Benefits of Network-Based Legal Expertise

Studies of how individuals experience and respond to legal or justiciable problems tend to focus on the points at which their actions intersect with formal legal institutions, such as hiring a lawyer or filing a claim (Reference SandefurSandefur 2008). Hiring a lawyer, in particular, marks formal engagement with the legal system (Reference KritzerKritzer 2008; Reference Miller and SaratMiller and Sarat 1980), and “lawyering up” is consequential for both legal processes and outcomes. Lawyers can offer important information about legal issues, help clients to reconstruct narratives in line with legal concepts (Reference HostickaHosticka 1979; Reference LadinskyLadinsky 1976; Reference Sarat and FelstinerSarat and Felstiner 1986), and assist with navigating complex legal procedures (Reference Elwell and CarlsonElwell and Carlson 1990). Lawyers’ roles and relationships within legal settings can also enable them to effectively navigate legal institutions (Reference SandefurSandefur 2015). Thus, having a lawyer may enhance instrumental legal action by signaling the credibility of a claim (Reference SandefurSandefur 2015), and prior work suggests that individuals with legal representation generally fare better in litigation (Reference EnglerEngler 2009; Reference SandefurSandefur 2015; Reference Taylor Poppe and RachlinskiTaylor Poppe and Rachlinski 2016).

However, not all individuals are equally able to access the benefits of formal legal representation. A large literature demonstrates that individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to take formal legal action in response to a justiciable problem, including obtaining legal representation (Reference GennGenn et al. 1999; Reference Sandefur, Pleasence, Buck and BalmerSandefur 2007a; Reference Miller and SaratMiller and Sarat 1980; for a review see Reference SandefurSandefur 2008). While these results reflect variation in the types of problems that individuals experience, differences remain even after accounting for such factors (Reference GennGenn et al. 1999; Reference Miller and SaratMiller and Sarat 1980, but see Reference KritzerKritzer 2008). There has been less research on the relationship between race/ethnicity and individuals’ responses to legal problems (Reference SandefurSandefur 2008), but at least one study finds that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to engage the formal legal system in civil matters, and are less likely to be successful when they do (Reference Miller and SaratMiller and Sarat 1980). This research suggests that socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequalities in access to civil justice result, in part, from disparate levels of formal engagement with lawyers. However, a possibility not explored in prior research is that some individuals may be able to acquire some or all of the benefits of legal representation through a friend or family member who is a lawyer.

The Formation and Distribution of Network Ties with Legal Experts

Network ties with lawyers may originate as either formal or informal relationships. For some individuals, what begins as a formal attorney-client relationship may, through repeated interactions, become overlaid with a more personal, informal tie. Other individuals have informal access to a lawyer through a personal relationship that precedes any interaction about legal matters. For example, one's sister, friend, in-law, or neighbor may also happen to be a lawyer. For both formal and informal relationships, the structure of the legal profession and principles of social network formation lead us to expect that network ties with lawyers are unequally distributed across social groups.

Reference Uzzi and LancasterUzzi and Lancaster (2004) point out that relationships between large law firms and their corporate clients often generate repeated, reciprocal exchanges. These repeated exchanges may provide fertile ground for the development of informal ties. However, legal problems common among individuals, and particularly those with lower levels of education or income, differ from those of corporate actors and wealthy clients (ABA 1994; Reference PleasancePleasance et al. 2004). For example, landlord/tenant disputes and issues regarding government benefits are less likely to involve legal representation (Reference KritzerKritzer 2008). These and other common individual legal problems are typically faced by one-shotters, and such matters rarely result in repeated engagement with the same lawyer (Reference GalanterGalanter 1974: 116; Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005). Consequently, socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are less likely to have the kinds of repeated formal interactions with a lawyer that lead to the development of a personal relationship.

