Evaluating the Competence of Lawyers

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The title states the article's subject: the problems and possibilities of evaluating the competence of lawyers. It attempts to: (1) survey what has been written about the subject, commenting on the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches; (2) suggest those activities of lawyers which most influence the effectiveness of their performance and what competence means as to them; (3) indicate what are the principal problems inhibiting better performance evaluations and some ways to try to deal with these problems; and (4) propose some research tasks which may improve our capability as systematic and relatively objective evaluators.The literature exhibits approximately five approaches to evaluating lawyer competence. Two are indirect: (1) measurement of competence by a lawyer's training and/or his or her performance on a certification examination and (2) assessment based upon a lawyer's status or reputation. These approaches are of limited value where, as in most present instances, there is no proven relationship between such measures and actual competent performance. The other three approaches focus on performance. The first judges performance in terms of successful and unsuccessful outcomes in advocacy. The second judges performance in terms of the avoidance of negligence. The third involves a more systematic and detailed evaluation of the ways lawyers carry out certain activities central to the services they offer. The article suggests how this last approach can be most effectively developed. In spite of the formidable problems raised by attempts to evaluate lawyers, the author is optimistic that such evaluation is possible and can be productive.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: