < w <

< > fa o >

Q fa w 12 EH co O £ D M fa EH M Q U 52 w

0 1 < CO

1 & > 2 fa M O £ PS D sz: fa CO c ss M 25 o EH <C

M o CJ •J > fa CM J & CO

o CO fa fa fa 0)

O fa CQ fa Z C u P< M E-: z D CO

< O D H PS CQ PS o < 5S > FH fa 23 EH

fa fa EH O M M J pd

CO CJ 5 M co w >H EC <

EH s c PS EC O

< EH fa M

>H £ < £ I fa 55 O

>i H -P 0 •H «—•» rH C 0 •H (tJ 4J JQ X3 * —

fO -P rH o o XI (0 o o 0 w 3 • •

V4 CO D1

CL, (U 0) J

fa ^

0 *H Lr> <y> -P oo fC cm PS • •

00 o fa T"~

CD en cn 6 C ^ o 3 05 <T> VD CO <\) LO O C E • •

0 o o CJ LO

u <L> e ro o D C as o 0} 03 LO o C d) ^ o O £ • •

O VD O c LD 0 JZ

a; JC 4J CO

w 0 <u 4J c

•H TD CO a) D C -Q On •H C CO <D CO 4J (0 -P

•H CO 1 4J QU £ C D

• H O 1—1 O &H <3 Oi CP g

4J ^ -P 0 c 0 C M-l <u <D C g -H M-l 03 Q) 0 r-H 0 i—1 AJ no Qa 03 S a) 4J D CO CO 2 D

• 242

> J

w

CQ c Eh

53 O H Eh <

Eh £ W M PS o

w Eh M CO C co P^ w 5 D O CO CJ CO

HH 6 O frl <

13 W O CJ !3 < M <

>

Eh O 2 O

CM

&4 EC 0 Eh

H co S H CO >H J <

52

>H

£ 1 w 25 O

CJ CJ c * *. 03 -U CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO U CO fck V \ \ k w C 0 CJ u CJ CJ CO CJ CO CJ \ CJ \ 3 Eh \ \ \ \ \

CJ \ CJ \

a CM CM a* CM a* PM CM CM PH

>) s-l 4J 0 v •H O rH c -P •H 05 JQ rC rH ID O KD O o O o 05 -P 05 O O T— O o r— T— O o JQ 3 O O o O o o o O o C CO tJ* • • • • • • • • • U CO CD PM CD

rH 1X4

5-1 0 LO CN LO r— V£> ro LO r— s r- vo r— o CT» r- 0^ r-

CO 3 ro LD CN a\ CN LO ro

CO CO o o O O o O o o LO C C • • • • • • • • • 05 O o o O o o o o o 00 CD CJ S

04 3

CD vo ro ID m 00 CN o 00

0 CD r— CN r—• o CN CX) ro CN rH vo o <T\ ro Ch r^ CN CN LO

0 05 T— CN T CN O t— o CN CO • • • • • • • • •

C o o o o o o o o o 0 LO •H -P 05 C -P 0 c •H LO ro T <J\ CN o p-CD -P o CN <J\ ro CN ro <j> r^ r— •H o LT) o o CN r^ CN ro ro o

3 CN ro CN ro ro CN CN ro CN o TJ • • • • • • • • •

O o o o o o o O o 4 1 1 1 l I 1 1 l

PM >1 C -p •H CO Q) •H T3 O 1—1 c 0 -H 0 05 0 (0 0 > U 3 •H CO c 13 0 a 4J — 0 0 o

05 03 •H U CO CO CP < — ^ O <D 4J 0 c CO -rH U 05 S rH rH •H — MH < •H D 05 05

c CO c CD •H rH co cn C 0 CD J4 U 4J CO 10 •H C 0 0 •H 4J CD •H U c MH 0 J •H 4-> 03 O MH CD 0 CD MH o 4J 05 & C MH CJ •H JQ < o 0 5*4 0 O 4J e mh -h e <p >i CJ <D MH 05 D rH 0 MH o 04 i—1 O MH 0 N S3 03 •H u O CO -H 0 •H C CO o CM

