The link between perceptions of power and client behaviours

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]On: 10 October 2014, At: 08:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of the LegalProfessionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijl20

The link between perceptions of powerand client behavioursDr. Toni Hilton a & Mike French ba Unitec Business School , Auckland, New Zealandb AUT University , Auckland, New ZealandPublished online: 06 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Dr. Toni Hilton & Mike French (2007) The link between perceptions ofpower and client behaviours, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 14:1, 97-112, DOI:10.1080/09695950701323120

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695950701323120

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09695950701323120

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695950701323120

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Work in Progress

The link between perceptions of power and

client behaviours

TONI HILTON� & MIKE FRENCH��

�Unitec Business School, Auckland, New Zealand��AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand

Introduction

This article considers the influence that client perceptions of power may have on

client behaviours and proposes that lawyers have much to gain from the effective man-

agement of client perceptions. The premise of the paper is that in a competitive mar-

ketplace lawyers can gain an advantage if they are able to encourage more clients to

exhibit behaviours that have a positive, rather than negative, outcome for their

firm. This article extends the understanding of factors that create dependency

upon lawyers beyond those identified by Hilton and Migdal (2005) and confirms

the importance of trust within the lawyer-client relationship.

Individuals maintain relationships either because they genuinely want to or

because they believe they have no other option (Johnson, 1982). However, the influ-

ence that these motives might have on client behaviours has received little attention,

particularly within the professional services context. Bendapudi and Berry (1997)

hypothesize that the two motives result in different client behaviours because they

either create perceptions of dependence or trust. They associate the ‘want to stay’

motive with the presence of trust and link this to behaviours that have a positive

impact on the organisation positing that less positive behaviours arise as a result of

client perceived dependence.

If some client behaviours have a greater positive impact on organisations than

other behaviours then organisations able to encourage ‘good’ behaviours while mini-

mising the ‘bad’ behaviours will gain an advantage within a competitive marketplace.

If positive impact behaviours rely on the presence of trust while negative impact beha-

viours arise from the perception of dependence, then it becomes important to explore

how legal relationships are perceived by clients, in terms of relational power. It is

within this context that this paper addresses the following questions: what, if any,

role does the perception of power play and is there a link between client perception

of power and client behaviours within client-lawyer relationships?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION,VOL. 14, NO. 1, MARCH 2007

Address for correspondence: Dr. Toni Hilton, Unitec Business School, Carrington Road, Mount Albert,Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0969-5958 print/ISSN 1469-9257 online/07/010097-16 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09695950701323120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The literature exploring social power is commonly acknowledged to start with

the publication of Studies in Social Power by French and Raven in 1959. They were

concerned with understanding how people react, or behave, when perceiving

another person to be exerting power over them. They hypothesised five different

bases of power which might be exerted by one person on another. Legitimate power

arises when a person, in this case the client of a legal service provider, perceives

that another person, here the lawyer, has a legitimate right to act in a particular

way and that person (the client) is obliged to accept the behaviour of the other (the

lawyer). Alternatively client behaviour may arise from their identification with par-

ticular lawyers (Referent power) or their perceived need to access specialist knowledge

and expertise they believe lawyers possess (Expert power). Client behaviours may also

be the outcome of perceptions that lawyers have the ability to either benefit (Reward

power) or punish them (Coercive power). This paper considers the extent to which

client behaviours are reactions demonstrating their perceptions as to which source

of power lawyers exercise over them.

Customers exhibit a range of behaviours in addition to purchase or patronage.

Some behaviours are more beneficial to organisations than others. Clients who

engage in co-operative co-production behaviours (Bendapudi & Berry, 1997; Ennew

& Binks, 1999) reduce an organisation’s service provision costs. Dissatisfied customers

spread negative information when they engage in ‘negative word-of-mouth’ behaviours

(Richins, 1983) while referring other customers will provide on-going revenue for

the organisation. The influence that one client may have on others may be far more

important within service industries where there is a greater tendency to rely on word

of mouth evaluations of service providers when making purchase decisions (Murray,

1991). Indeed the need to identify and understand the full range of client behaviours

may be an imperative for organisations providing services within an infrequent pur-

chase context, such as the provision of legal services to private clients, where organis-

ations are less likely to benefit from re-patronage behaviour. Organisations operating

within such environments may benefit from learning more about the non-purchasing

behaviours of their clients than from their purchase behaviour.

A causal link has been demonstrated between trust, relationship commitment

and four customer behaviours: acquiescence; propensity to leave; co-operation and

Figure 1. How client perceptions of relational power might influence client behaviours

98 TONI HILTON & MIKE FRENCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

functional conflict (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Clients loyal to service providers are

likely to behave in ways which result in clear benefits to organisations, for example:

recommend the organisation to others who seek advice; encourage friends and

relatives to do business with the organisation; say positive things about the organis-

ations; consider the organisation as the first choice provider; and continue to do

business with the organisation (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Bendapudi and Berry (1997)

identified six client behaviours within a service business relationship—interest in

alternative providers; acquiescence; co-operation; enhancement; identity with and

advocacy for the provider—hypothesising that the first two behaviours arise from

dependence while the remaining four behaviours will only be exhibited where

clients trust the service provider.

This paper examines findings from a qualitative study of commercial and private

clients of UK law firms to determine whether the behaviours of commercial and

private clients might be explained by their perceptions of the power exerted over them

by lawyers. If client behaviours are reactions to perceptions of trust and dependence

arising from perceptions of relational power exercised upon them by lawyers, then

understanding the sources of power may enable lawyers to manage their relationships

with clients in ways that generate behaviours that have positive outcomes for their firms.

Methodology

Sample

A total of 17 respondents participated in the original study, six commercial and 11

private clients. Three of the six commercial clients were ‘in-house’ lawyers from

multi-national ‘blue-chip’ companies and three were non-legally qualified buyers of

legal services within small- to medium-sized companies (SMEs). All bought legal ser-

vices from UK law firms.

When recruiting private clients care was taken to include those with both litigious

and non-litigious experiences in case the exclusion of one or other group resulted in an

incomplete understanding of the researched context. The recruitment process

included the completion of a brief questionnaire by the self-selected volunteers in

order to identify those with the greatest usage of lawyers during the previous ten

years. A total of eleven respondents, aged between 40 and 60 years old, emerged:

seven female and four male.

Procedure

The research interviews were designed and conducted in a manner that encouraged

linguistic discourse (Mishler, 1986). Respondents were encouraged to elaborate on

their responses and no attempt was made to get respondents to keep to a particular

point. Additional ad hoc questions were used to probe where clarification or contex-

tual understanding was required. This in-built lack of standardization of the inter-

views was necessary to ensure the validity of the data because researchers need to

gain a thorough understanding of the knowledge and meanings in order to ‘serve as

advocates of [respondents’] interests’ (Mishler, 1986, p. 132).

THE LINK BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF POWER AND CLIENT BEHAVIOURS 99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Analysis

Two strategies were employed to reduce possible interviewer bias arising from selec-

tivity in listening to and recording of the events discussed by respondents within the

one-to-one interviews (inter-rater reliability). Key points were summarized and

reflected back to respondents during the interviews, and all respondents were

provided with copies of their transcript and asked to check for any errors or fact

and judgment. The findings were examined using both within-case analysis and

cross-case analysis methods. Each interview was transcribed in full. Each transcrip-

tion was analyzed to extract statements relating to emergent themes. All related

comments were clustered together within a given theme.

Findings

Client behaviours

Commercial and private clients exhibit a range of behaviours that have both positive

and negative impact on lawyers and law firms.

Interest in alternative providers. There was very little evidence of client interest in

alternative legal service providers. Whilst neither commercial nor private clients

experience any difficulties in finding lawyers, both groups suggest that there is little

to differentiate between lawyers. However, where clients maintain a relationship

with a lawyer or law firm over an extended period those clients (both commercial

and private) talk about the quality of the relationship. Commercial clients invest con-

siderable effort into establishing and building relationships with law firms because

they believe they gain benefits from that. Hence their reluctance to switch to alterna-

tive providers:

One of the reasons that we use a small group of law firms is that we believe

that we can invest in those firms the in-depth knowledge and understanding

and experience of our business and our group and the way we do deals which

we couldn’t get from spreading the business around.

Private clients are less likely to have a frequent, or on-going, need for legal advice and

representation so they do not consider the selection of a different lawyer for each new

legal need as ‘switching’ between providers:

I don’t see a need for a continuous link in a relationship/partnership/inter-action with a lawyer. It’s just a series of one-off events. (Male, 50s)

Given that private clients in particular are unlikely to maintain long-standing relation-

ships with lawyers it is imperative to encourage other positive impact behaviours

where re-patronage is not a likely behavioural outcome.

Acquiescence. Although the transcripts do not provide any evidence that law firm

clients exhibit acquiescent, rather than co-operative, behaviours this finding should be

treated with caution. The interviewing technique used here did not probe for particu-

lar responses. Acquiescent behaviour may emerge through a measurement instru-

ment, or through a different interviewing technique. Alternatively, it could be that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

the legal service context is one where clients perceive no benefit to themselves by

behaving in this manner.

Co-operation. In contrast with acquiescence both commercial and private clients

provided evidence of co-operative behaviours that clearly fall into the ‘positive impact’

category:

The more co-operation they get from us, then the quicker and more effi-

ciently they can provide the service that we are asking them to do.

(Commercial client)

. . .and it works both ways, I pay her bills as soon as they come through the

door. (Private client)

Co-production. Commercial clients invariably talk about, ‘working with’ lawyers to

resolve their commercial problems. This is a phrase that several private clients also

used, generally where they also referred to ‘my/our lawyer’. Co-production here is

not being used in the strict way that Robertson and Corbin (2005, p. 124) define

co-production, relating it specifically to the ‘unbundling’ of legal services where,

‘. . .the client may take responsibility for service tasks normally handled by the

lawyer, such as interviewing witnesses, preparing documentation, or making court

appearances’. Several private clients were able to provide anecdotes to demonstrate,

quite explicitly, how they had contributed to the service provision:

I have to say that I had to help him out a bit. . .but then my expertise has now

developed in that having been an accountant I am now a geographer and the

problem was to do with maps and the way in which they are set up in the first

place. The way my parent’s house was built created a problem which could

only be sorted out with the land registry and I rang them up and found

someone who spoke my language as it were and we sorted it out because

he [lawyer] was obviously finding it very difficult to find a way through—

his legal mind did not work in that way for some reason.

I felt that I needed to be briefing the lawyer all the time to make sure that

she’d got everything that she needed. I wrote off to all the services with

the proof of death which is really what the lawyer would normally do.

However, private clients also provided examples of having to work with lawyers in

order to ensure that work was done competently. This was not seen positively by

private clients but does not automatically appear to lead to departure from that

lawyer:

They don’t always listen to you and you really have to check what they are

doing and really watch what they are putting into contracts.

But the change might just lead to another set of errors so I’d rather stay with

the ones I am familiar with.

I’ve always used the same one, they’re friendly, they knowme and they know

that I will check everything, I don’t particularly trust them and they know


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

that I will check everything they do, but I don’t know if anywhere else would

be any better. It’s better the devil you know than the one you don’t. . .

Relationship enhancement. Commercial and private clients spontaneously provided

examples of how their relationships had developed with their lawyers through pur-

chasing additional services over a period of time. What is most interesting about

this client behaviour is that it appears to happen in a planned, or managed, rather

than ad hoc, way. So commercial clients talk about annual reviews where legal

needs are identified and planned for the following year. The private client equivalent

appears to be the enquiry by the lawyer as to the status of the client’s Will when pro-

viding other legal services, particularly conveyancing and probate. These examples

suggest that lawyers are able to manage their relationships in ways that encourage

clients to exhibit behaviours that have a positive impact for the law firm.

Identity with the service provider. Commercial and private clients, who maintain

relationships with lawyers do talk in terms of ‘my’ or ‘our’ lawyer which is another

‘positive impact’ behaviour posited by Bendapudi and Berry (1997).

Advocacy of, or for, the service provider. Interestingly this ‘positive impact’ beha-

viour was more often reported by private clients than commercial clients.

Spreading negative word-of-mouth. This ‘negative impact’ behaviour was exclu-

sively reported by private clients, and in almost altruistic ways. They do not want

other people to share their bad experiences:

[I’ve made] off the cuff remarks—relating the story about half a dozen

times—but not really warning people not to go there. . .. But [if I knew

someone who was going to go to that firm] oh yes, I’d tell that story again

and I’d make sure they knew it was that firm. (Private client)

Even when former clients are relating horror stories to others without identifying

which lawyer or law firm was involved, the behaviour is having a negative impact

on the legal profession as a whole. Reducing such behaviour may have a much

needed positive impact on the profession as a whole over a period of time.

Conflict resolution—functional conflict. Commercial clients give the impression

that, even where quite large mistakes are involved, they prefer to work through issues

amicably rather than instigating show-downs that might terminate relationships.

Private clients who maintain long standing relationships with their lawyers reported

similar approaches, although some also reported behavioural changes in that they

now check what is being done more closely. Other private clients give the impression

that they will just put up with what they perceive to be poor performance because they

almost expect it and they do not think that they will get a better service elsewhere:

No, I don’t think its’ going to be any better anywhere else. . .not from the

stories I’ve heard from others. . .

Presumably though, private clients who just put up with the poor performance are

unlikely to return to that lawyer and are more likely to exhibit negative impact beha-

viours, such as spreading negative word-of-mouth, than positive impact behaviours,

such as advocacy. Again, it may be important to the profession longer term to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

encourage the resolution of conflict in a constructive way, rather than allowing dissa-

tisfied clients to recount negative experiences to others.

The study demonstrates that both commercial and private clients exhibit a range

of behaviours towards lawyers with some having a greater positive impact on the law

firm than others. Some behaviours concern the way in which clients interact with

lawyers, which may reduce servicing costs, while others concern the influence a

client might have on others, which affects the future potential of the law firm. This

finding is important given that private clients are far less likely than commercial

clients to have a frequent need for legal services. This interpretation suggests that

private client lawyers may benefit from adopting strategies that encourage clients to

exhibit a wider range of ‘positive impact’ behaviours.

We now consider how client perceptions of power within the relationship might

influence perceptions of dependence and trust which lead to the negative and positive

impact behaviours and what insights this might provide for the management of the

client-lawyer relationship.

Legitimate power

Using the French and Raven (1959) approach, legitimate power occurs where clients

accept that lawyers have a legitimate right to act as they do and where clients have

no right to question the behaviour and actions of the lawyer. Perception of this form

of power being exercised is likely to create client dependence on the lawyer, without

necessarily influencing trust. Theory suggests this would result in negative impact beha-

viours rather than those which provide benefits to the law firm. However, there is little

evidence to suggest that either commercial or private clients perceive lawyers to exercise

power purely as a result of legitimate authority. This situation has changed over time.

Commercial clients mentioned how very muchmore commercially aware lawyers

had become since the recession of the late 1980s and that they are more ready to nego-

tiate the terms of the business relationship:

They’ve gone from being almost an institution to realizing that they are a

service industry.

Several private clients in their 50s mentioned that their parents treated lawyers with

almost reverential respect and would never have considered questioning the advice

given, the way in which the advice was given, or the bill, in the way that they do now:

Well, I think the barrier was because I was brought up in a family that treated

them specially—we just absorbed it—my father used to call the doctor ‘sir’. . . .

I don’t think my children will think that because so many of their friends are

doctors or lawyers. Maybe it’s something to do with a different kind of social

status they had in the past—I don’t think that social status is as great now.