Theories of network formation suggest that individuals of lower socioeconomic status are also less likely to have network ties to individuals who happen to be lawyers. Tie formation and patterns of exchange are driven, in part, by actors’ relative status positions along a number of dimensions. Most important for this study is that individuals who occupy lower status positions are less likely to form or maintain network ties with higher status actors. One reason for this is that cultivating higher status network ties typically requires special effort, strategizing, or the expenditure of resources such as time and money (Reference LinLin 1999a). And, status asymmetry makes relationships inherently unstable. Lower status actors typically have fewer resources to offer in return for high-status alters’ resources, so there is little incentive for high-status alters to maintain the relationship (Reference BlauBlau 1964; Reference HomansHomans 1958; Reference LinLin 2001).

Research on network homophily also suggests that individuals tend to be connected to socioeconomically and demographically similar others. Tendencies toward homophily within networks reflect, in part, that relationships form most readily among individuals who have shared backgrounds, sentiments, and lifestyles (Reference Laumann and SenterLaumann and Senter 1976; Reference McPhersonMcPherson et al. 2001). Even without like-me preferences in the formation of social ties, racially and socioeconomically segregated contexts such as neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces make it difficult for diverse individuals to meet, form, and maintain close relationships (Reference BrittonBritton 2011; Reference De Souza BriggsDe Souza Briggs 2007; Reference HuckfeldtHuckfeldt 1983; Reference Kossinets and WattsKossinets and Watts 2009). Consistent with theories of network formation and homophily, there is evidence that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have professionals or experts among their close confidants (Reference York Cornwell and CornwellYork Cornwell and Cornwell 2008). Those who reside in racially segregated and/or high-poverty neighborhoods also tend to be particularly isolated from network ties with working- and middle-class individuals (Reference Rankin and QuaneRankin and Quane 2000; Reference SmallSmall 2007; Reference WilsonWilson 1987), which might extend to lawyers.

Lawyers are likely to occupy relatively high-status positions in networks since law is one of the most culturally and politically prominent (Abel 1989) and prestigious (Reference Blau and DuncanBlau and Duncan 1967) occupations. Lawyers also tend to have relatively high levels of education and income (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015). Thus, we hypothesize that individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have a social network tie with a lawyer. Racial/ethnic minorities may also be less likely to be connected to lawyers because minorities are less likely to be lawyers. Although the number of minorities entering the legal profession has increased over the past few decades (ABA 2013), African Americans and Latinos continue to be underrepresented in the legal profession (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015), particularly in the most prestigious employment settings (Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005; Payne-Pikus et al. 2010). Since networks tend to be racially and/or ethnically segregated, we hypothesize that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have a social network tie with a lawyer.

Mobilizing Legal Assistance

Much of the previous research on social capital assumes that individuals who have network-based access to resources will be able to mobilize those resources when needed, but this is not necessarily the case (Reference Smith, Lin and EricksonSmith 2008). For example, a survey of physicians found that 99 percent of them had been asked by a family member for medical advice or assistance, and more than 70 percent had agreed to provide a physical examination, prescribe medications, or diagnose an illness for a family member. However, a majority of the physicians also reported having refused at least one request for assistance (Reference La PumaLa Puma et al. 1991).

Accessing legal expertise within one's network requires, first, willingness to ask the legal expert for help, and second, the legal expert's willingness to provide assistance. Prior work suggests that both requesting and receiving network-based legal expertise are likely to be affected by network structural characteristics, such as the strength of the tie linking an individual to a lawyer (Reference BianBian 1997; Reference WellmanWellman 1992). Tie strength can be determined by a number of parameters, including emotional closeness and intimacy, frequency of interaction, the nature of the relationship (e.g., kin or non-kin), and obligations or expectations around reciprocity (Reference LinLin 1999a). These tie characteristics are typically interrelated, so that individuals’ closest and most intimate ties also tend to have high frequency of interaction and strong norms around exchanges of support. Strong ties are also more likely to be homogeneous than weak ties. Because weak ties are less close and likely to be non-kin, they often connect individuals to heterogeneous alters and thereby provide access to novel information (Reference GranovetterGranovetter 1973). However, strong ties may be more easily mobilized for a number of reasons.

For one thing, individuals may be more likely to ask for informal legal advice or assistance through stronger ties. Legal problems often involve sensitive or stigmatized matters (see, e.g., Reference OwensOwens 2014), and individuals may be more willing to discuss these with someone with whom they feel comfortable. Strong ties tend to be more emotionally intimate, trusting, and long lasting (Reference ColemanColeman 1988; Reference GranovetterGranovetter 1973; and see Lin 1999), and there is greater empathy and open communication in strong relationships (Reference HainesHaines et al. 1996). And, from a practical standpoint, the frequent interaction that is more common with stronger ties increases the opportunity to discuss a legal problem and mobilize assistance (Reference SmallSmall 2013).

We therefore hypothesize that, among those who have network ties to lawyers, individuals who have stronger ties to lawyers will be more likely to ask for informal legal advice or assistance. However, we also consider an alternative possibility. Reference SmallSmall's (2013) theory of targeted mobilization suggests that individuals’ requests for legal assistance through network ties will be determined by the perceived utility of the tie, rather than the strength of the tie. From this perspective, individuals would be expected to seek legal assistance or expertise through the ties most likely to be able to provide it—or from the individuals whose legal expertise is deemed most pertinent to the issue at hand. This theory would predict that individuals who have multiple lawyer-ties will select whom to ask for help on the basis of perceived utility rather than tie strength. If this is the case, and the perceived availability or applicability of legal expertise is equally distributed across network ties, we should not find an association between tie strength and the likelihood of asking for informal legal advice or assistance.

Strong ties may be particularly valuable when it comes to receiving informal legal assistance. One reason for this is that strong ties are more likely to involve an expressive element, leading to the conveyance of sympathy, solidarity, and support (Reference LinLin 1999a). Indeed, many of the potential benefits of informal access to legal expertise stem from the intimacy of the relationship—including personalized representation, greater motivation to help, and open discussions leading to the (re)interpretation of legal (and nonlegal) issues. In these respects, the benefits of having a network tie to a lawyer would be expected to be more easily unlocked when the relationship involves greater closeness or intimacy.

Network tie strength may also increase a legal expert's willingness to provide assistance. From a lawyer's perspective, offering legal advice or assistance through informal channels implies foregone revenue. And, providing legal representation or taking legal action outside the confines of a formal attorney-client relationship puts lawyers at risk of ethical violations related to conflicts of interest and attorney-client privilege (American Bar Association 2015).Footnote ¹ Given the potential costs of providing help, lawyers may be more willing to assist strong ties—those with whom they have the closest relationships, interact most frequently, and share norms of reciprocity.

Lawyers may also be particularly likely to provide help to family members compared to non-kin. Family ties tend to be the strongest and most long-lasting ties in individuals’ networks (Reference Antonucci and AkiyamaAntonucci and Akiyama 1987; Reference FischerFischer 1982; Reference Wellman and WortleyWellman and Wortley 1990), and they often carry a sense of obligation, which promotes repeated and reciprocal exchanges of a wide range of social resources (Reference HainesHaines et al. 1996; Reference IidaIida et al. 2008; Reference Kana'iaupuniKana'iaupuni al. 2005). Kin ties are also more likely to be embedded within densely interconnected network structures. In these contexts, requests for assistance that go unfulfilled may lead to sanctions from other network members (Reference ColemanColeman 1988; Reference Portes and SensenbrennerPortes and Sensenbrenner 1993). Thus, we hypothesize that, among those who have network ties to lawyers, individuals who have stronger ties and/or kin ties with lawyers are more likely to receive legal assistance.

Finally, there are two reasons why we might expect inequalities across social groups in the likelihood of receiving legal assistance through network ties. First, if tie strength increases individuals’ ability to mobilize legal expertise, then individuals who can only reach out a lawyer through weak or tertiary network ties (e.g., a friend of a friend), would be less likely to be able to mobilize informal legal assistance. Because ties linking lower socioeconomic groups and racial/ethnic minorities to higher status alters tend to be weaker than those of higher status groups (Reference Lin and DuminLin and Dumin 1986; Reference Smith, Lin and EricksonSmith 2008), members of lower socio-economic status groups and racial/ethnic minorities may be less able to mobilize resources through their network ties with lawyers. We therefore examine whether the strength of network ties linking individuals to lawyers varies across social groups, and whether this may reduce the likelihood that individuals with lower socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities will mobilize legal expertise.

Second, variation in the types of lawyers to whom individuals are connected could affect their ability to mobilize legal expertise. Lawyers work in very different settings, specialize in different areas of law, and tend to represent either corporate or individual clients (Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005). Each of these factors may influence individual lawyers’ willingness and ability to provide assistance in everyday legal matters. For example, lawyers working at large private law firms, which typically specialize in corporate legal matters, enjoy greater occupational prestige and compensation, but their expertise may be less applicable to individuals’ legal problems such as housing, debts, consumer purchases, or family matters (Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005; Payne-Pikus et al. 2010). Large private firms may also place more constraints on lawyers’ abilities to help friends or family members, through firm policies prohibiting such activities and onerous billable hour requirements. And, higher hourly rates at large corporate firms increase the cost of foregone wages involved in providing legal assistance at no cost. By contrast, solo practitioners and lawyers working at small law firms are more likely to specialize in areas of law that serve individual clients (Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005). As a result, their expertise may be particularly valuable for individuals grappling with common civil legal problems. Fewer constraints imposed by the organizational setting in which they practice, as well as lower hourly rates, may make them more able and willing to provide legal assistance to network contacts.

Given that patterns of occupational attainment within the legal profession are linked to lawyers’ socio-demographic characteristics (Reference DinovitzerDinovitzer et al. 2004, Reference Dinovitzer2009; Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005), the principle of network homophily suggests that individuals’ socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity may influence the types of lawyers to which they are connected and thus their ability to informally access legal assistance. Individuals from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to occupy more prestigious and lucrative positions within the legal profession, such as those in large, private firms serving corporate clients (Reference DinovitzerDinovitzer 2004, Reference Dinovitzer2009; Reference HeinzHeinz et al. 2005). White lawyers are also more likely than racial/ethnic minorities to work in private law firms, especially the largest firms (Reference DinovitzerDinovitzer 2004, Reference Dinovitzer2009). In contrast, Black and Hispanic lawyers are more likely to work for nonprofit legal organizations (Reference DinovitzerDinovitzer 2004) and as solo practitioners (Reference DinovitzerDinovitzer 2009). Thus, to the extent that they have network access to a lawyer, individuals with lower levels of socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities may be more likely to be connected to lawyers who have expertise on civil legal matters faced by individuals and fewer organizational constraints on their ability to provide informal assistance. As a result, poorer individuals and racial/ethnic minorities may be better able to mobilize informal legal assistance or advice. To explore this, we devote particular attention to examining socioeconomic and racial/ethnic variation in the perceived ability to ask for and receive assistance through network ties to lawyers.

Network Ties to Legal Experts

Network position generators are commonly used to assess the availability of social capital within individuals’ networks by asking about ties to persons in particular occupations (Reference Van der Gaag, Lin and EricksonVan der Gaag et al. 2008). We follow this approach to discern whether respondents have any network ties to legal experts. Respondents were first asked, “Think about the people you know, including your family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and members of social groups. Among these people, do you know anyone who is a lawyer?” Respondents who answered in the affirmative are coded as having network-based access to a lawyer. Summary statistics for these and other variables in our analyses are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary Statistics for Key Variables