D -P > 4-> i—1 CD 0 4-4 0 MH 0 C M c C 05 C •H C 04 T5 O EC CD CD 0 <D •rH 0 CO 0 CO 0

rH g CO •H B o JC CO e 44 05 CO T3 0 4J CD CD 04 CD 0 U 05 CD u CD -P MH 05 -P 0U CD MH -p 0 £ a. o X 05 0 O 03 CO rH 0 05 MH g CM 0 •H -P 0 4J 0 U 4J 3 < ffi CO J CO Eh P4 CO CO

&4 I 0 MH CO 6 -H 0

*0 rH (15

>1 co

4-> C

II A3 O

CJ -H M-l

• «k -H co c 0 rH 03 co

CO

4-> o 3

o

T3 C no

U 0 e 3

C7> CO •H C CO O

U cn C CD •H JC 0 4-> X2 0

C rc CD e

•H JC £

O* -3 CO o c U (0

Cu cn Q) e

II c o

CM *h — 1 4J

o 3 H3 O 0

U C 0 U 0 M4 MH •H •O

CD JG

0*4J 3 O O U JC CT> O

03 CO <D

O* rH OS

a* co .c -p

MH no O 03

CD u

<D XI 4J

O 0) *0 M rH

3 o £

CD jc = -P CO

CO CJ s \ O CM x; = CO

e o

M-i

4J C CD 4 CD M-J M-l •H

CD X3 4J

4J C OS O

C -H 03 MH JC 4J

4-5 CO (D -P

CO •H XI Eh

<D *0 rH C O* 03 6 —

4J c 0 V-i CD

* Cn MH

C cn

*H CO

4J O C

a> u CD £

CO c 03 CD E

243

W EH H CO O A. S O C/3 CJ W

D & CO O Ul IXI M

W < CJ M

M 5S Q M < W H H S > & J < EC

> EH W M J EJ-I S CQ O < S25 E CO O

M M CO EH <

J EH < 2

W < M

O <C & 1 1 W 12 O

C * U

05 -P O CO

CO CA \ CN CO

C (U 3 EH

O \

CJ \

CN CJ \ CJ \ Q CU 04 04 04 04

>1 u 4J 0 -•H 0 H C 4J •H 05 JQ s: H FO 4J FO JQ D 0 CO TJ1 }H CO CD 01 <D

I—I B —

D O VJ O

C O •H 4J 05 4J C a; •H u o

<D g o CO c O CJ

CD I—1 A* O)

c O •H 4J O D

0

01

03 •rH

CU E

CN O O O O

O O

CN CN O

R-

O

OO R-O

LO CN R- R-oo co O R-

CN CN O

00 00 <J\ CN •

G\ I

CN O 00 CM

LO VO CN

CO 0) O> AS 0» £

0

CD

CO U <D Ch 03 0* CO £ CD Z

U •H g A) •"0 03 O <C

05 C CO 0 r-i •H 05 CO C CO J-J CD D MH 0 0 »"D

0<

*— 00 O O O O

R-VD O

LO

CN

V£> O <X> CN • O I

CO <D C •H N CO C7> 05 S

CO

A) 2 \

03 RH D A O 0<

VD LO

ro • 00 CN

<Js O

A>

<R> CN

LO O

LO CN

<D U o o w 03 •H T5 CD 35

'O CD -P 03 g g D W

U Q) g D CO C 0 O

CJ

CO <D RH 03 CO

II

CA

C O •H -P O D

o u A

II

cu

Q) C <D u CD UH <+-J •H NS

U-4 0

•

C 0 0 rH •H D< -P g O 05 0) X U CD

•H

0 <D MH .C •P H

M CO > S 1-3 0 JC CD CO RH JQ

CO 05 •H EH

EH 0) 0

* Cn

244

TABLE LIX

FREQUENCIES FOR COMPOSITE ORIENTATION VARIABLE

Orientation Category Count %

Production 124 14 .5

Sales 57 6 .7

Consumer 676 78 .9

Unclassified 220 Miss ing*

Total 1 ,077 100 .0

* The "unclassified" respondents were not included in the classified percentage base.

X t-3 fa J OQ < Eh

CO 5 5

O H Eh U S3 D fa EH S 3 <

12 M 5 M 6 u CD

J < <J M £ O 5Z < U

a; 1 o CO r-•H C LO CN C 03 r- 00 Cr» O O 00 •H *H • •

cn m-i o o

CO g (U 0 CD H3 0 CN tr> <D cu u

O fa

CD T— ^ •H u ^ CN JC 05 V£> <J\ U 3 • •

CT LO v-CO < —

CO 03 on in - TD ^ KD ^ JQ cn r-rH g 00 o •H 05 • •

S J o o c

u 0 <1) -H 4J 4J M-i a O T-< c D fa

c rH 0 03 -H O 4J r- cn •H 03 ^ 00 C rH <Ti LO o a; 00 r-c u • •

03 ^ o o U 0 u

(U > 4J •H c o -P <D o 03 O • •

«H V-l 00 o D (D 00 o e & T—' D CJ MH 0 CD O r- oo

4J C in C 03 • •

CD -H 00 <— O U 00 r-M 03 CD > CM a> D rH 00 ^ 03 LO O > "sf1 ^ C 00 CN 0) r- o tr> • •

*H o o fa

c 0 •H -p o r- CN c D fa

245

246

TABLE LXI

CLASSIFICATION RESULTS FOR CASES SELECTED FOR USE IN THE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS*

Number of Predicted Group Membership Actual Group Cases Production Sales Consumer

Production (Count) 29 10 10 9 (%) 34.5 34.5 31 .0

Sales (Count) 26 2 15 9 (%) 7.7 57.7 34.6

Consumer (Count) 30 2 11 17 (%) 6.7 36.7 56.7

Ungrouped 449 51 213 185

* Percent of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 49.41%

247

TABLE LXII

CLASSIFICATION RESULTS FOR CASES NOT SELECTED FOR USE IN THE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS*

Actual Group Number of Predicted Group Membership

Actual Group Cases Production Sales Consumer

Production (Count) 33 3 16 14 (%) 9.1 48.5 42.4

Sales (Count) 31 6 12 13 (%) 19.4 38.7 41 .9

Consumer (Count) 29 1 12 16 (%) 3.4 41 .4 55.2

Ungrouped (Count) 450 60 202 188 (%) 13.3 44.9 41 .8

Percent of "ungrouped" cases correctly classified: 33.33%

248

TABLE LXIII

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR ZIP CODE GROUPS BY SAMPLES*

Count

Zip Code Group Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Metro 1 ,185 635 (57.5) (64.5)

Urban 260 189 (12.9) (19.2)

Rural 275 83 (13.3) (8.4)

Outside Texas 146 76 (7.1 ) (7.7)

Total 1 ,866 983

* X 2 = 39.19 p. = .001

249

TABLE LXIV

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR AGE BY SAMPLE*

Count

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Under 36 956 509 (46.3) (48.0)

36 to 45 475 274 (23.0) (26.0)

46 to 55 288 132 (13.3) (12.0)

56 to 65 202 107 (9.8) (10.0)

Over 65 151 43 (7.3) (4.0)

Total 2,072 1 ,065

* X2 = 16.38 p . = .01

250

TABLE LXV

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR SEX BY SAMPLES*

Count %

Sex Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Female 213 (10.3)

92 (9.0)

Males

Total

1823 (88.3)

964 (91.0)

Total 2,036 1 ,056

* x 2 = 2 . 3 7 p . = 15

251

TABLE LXVI

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR ETHNIC BACKGROUND BY SAMPLE*

Response Category

Count

Jan. 1981 Study

July 1981 Study

American Indian

Asian American

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Total

4

(0.2)

2 (0.1 )

43 (2.1 )

62 (3.0)

1 ,098 (92.4)

27 (1.3)

2,046

6

(0.5)

1 (0.1 )

7 (0.6)

24 (2.3)

1 ,010 (95.6)

8

(0.8)

1 ,056

X 2 = 12.71 p. = .05

252

TABLE LXVII

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR YEARS ADMITTED TO ANY BAR BY SAMPLE*

Count

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Less than 1 year 157 73 (7.6) (7.0)

1 to 4 years 493 224 (23.9) (21.0)

5 to 9 years 446 286 (21.6) (27.0)

10 to 15 years 283 176 (13.7) (16.0)

16 to 20 years 153 85 (7.4) (8.0)

21 to 25 years 146 69 (6.8) (6.0)

26 to 30 years 120 45 (5.8) (4.0)

Over 30 years 268 112 (13.0) (10.0)

Total 2,060 1 ,070

* y2 -Xz = 16.49 p. .02

253

TABLE LXVIII

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR CURRENT OCCUPATION IN PRACTICE OF LAW, AT LEAST ON PART-TIME BASIS

BY SAMPLES*

Count

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Yes 1 ,982 (91.6)

1 ,026 (95.2)

No 118 (5.6)

31 (2.9)

Retired 41 (2.0)

20 (1.9)

Total 2,014 1 ,077

* X 2 = 37.9 p. = .001

TABLE LXIX

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR CHARGEABLE AND NONCHARGEABLE HOURS PER MONTH BY SAMPLES*

254

Count %

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Less than 80 165 97 (2.0) (10.0)

80 to 120 145 65 (7.0) (7.0)

121 to 150 186 92 (9.0) (9.0)

151 to 175 620 269 (30.0) (28.0)

176 to 225 661 330 (32.0) (34.0)

Over 225 165 117 (8.0) (12.0)

Total 1 ,942 970

* Y2 _ = .1437 p. = .015

255

TABLE LXX

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR CHARGEABLE HOURS PER MONTH BY SAMPLE*

Count

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Less than 80 351 181 (17.0) (20.0)

80 to 120 434 202 (21 .0) (22.0)

121 to 150 372 213 (18.0) (23.0)

151 to 175 413 179 (20.0) (19.0)

176 to 225 186 120 (9.0) (12.0)

Over 225 41 38 (2.0) (4.0)

Total 1 ,797 923

* y2 -Xz = 25.31 P. = .001

TABLE LXXT

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR PERCENTAGE OF INCOME FROM LEGAL PROFESSION BY SAMPLE*

Count

256

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

80% or more 1 ,714 854 (83.0) (82.0)

60% to 79% 103 75 (5.0) (7.0)

50% to 59% 62 47 (3.0) (5.0)

Less than 50% 165 56 (8.0) (5.0)

Total 2,044 1 ,032

X 2 = 14.70 p. .01

257

TABLE LXXII

CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR RATE CHARGED ON AN HOURLY BASIS BY SAMPLES*

Count

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Less than $25 41 10 (2.0) (1.0)

$25 to $30 41 10 (2.0) (1.0)

$31 to $40 41 19 (2.0) (2.0)

$41 to $50 186 69 (9.0) (7.0)

$51 to $60 268 124 (13.0) (12.0)

$61 to $75 454 253 (22.0) (25.0)

$76 to $99 248 193 (12.0) (19.0)

$100 to $124 165 106 (8.0) (11.0)

Over $124 82 213 (4.0) (21.0)

Total 1 ,526 997

* X2 = 25.11 p. = .001

TABLE LXXIII CROSS TABULATION COMPARISON FOR PERSONAL NET INCOME

BY SAMPLE*

258

Count %

Response Category Jan. 1981

Study July 1981

Study

Less than $10,000 186 94 (9.0) (9.0)

$10,000 to $19,999 207 104 (10.0) (11.0)

$20,000 to $29,999 372 181 (18.0) (18.0)

$30,000 to $39,999 289 169 (14.0) (17.0)

$40,000 to $49,999 207 113 (10.0) (12.0)

$50,000 to $74,999 268 161 (13.0) (16.0)

$75,000 to $99,999 103 64 (5.0) (7.0)

$100,000 to $124,000 83 42 (4.0) (4.0)

$125,000 to $149,999 41 23 (2.0) (2.0)

$150,000 to $199,999 41 18 (2.0) (2.0)

$200,000 to $250,000 21 7 (1.0) (1.0)

Over $250,000 21 6 (2.0) (1.0)

Total 1 ,839 982

* X 2 = 6.06 p. = .80

259

TABLE LXXIV

ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR CONSUMER-ORIENTED ATTORNEYS HOLDING BUSINESS AND NONBUSINESS

DEGREES WITH MEDIA ISSUES

Degree Group Means F Probability

Media Non-

business Business F

Ratio (Less than or

eqaul to)

