Bridging the Gap between Clients and Public Defenders: Introducing a Structured Shadow Method to Examine Attorney Communication

Abstract

A growing body of scholarship argues that representing clients in an effective and quality manner should be a critical goal for public defenders, emphasizing the need to be client-centered. Beyond this call, recent research emphasizes that client-centered approaches hinge on good communication as it can contribute to a more effective attorney–client relationship. However, to identify and improve communication and client-centered relationships, major obstacles must be overcome which involve conceptualizing and operationalizing quality representation and communication. In this article, we introduce a two-phase, structured shadowing method as a way to overcome these obstacles. Phase I consists of a survey of public defenders that captures attorneys’ perspectives of factors important in developing and maintaining good communication with clients. The second phase involves an exploratory method of shadowing attorneys in meetings with their clients, and administering a survey of clients to assess the importance of these factors from their vantagepoint and their overall perception of communication with their attorney. Additionally, we demonstrate how this method can be deployed to aid in understanding and improving attorney–client communication from both the attorneys’ and clients’ perspectives. We conclude the article with a discussion of how this method can help to progress research and practice related to quality representation, and as appendices we provide the tools used to demonstrate the approach.

Keywords:

• Attorneys
• public defense
• attorney–client relationship
• attorney–client communication

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Megan Mohler, Leah Reddy, and Kayla LaBranche for their help in this project and to Professor Janet Moore and Dr. Marla Sandys for their valuable feedback during this process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 We asked for both the attorney’s perceptions of themselves, but also that of the office overall because it was an effort to gather as much information as possible regarding varying degrees of practice especially with those who may want to distance themselves from the actions of the whole. Additionally, such information provides insight regarding common informal practices among attorneys who may not be completing the survey, and thus, a more well-rounded conception of practices in the office in spite of the lower response rate.

2 We realized that with a highly structured instrument to guide observations, law students might be best suited to be part of a defense team, and help in conducting this study. An effort was made to connect with law schools in the area of the firm to recruit more law students, however, we were unsuccessful.

3 It is worth noting that the partnering agency did not believe this was a necessary step, but was happy to accommodate our request, indicating that it was not a problem to include the assistants as interns.

4 The study was announced to the attorneys by the agency’s director during a staff meeting. The director noted that participation was encouraged, but strictly voluntary. Several attorneys indicated they were happy to take the survey. With the voluntary nature of participation, seven attorneys indicated they were interested in participating in the shadow portion, but one had to be removed from the potential sample because they were working juvenile caseloads.

5 To ensure the client’s consent was obtained while minimizing concern of coercion, we asked the defendants’ consent three times prior to administering the questionnaire. First, we had the attorney ask the client’s consent in advance of the meeting (over the phone). Then, the client was asked again at the start of the meeting. Finally, the client was asked one last time before being administered the survey, after the attorney left the room.

6 This basic case information was collected by the research assistant by asking the attorney for specific information before entering the meeting. It was collected to provide a baseline point of comparison between certain cases. Due to the sample size, such comparisons could not be made. However, future research should capture this information so that nuanced differences in cases with differing degrees of case strengths and circumstances may be compared for communication differences. Information on mental health and chemical dependency was also collected, but kept as dichotomous flags and never linked to a defendant’s identifying information.

7 Ideally, the shadowing method, complete with the checklist and client survey would be best suited for the initial meeting between the client and attorney. This is because it is arguably the most important one where a new client, who is potentially in their first contact with the justice system, is gauging what this relationship might yield and how to act in response to the attorney’s demeanor and questions.

8 Across the 11 cases, there were a few cases that had multiple charges.