Respondents who reported having network access to a lawyer were then asked how they were connected to that individual, focusing on the lawyer with whom they have the closest relationship. Relationships are categorized as: immediate family members (spouse or romantic partner, parent, child or step-child, or sibling); extended family members (another relative or in-law); friends and acquaintances (friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or friend of a friend); and associates (coworkers, someone who belongs to the same church, social group, or organization, or someone who worked as the respondent's lawyer). We use relationship type as a proxy for tie strength, following prior research suggesting that immediate family ties tend to be strongest (Reference Antonucci and AkiyamaAntonucci and Akiyama 1987; Reference FischerFischer 1982; Reference Wellman and WortleyWellman and Wortley 1990), followed by extended family ties, friends, and acquaintances, and, finally, associates.

We also assess the ability to mobilize legal expertise through network ties to lawyers by asking respondents how likely they are to ask for, or receive, assistance. Focusing on the lawyer with whom they have the closest relationship, respondents were asked: “If you were faced with a problem that might involve the law, how likely would you be to ask this person for assistance?” And, “If you asked for assistance, how likely is it that he or she would give you advice or take action on your behalf (like making a phone call, writing a letter, or filing a claim) at no cost or at a reduced cost to you?” Response categories for both of these items ranged from “very likely” to “somewhat likely,” “somewhat unlikely,” and “very unlikely.” We differentiate respondents who indicated that they are “very likely” to ask for and receive help from those who felt less certain of their ability to informally mobilize legal expertise.Footnote ⁴

It is important to note that we assess expectations of mobilizing legal expertise in a hypothetical scenario, rather than prior experiences with mobilizing legal expertise. We take this approach because we are interested in estimating informal access to legal expertise within the general population, rather than only among those who have had a legal problem. It is possible that individuals’ perceptions may underestimate or overestimate their actual ability to informally mobilize legal expertise. We explore this empirically (below) by comparing expectations of the ability to mobilize legal expertise across those who have had recent legal problems and those who have not.

Individual Characteristics

To examine how network-based access to legal expertise varies across social groups, we consider respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We rely on respondent reports of age (in years), gender, race/ethnicity, nativity, and the highest level of education completed. Income is coded as a three-category variable indicating whether pre-tax household income from all sources was below $50,000, more than $50,000 but less than $100,000, or $100,000 or more. Respondents who did not report their exact income had the option to categorize it through unfolding income brackets. We imputed household income for respondents who indicated whether their income exceeded $50,000 but did not provide a more specific amount (n = 94). Because having a spouse is likely to affect the size and composition of one's social network, we also control for current marital status.Footnote ⁵

Finally, we account for whether respondents have had recent experience with the legal system because it may shape the extent to which they are aware of legal expertise within their networks, as well as their perception that they can ask for and receive legal assistance. Respondents were asked whether they or a member of their immediate family have had any kind of legal trouble or problem, either criminal or civil. Those who had any such problem within the past five years are considered to have had recent experience with the legal system.

Analytic Strategy

Our goal is to explore variation in individuals’ access to legal expertise through their social networks and the likelihood that such legal assistance will be mobilized. First, we estimate a series of logistic regression models predicting network-based access to lawyers across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We then estimate a pair of logistic regression models assessing the probability that individuals who have network ties to lawyers will seek and receive assistance from these experts across demographic characteristics and types of relationships with legal experts.

Disparities in Network-Based Access to Legal Expertise

Table 2 presents results from logistic regression models predicting network-based access to a lawyer across respondent characteristics. The first model considers whether racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have network ties to lawyers. We find that Black and Hispanic individuals may be less likely than Whites to have ties to lawyers, although only the parameter estimate for Hispanics achieves significance (OR = .55; p < .05). Other (non-White) individuals are also less likely than Whites to have network ties to lawyers (OR = .58; p < .05). However, we should be cautious in interpreting these results because the “Other” category is rather small (n = 71) and is comprised of individuals from multiple racial/ethnic groups. Those who are foreign-born are slightly more likely to have network ties to lawyers, although the difference does not achieve significance (OR = 1.54; p = .092).