Trade Associa-tion Magazines 0.2682 0.0175 6.817 0 .0093

Radio 0.2458 0.0017 5.886 0.0156

Television 0.2477 0.0114 5.470 0.0197

Newspapers 0.2225 0 .0405 3.702 0.0549

260

> x x

w i j CQ C EH

i—1 £ A3 r* co CM LT) CO l> CN O 0 -p in • 00 • ^ • 00 • PS O LO t- 00 r- in <7\ O EH O

w CL> J g CQ D r* oo oo O <T> 00 CM CN CTi r~ O r— < CQ CO • • • CM • • • 00 • • • ro • M PC

C ^ m ro r- LT) 00 CM LD vo in M PC O \£> T— v- VD r- ^ KD <1 c U

KD

> 0

P -P W c0 En * -P IS W c W iJ <D H CQ •H CD PC c n g O H o D 1 0) Ot -OOO CN t - t - ro t - r - r - vo ro cr>

PC < C CN • • • VjD • • • vo • • • ^ • W > 0 IT) LT) CNJ ^ 00 •— CN in *X> VO ro ^ S o CO CO <— ro r- CM ro D c cn 5z 0 • 25 < 5Z 1—1 O PC <D CJ >

Eh CD fa 12 rH O W

M T— S3 J -P C\° CftP o\o -M dP dp dP •P dP # cP o O O C C c • M D £ C »H D £ C H D £ C H C i—1 EH Q o o g O O g f O 0 0 g fa g (0 -p < 53 U OH D -U CJ PC D -P U 3 -p D -P co J C r—1 0 rH 0 rH 0 rH 0 D 0 EH 0 Eh 0 EH 0 EH •p CQ CJ U CJ u C < CO EH C O

<0 0 CQ •H co x; -P U <D M—t CO -P CD U •H O rH CQ -P 0 c

CQ CO 0) (0 O CJ CQ CQ D (D CQ •H

CD CD tJ1 0 U CQ rH V-S d! O H C7> QJ

0 CQ rH 3 -P CO CQ O CQ <0 CQ 0 0 <D •H CQ •H Qj •H -! c •H 3 C tr> n CD a CD 0 <T5 <D CQ 0 VJ D H V4 .C 5-1 CO CT' 0 0 0 cn-P 0 CD £ CD O U O CQ O ,C -P CQ cn CQ <D U CU CQ 4-) CD ro U CD D 0 U CJ •P u -P 0 -P 0 -P CO

C CU C g <0 C rH o CD cu x: CD CD CT CD i—I a1

0) •H +J •H Jul u •H CO OD c rH 0 i—i o cr> v-i rH 0 o O (D o c •H a rH CD no SZ co -a CO CD i—1 <D C C -P a* JZ CJ CD jC CO x: o co o -C -P PC EH EH EH *

261

TABLE LXXVI

ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR COMPOSITE ORIENTATION VARIANCE AND ATTITUDINAL ORIENTATION STATEMENTS

FROM SECTION I

Statement Number

Orientation Group Mean F Probability (less than or equal to)

Duncan Test

Statement Number Productior Sales Consumer

F Probability (less than or equal to)

Duncan Test

1 0.3133 0.5509 -0.1333 .001 C/P,S

2 -0.2732 1.3464 -0.0610 .001 P/C/S

3 -0.5865 -0.4835 0.1841 .001 p,s/c

4 0.5569 -0.2430 -0.1232 .001 S,c/P

5 -0.2969 1 .1165 -0.0701 .001 P/C/S

6 -0.3458 -0.6590 0.1974 .001 S/P/C

7 0.5609 -0.7596 -0.0537 .001 S/C/P

8 -0.3918 0.7171 -0.0067 .001 P/C/S

9 -0.7486 -0.4387 0.2823 .001 P/S/C

10 0.3648 -0.5754 0.0156 .001 S/C/P

11 -0.1478 0.6590 -0.0381 .001 PfC/S

12 -0.7467 -0.5684 0.2330 .001 p,s/c

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Ads S t a r t To Take Hold in t h e P r o f e s s i o n " ( 1 9 7 8 ) , B u s i n e s s Week ( J u l y 2 4 ) , 122; 124.

