A provisional typology of lawyer attitudes towards divorce practice |
| |
Authors: | Kenneth Kressel Allan Hochberg Theodore S. Meth |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Psychology, University College, Rutgers University, 07102 Newark, New Jersey;(2) Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Busch Campus, 08854 Piscataway, New Jersey;(3) Attorney at Law, 744 Broad Street, 07102 Newark, New Jersey |
| |
Abstract: | To test the proposition that attorneys in divorce may be classified into distinctive types, 46 members of the Family Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association completed a 61 item Lawyer Role Questionnaire (LRQ). The LRQ assessed attitudes regarding goals of and obstacles to a constructive settlement, sources of professional satisfaction, usefulness of mental health professionals, and general attitudes towards divorce and divorce clients. The modal responses on the LRQ portrayed the attorney as a fair, but tough-minded professional, primarily concerned with the welfare of children and ensuring equity. Factor analysis identified four principal attitudinal components of the LRQ: aPsychological factor, anAdvocacy factor, aSocial Work factor, and aClient as Problem factor. Hierachial cluster analysis utilizing the mean factor scores yielded two highly distinguishable attorney subgroups:Counselors (n=24), oriented to psychological and interpersonal issues and disinclined towards the use of adversarial tactics, andAdvocates (n=22), with the reverse orientation. Two subclusters of these main groups were also identified:Gladiators (n=4), with a strongly combatative stance and a highly negative attitude toward the client, andJourneymen (n=10), best characterized by their lack of enthusiasm for any of the dimensions popular with the other types. The results correspond well to the previous, but scanty, literature on lawyer dispositions. Methodological and conceptual issues raised by the study are considered and the possible relationship between lawyer type and the process and outcome of settlement negotiations is discussed.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Baltimore, Maryland, October, 1979. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|