Table 2. Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions Predicting Network-Based Access to Lawyers

Note: ^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001.

Models 2 and 3 test our hypothesis that individuals who have more education and higher incomes are more likely to have network ties to lawyers. Consistent with this, Model 2 shows that, compared to those with a high school degree, the odds of having a network tie to a lawyer are nearly four times as high for those with a college degree (OR = 3.91; p < .001) and more than 7 times higher for those with a graduate degree (OR = 7.81; p < .001). And, Model 3 indicates that individuals who earn over $100,000 per year have 2.1 times higher odds of having network-based access to a legal expert (OR = 2.11, p < .001) compared to those in the lowest income bracket.

Model 4 introduces indicators of marital status and recent legal trouble. Marital status is not significantly associated with network-based access to lawyers (OR = .84; p = .15). However, individuals who had legal trouble in the past five years have about 70 percent higher odds of having a network tie with a lawyer (OR = 1.70; p < .01). Even after adjusting for these covariates, however, it is notable that both income and education remain positively associated with network-based access to lawyers.

Taken together, results in Table 2 provide support for our hypotheses regarding socio-economic status, in that education and income are positively associated with network-based access to lawyers. We also find some evidence that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to have such ties. Fit statistics confirm that socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics help to account for variation in the likelihood of having a network tie to a lawyer, but they also indicate that the models’ predictive power is limited. Together, the parameters in Model 4 explain only about 15 percent of the variation in access to a lawyer (see Reference TjurTjur 2009), suggesting the need for additional research to identify other sources of such variation.

Mobilizing Legal Expertise

Having a network tie to a lawyer does not mean that one will be able to informally mobilize legal assistance through that tie when faced with a legal problem. Below we test our hypotheses regarding the associations between tie strength and the mobilization of legal assistance among those who reported having network ties to lawyers. Table 3 presents results from logistic regression models of the mobilization of legal assistance through these ties.

Table 3. Odds Ratios from Logistic Regression Models Predicting Mobilization of Legal Expertise through Personal Network Ties to Lawyers

Note: ^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

Models 1 and 2 examine the probability that individuals who have a network tie to a lawyer will ask for help if they are facing a legal problem. We do not find any evidence of socioeconomic or socio-demographic disparities in the likelihood of seeking legal help through network ties. The probability of asking for help from a lawyer within one's social network is not significantly associated with race/ethnicity, nativity, education, or income. In fact, the only respondent characteristic that is associated with the likelihood of asking for help is having recently had a legal problem. Those who reported that they had a legal problem in the past five years have nearly 50 percent higher odds of reporting that they would ask for help from a lawyer in their network if they were faced with another legal problem (OR = 1.47, p = .06), although the parameter estimate is only marginally statistically significant.

In Model 2, we test whether the likelihood of asking for legal help varies across the types of relationships that connect individuals to lawyers. Consistent with our hypothesis regarding greater mobilization of strong ties, individuals whose closest lawyer is within their immediate family are more likely to report that they would ask for help than those whose closest lawyer is an extended family member (OR = .19, p < .001) or a friend (OR = .30, p < .001). Surprisingly, those whose closest lawyer is among their associates are no less likely to report that they would ask for help than those who have a lawyer within their immediate family (OR = .57; p = .21). And, in supplemental models, we find that individuals who have a lawyer among their associates are more likely to ask for help than those who have a lawyer within their extended family (OR = 3.01; p < .001) or friends (OR = 1.90; p < .01).Footnote ⁶ These results run counter to the targeted mobilization hypothesis, which would not anticipate such a strong association between immediate family ties and the likelihood of asking for help. However, because we ask about the propensity to ask for help from one lawyer, we are not able to compare whether individuals would have been more or less likely to ask for help from other lawyer-ties they may have. Instead, we find that individuals are most likely to ask for help from an immediate family member who is a legal expert or from a legal expert that they know through work or organizational or group membership.

