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).
Top Related