Kimberly M. Davidson, Brian J. Ostrom, Matthew J. Kleiman
{"title":"Client Perspectives of Holistic Defense: Strengthening Procedural Justice through Enhanced Client Trust","authors":"Kimberly M. Davidson, Brian J. Ostrom, Matthew J. Kleiman","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Holistic defense, a client-centered model that relies on team-based operations, has emerged in recent years as an alternative to traditional public defense practices. There is some evidence that holistic defense improves client outcomes, yet no research to date has evaluated client perspectives of holistic defense among adult clients. In this study, we hypothesize a relationship between holistic defense and increased client trust, perceptions of procedural justice, and legal and extra-legal outcomes. We examine public defense from the client perspective through in-depth interviews (N = 36) coded deductively, comparing the experiences of clients of holistic defense (n = 20) with those of traditional public defense (n = 16). We find that distrust and cynicism are pervasive in both client samples, but the holistic defense model provides tangible ways to build trust with clients, bolster perceptions of procedural justice, enhance legal and extra-legal client outcomes, and increase client satisfaction. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of procedural justice in terms of client satisfaction, compliance with court decisions, and acceptance of legal authority. However, the public tends to distrust court actors, which erodes procedural justice. We demonstrate that, in addition to both legal and extra-legal client benefits, holistic defense has the capacity to build client trust and bolster perceptions of procedural justice.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":"128 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Holistic defense, a client-centered model that relies on team-based operations, has emerged in recent years as an alternative to traditional public defense practices. There is some evidence that holistic defense improves client outcomes, yet no research to date has evaluated client perspectives of holistic defense among adult clients. In this study, we hypothesize a relationship between holistic defense and increased client trust, perceptions of procedural justice, and legal and extra-legal outcomes. We examine public defense from the client perspective through in-depth interviews (N = 36) coded deductively, comparing the experiences of clients of holistic defense (n = 20) with those of traditional public defense (n = 16). We find that distrust and cynicism are pervasive in both client samples, but the holistic defense model provides tangible ways to build trust with clients, bolster perceptions of procedural justice, enhance legal and extra-legal client outcomes, and increase client satisfaction. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of procedural justice in terms of client satisfaction, compliance with court decisions, and acceptance of legal authority. However, the public tends to distrust court actors, which erodes procedural justice. We demonstrate that, in addition to both legal and extra-legal client benefits, holistic defense has the capacity to build client trust and bolster perceptions of procedural justice.
期刊介绍:
The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.