Models 3 and 4 present results from logistic regression models predicting whether an individual is very likely to expect to receive help, for free or at a reduced cost, from a lawyer within his or her network. In Model 3, we find some support for our hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of socioeconomic status are less likely to be able to mobilize legal expertise through their social networks. Those who have incomes over $100,000 are more likely to expect to receive assistance from a network-based lawyer than are those in the lowest income category (OR = 2.06; p < .01). Women are also more likely to expect to receive legal assistance through their networks; the odds are about 50 percent higher among women compared to men (OR = 1.45; p < .01). However, we do not find any evidence that expectations about receiving legal assistance vary across racial/ethnic groups or across levels of education. Individuals who have previously engaged with the law are not more likely to expect to receive legal assistance through their network ties (OR = 1.15; p = .25)

Model 4 incorporates the types of relationships that respondents have with legal experts. As we hypothesized, individuals who have access to a legal expert within their immediate family are the most likely to expect to receive legal assistance. Compared to those whose closest legal expert is within their immediate family, individuals whose closest legal expert is within their extended family have about 73 percent lower odds of reporting that they are very likely to receive legal assistance (OR = .27; p < .001), and those whose closest legal expert is among their friends or associates have more than 80 percent lower odds of being very likely to receive through those ties (OR = .18; p < .001 and OR = .13; p < .001, respectively). In supplemental models, we confirm that those whose closest legal expert is among their extended family are also more likely to expect to receive help than those who have non-kin ties to a legal expert.Footnote ⁷ The additional analysis shows no difference in the odds of receiving help from a legal expert who is a friend compared to a legal expert who is an associate.Footnote ⁸ Overall, then, individuals with a legal expert within their immediate family are most likely to expect to receive assistance, and those with a legal expert within their extended family are more likely to expect to receive assistance than those with network ties to friends or associates who are legal experts.

We find little evidence in support of the possibility that variation across socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic groups in the types of relationships that link individuals with lawyers contribute to disparities in the ability to mobilize legal assistance. We have explored this in greater detail in supplemental analyses. As shown in Appendix Table A, we observe few patterns in relationship types across socioeconomic and demographic groups. The only exception is that women are more likely to report having their closest relationship with a lawyer within their extended family, while men's closest tie to a lawyer is more likely to be among their friends and associates. Multinomial logistic regression models in Appendix Table B indicate that socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are poor predictors of the relationships through which individuals are tied to legal experts. Furthermore, we find that relationship type does not mediate the association between income and the probability of asking for or receiving help in the models presented in Table 3.

Instead, our results point to the type of relationship that one has with a lawyer as a key factor in his or her ability to informally mobilize legal assistance. The addition of relationship types in Models 2 and 4 of Table 3 significantly increases both model fit and predictive power. To illustrate the associations between network tie characteristics and the mobilization of legal expertise, Figure 2 presents the average predicted probabilities of expecting to seek and receive help by the type of relationship the respondent has with a legal expert. Probabilities are calculated based on Models 2 and 4, holding all other covariates as observed. Error bars represent 95 percent confidence intervals of the predicted probabilities.

Figure 2. Predicted Probabilities of Mobilizing Informal Legal Expertise, by Type of Relationship with Lawyer.

Figure 2 shows that having a legal expert within one's immediate family is particularly advantageous. Those who have a spouse, parent, child, or sibling who is a legal expert are most likely to expect that they would ask for help (p = .82, SE = .05) and to expect that they would receive legal assistance (p = .87, SE = .04). In comparison, fewer than half of those who have a legal expert among their extended family members expect to ask for help (p = .47, SE = .04), although they are more likely to believe that they would receive help if they asked for it (p = .64, SE = .04). On the other hand, individuals who have associational ties with legal experts are especially likely to expect to ask for help (p = .72, SE = .04), but less likely to expect to receive it (p = .47, SE = 05).