" A d v e r t i s i n g Pays" ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Wal l S t r e e t J o u r n a l (March 4 ) , 1 .

" A d v e r t i s i n g R e f e r e n d u m F a i l s " 1980 , T e x a s Bar J o u r n a l , 43 ( J u l y ) , 689.

A m e r i c a n M a r k e t i n g A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 96 0 ) , M a r k e t i ng D e f i n i t i o n s : A G l o s s a r y of M a r k e t i n g T e r m s , Commi t t ee on D e f i n i t i o n s , Chicago , I l l i n o i s , Amer ican M a r k e t i n g A s s o c i a t i o n .

Ar izona Revised S t a t u t e s ( 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 8 ) , 17A, R u l e 2 9 ( a ) , OR 2 - 1 0 7 ( B ) , Supplement .

B a r a n o f f , Seymour, and James H. Donnel ly (1970) , " S e l e c t i n g C h a n n e l s of D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r S e r v i c e s , " i n Handbook of Modern M a r k e t i n g , V i c t o r R. B u e l , e d . , New York , McGraw-Hill , S e c t i o n 2, 43-50 .

B a r t e l s , R o b e r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , T h e H i s t o r y o f M a r k e t i n g Thought , 2nd e d . , Columbus, Ohio, Grid I n c .

B a r t l e t t , M. S . ( 1 9 4 7 ) , "The Use o f T r a n s f o r m a t i o n , " B i o m e t r i c s , I I I , 39-53 .

Ba t e s Vs. S t a t e Bar of Ar izona ( 1977 ) , 433 U . S . 350 , 97 S . C t . 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810.

B e l l e n g e r , Danny N. and B a r n e t t A. G r e e n b e r g ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Market ing Resea rch : A Management I n f o r m a t i o n A p p r o a c h , Homewood, I l l i n o i s , Richard D. I r w i n , I n c . 1978.

B i g e l o w v . V i r g i n i a ( 1 975 ) , 421 U . S . 809 , S . C t . 2222 , 44L. Ed. 2d. 600.

Bloom, P a u l N. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , " A d v e r t i s i n g in t h e P r o f e s s i o n s : The C r i t i c a l I s s u e s , " J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t i n g , 41 ( J u l y ) , 103-110.

262

263

Booms, Bernard H. f and Mary J. Bitner (1981), "Marketing Strategies and Organizatonal Structures for Service F i r m s , " M a r k e t i n g of S e r v i c e s : 1981 S p e c i a l Conference Proceedings, James Donnelly and W i l l i a m George, eds., Chicago, Illinois, American Marketing Association.

Branca, John G., and Marc J. Steinberg (1977), "Attorney Fee Schedules and Legal Advertising—The implications of Goldfarb," U.C.L.A. Law Review, 24 (February).

Breard v. Alexandria (1951), 341 U.S. 622, 71 S. Ct. 920,

95 L. Ed. 1233.

Brinkman, Leter, and Richard 0. Lempert (1976), foreward in Law and Society Review, 11, (Special Issue).

C a r l i s l e , Howard M. (1976), M a n a g e m e n t C o n c e p t s and S i t u a t i o n s , C h i c a g o , Illinois, Science Re s e a r c h Associates.

Carlson, Rick J. (1976), "Measuring the Quality of Legal Services: An Idea Whose Time Has Not Come , Law and Society Review, 11 (Special Issue.

Clayton, John A. (1977), "Legal Insurance for the Middle Class," Insurance Marketingf 18 (October), 10; 12.

Curran, Barbara and Francis Spalding ( 1 974 ), T h e — L e g a l Needs of the Public, Chicago, Illinois, American Bar Association and American Bar Foundation.

Darden, Donna K., William R. Darden, G. E. Riser (1981), The Marketing of Legal Services," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Spring), 123-134.

Darling, John R. (1977), "Attitudes Toward Advertising By

accountants." Journal of Accountancy, 143 (February),

48-53.

, and Donald W. Hackett ( 1978 )_, ' ^ ^ A d v e r t i s -ing of Fees and S e r v i c e s : A Study of C o n t r a s t s Between and Similarities Among Professional Groups, Journal of Advertising, 7 (Spring), 23-24.

Douhitt, Frank (1980), "Reflections of a Country Lawyer," Texas Bar Journal, 43 (April), 332-333.

Dunn, Bob (1980), "A Vacuum of Uncertainty," Texas Bar Journal, 43 (April), 335-336.

264

Enis, Ben., and Kenneth J. Roering (1981), Service Marketing: Different Products, Similar Strategies, in Marketing Services: 1981 Special Conference proceedings, James Donelly et. al. , eds. , Chicago, Illinois, American Marketing Association.

George, William C., and Hiram C. Barksdale (J9.74)', "Marketing Activities in the Service Industrie , Journal of Marketing, 38 (October), 65-70.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975), 421, U.S., 771.

Gordon, Robert W., Editor, Baylor Law Review, 30 (Fall),

1978.

Green, Paul E. and Donald S. Tull ( 1 978 ), Research for Marketing Decisions, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.f 1978.

»H & R Block: Expanding Beyond Taxes for Faster Growth" (1980), Business Week (December 8).

Hobbs, Charles A. ( 1976 ), "Lawyer A«»ertising : A Good Beginning But Not Enough," American Bar Associa tion Journal, 62 (June).

Hunt, Shelby D. (1978), Marketing Theory: Conceptual Foundations of Research in Marketing, Columbus, Ohio:

Grid Inc.

(1981), The Retrospective Comment on "The Morphology of Theory and the General Theory of Marketing," in The Great Writing in M ^ r k e t ^ " f r Howard A. Thompson, Tulsa, Oklahoma: Penn Well Publishing Company.

Judd, Robert C. (1964), "The Case for Redefining Services," Journal of Marketing, 28 (January), 58-59.

Keane John G. (1981), "How Accounting Firms Can Use K e a n Marketing Concept, Techniques To Develop Their

Practice," Marketing News, 14, (March 6), M 1J.

w^v-iionor- prpd w ( 1 973 ), Foundations of Behavioral K Rese'arob, »e'» York, New York, Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, Inc.

Kotler Philip and Sidney J. Levy (1969), "Broadening the Concept of Marketing," .^..rna1 of Marketing, 33

(January), 10-15.

265

(1972), "A Generic Concept of M a r k e t i n g , " journal~~of Marketing, 36 (April), 49.

and Richard A. Connor (1977), "Marketing Professional Services," J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g , 41 (January), 71-76.

(1980), Principles of Marketing, Engelwood

Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc.

"Law Firms That Advertise" (1980), Wall Street J o u r n a l

(December 18).

"Legal Clinics Catch On With Public" (1980), Wall Street

Journal, (May 1).

"Legal Upheaval, Lawyers Are Facing Surge in Competition as Court Drop Curb" (1978), Wall Street J o u r n a l , (October 18).

Lempert, Richard 0. (1976), "Mobilizing Private Law: An Introductory Essay," Law and S o c i e t y , 11 (Special Issue, June).

Lerner, Edward E. (1978), Specification Searches Ad Hoc Inference with Nonexperimental Data, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Levin, Felice and Elizabeth Preston (1970), "Community R e s o u r c e O r i e n t a t i o n Among Law Income G r o u p s , Wisconsin Law Review, 80.

Levitt, T h e o d o r e (1960), "Marketing M y o p i a , Harvard Business Review, 38 (July-August), 24-27.

Loeb, Stephen E. and Paul N. Bloom ( 1 977-78 ), "The 'Bates Case: I m p l i c a t i o n s for A c c o u n t a n t s , G o v e r n m e n t Accountants Journal, 26 (Winter).

Lovelock, Christopher H. (1981), "Why Marketing Management Needs To Be Different for Services, Marketing of Services: 1981 Special C o n f e r e n c e P r o c e e d i n g s ,

James Donnelly and William G e o r g e , eds., C h i c a g o , Illinois, American Marketing Association.

M a r a v e l l , Gary M. (1974), Scaling: A S o u r c e b o o k for B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n t i s t , C h i c a g o , Illinois, A l d m e Publishing.

