IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v21y2024i2p337-374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lawyers' legal aid participation: A qualitative and quantitative analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ching‐fang Hsu
  • Ivan Kan‐hsueh Chiang
  • Yun‐chien Chang

Abstract

This article develops a framework to understand the legal profession's participation in providing services to indigent clients. Our theory is based on two factors: whether lawyers have successful practices, and whether the legal aid delivered to indigent clients is free or below market price. Pro bono signals moral high ground in the profession. Conversely, a regime in which legal assistance is provided at a discounted market price (“low bono”), an under‐explored area in the literature, attracts less competitive attorneys, and doing legal aid cases is perceived as signifying incompetence in one's professional capacity. Using a unique, comprehensive data set on all legal aid lawyers in Taiwan (nearly 4000), two nationwide attorney surveys, and 143 in‐depth interviews with practicing lawyers across the country, we offer the first comprehensive empirical analysis of legal aid lawyers and explain that the design of a legal aid regime attracts lawyers of different hemispheres into the endeavor.

Suggested Citation

  • Ching‐fang Hsu & Ivan Kan‐hsueh Chiang & Yun‐chien Chang, 2024. "Lawyers' legal aid participation: A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 337-374, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:21:y:2024:i:2:p:337-374
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12385
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12385?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yun-chien Chang & Su-hao Tu, 2020. "Two-way selection between flat-fee attorneys and litigants: theoretical and empirical analyses," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 131-164, February.
    2. Huang, Kuo-Chang & Chen, Kong-Pin & Lin, Chang-Ching, 2010. "Does the type of criminal defense counsel affect case outcomes?: A natural experiment in Taiwan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 113-127, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin, Chang-Ching & Chang, Yun-chien & Chen, Kong-Pin, 2020. "Knowledge in youth is wisdom in age: an empirical study of attorney experience in torts litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Kuo‐Chang Huang & Chang‐Ching Lin, 2013. "Rescuing Confidence in the Judicial System: Introducing Lay Participation in Taiwan," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 542-569, September.
    3. Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl & Katarina Zajc, 2016. "Inside post-socialist courts: the determinants of adjudicatory outcomes in Slovenian commercial disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 85-115, February.
    4. Bryan C. McCannon, 2013. "Prosecutor Elections, Mistakes, and Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 696-714, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:21:y:2024:i:2:p:337-374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.