266

Marks F Raymond (1976), "Some Research Perspectives for iooking Yat L e g a l Need and L e g a l Service Delivery Systems: Old Forms or New," Law and S o c i e t y , I i (Special Issue, June).

Marshall, Christy (1978), "Lawyers Struggle To Devise

Workable Ad Codes," Advertising Age, 49 (July 24),

10; 81 .

McCarthy, E. Jerome (1975 ), Basic Marketing; A Managerial-Approach, 5th ed., Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.

Irwin Inc.

McDaniel, Carl Jr. (1979), Marketing An Integrated Approach,

New York, Harper and Row.

Morrison, Donald G. (1969), "On the interpretation of Dis-criminant Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research,

3 (May), 158-163.

Nader, Ralph (1976), "Consumerism and Legal Serivces: The

Merging of Movements," Law and Society, 11 (Special

Issue).

"Newsletter" (1980), Texas Bar Journal, 43 (October).

Nie, Norman H., C . Hadlai Hull, J e a n G. J e n k i n s , K aren Steinbreuner, and Dale H. Brent ( 1 97 7 ), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd, ed. , update, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Parker v . Brown ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 3 1 7 U . S . 3 4 1 , 63 S . C t . 3 0 7 , 8 7 L. Ed. 3 1 5 .

Rathmell, John M. ( 1974), Marketing in the Service Sector, Cambridge, Mass., Winthrop Publishers Inc.

Rehmet, Vincent W. (1978), "Lawyer A d v e r t i s i n g — W h i t h e r Goeth Texas/' Baylor Law Review, 30 (Fall).

Rockwall, Richard ( 1968 ), A Study of the Law and the Poor in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Community Legal Assis

tance Office.

Rosenthal, Douglas E. ( 1976), "Evaluating ,thf C°»Pe"nj-e °* Lawyers," Law and Society Review, 11 (Special Issue,

June).

Sarat, Austin ( 1 9 7 7 ) , "Studying American Legal Culture: An Assessment of Survey Evidence," Law and Society, 11 (Winter).

267

Antitrust Act (1890), 26 Stat. 209 as amended, 15

' U.S.C. 1-/.

Shimp, Terance A. and Robert F. Dyer < 1 9 7 8 ) ' £ h j 0 £ r S a l Profession Views Legal Service Advertising, Journal

of Marketing, 44 (April), 56-63.

a n d (1981), "Factors Influencing

Lawyers' Satsifaction with Advertising and Intensions to Continue Advertising," S e r v i c e M a r k e t i n g . qopcial Conference Proceedings, James D o n n e l l y e . a l f , e d s . , C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , A m e r i c a n M a r k e t i n g

Association.

Smith, Robert L. and Tiffany S. Meyer ( 1980 >, " A t t o r n e y

Advertising: A C o n s u m e r P e r s p e c t i v e , " J o u r n a l of

Marketing, 44 (April), 56 63.

Spalding, J. B. ( 1970), Sampling From a Finite Population,

North Texas State University, Denton, Texas.

Stratton, D e b r a J. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , " A d v e r t i s i n g C o m e s to the Professions. . . A n d S o c i e t i e s L e a r n t o C o p e , Association Management, 31 (April), b4 /5.

Torgenson, Warren S. (1958), Theory and Methods of Scaling, New York, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), 316 U.S. 52, 62 S. C t .

920, 86 L. Ed. 1262.

Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil S t a t u t e s o f . t h e s t a t e o ( T e x a s ( 1 979 ), 1A, S t . P a u l , M i n n e s o t a , W e s t

Publishing.

Virginia state Board of P h a r m a c y v. V i r g i n i a C i t i z e n s H C o n s u m e t council ( 1976 ), 4ib, D . S . It 8, 96 S. C t .

1817, 48 L. Ed. 2d. 346.

Welch, John R. (1978), "Bates, Ohralik, P r T h e

Amendment Challenge to State R e g u l a t i o n of L a w y e r Advertising and Solicitation," Baylor Law Review, 30

(Fall).

"What the Public Thinks of Lawyers" (1964), Alabama Lawyer,

25.

Yav Marqaret (1981), "Fierce Competition Forces Auditing

' f i r m s to Enter the Alien World of M a r k e t i n g , " W a l l

Street Journal (March 18).