. . .and now the feeling that I’d have about that would be very much that I am

employing this person to do some work for me rather than I am going to this

very special professional.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

It seems that legitimate power lacks relevancy for the modern legal profession. This is

probably a good thing for lawyers since clients perceiving themselves to be subjected

to legitimate power are more likely to feel dependent upon the lawyer without necess-

arily trusting them and are therefore unlikely to exhibit behaviours having a positive

impact for the firm.

Expert power

Undoubtedly clients perceive themselves to be subject to power arising from a lawyer’s

expertise, so how does expertise influence client perceptions of trust and dependence?

Clients recognize that there are times when they do not have the technical competence

to act for themselves and therefore need lawyers. In these situations the relationship is

not of equals and clients are likely to consider themselves to be dependent upon the

lawyer and more likely to exhibit behaviours associated with dependence rather than

trust. Perhaps it is worth considering whether the expertise that any given lawyer

brings to the relationship encourages a high or low degree of dependence on that

lawyer.

The commercial law marketplace is in reality quite a small world with the large

commercial clients having a good knowledge of the major law firms and particular

individuals. There is no indication that commercial clients have difficulty in finding

lawyers with appropriate expertise which would imply that dependency on any one

lawyer or law firm is actually low:

. . .really the business market is pretty small so they will know the big hitters.

You know wemake it our business to get to know the firm and who the heavy

hitters are—and you just build up that fund of knowledge.

I have a good knowledge of say the top 100 law firms. I would know their

names and I would know some of the people in most of the law firms, not

all of them. So you have a pretty good basis on which to select.

Although private clients differ from commercial clients in their claimed knowledge of

available legal service providers they do not suggest that they find it difficult to find an

appropriate lawyer for their needs:

I haven’t got my own lawyer that I would use for anything . . . I will always

find someone that I thought was appropriate. . .when it comes down to it

I just go for convenience every time.

Perhaps of greater concern for lawyers is the perception that private client work is not

difficult, requires little expertise, and that all lawyers perform the service in the same

ways:

. . .but Mickey Mouse could do most of that in truth, it’s not difficult stuff.

I suppose the processes I’ve been involved with, to them must be just stan-

dard processes—falling off a log—not an exceptional case so really there’s

not going to be that much differentiation between them.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

So neither commercial nor private clients indicate that they are particularly dependent

upon a given lawyer as a result of that lawyer’s expertise since it can be easily replicated

by someone else.

However, commercial clients put a premium on the value of legal advice that

takes account of the commercial context facing their organisation at a given point

in time, which suggests that they become dependent upon the relationship once it

has established:

I think it’s building that in-depth knowledge and understanding of the busi-

ness. . .what we are and what our high level strategic objectives are which we

feel is important. The more you can get that into your suppliers the more

they’ll provide you with the sort of service that you need rather than just

the sort of bog-standard service off the shelf.

Private clients who maintain relationships with lawyers share this perspective,

although they are less likely to put a positive spin on it and are more likely to indicate

resignation for the sake of expedience than an active desire to return to the lawyer:

Once you’ve been through three house moves, two divorces, and a contract

they know an awful lot about you and if you went somewhere else you’d have

to start explaining everything again. . .it’s just too much effort to change.

The findings suggest that neither commercial nor private clients are highly dependent

upon a given lawyer or law firm as a result of their legal expertise although they may

become dependent upon the relationship, if one is established. This supports the con-

clusion drawn by Hilton and Migdal (2005, p. 154) that legal expertise and ‘client

specific expertise’ are perceived differently by both commercial and private clients.

However the suggestion that ‘it is client specific expertise (related to the organisation

or the person), rather than the legal expertise, that generates client dependency upon

lawyers’ (ibid.) may warrant closer examination in the context of client responses to

perceptions of power. While it seems that neither commercial nor private clients are

likely to become dependent as a result of legal expertise further consideration of

the status of the ‘client specific expertise’ (ibid.) may prove fruitful. Respondents indi-

cate two different responses to the use of ‘client specific expertise’ depending upon

whether they perceive the knowledge to be used in a supporting or opportunistic

manner. These responses will be discussed in the following two sections dealing

with coercive and reward based power.

Coercive power

The responses do not provide any indication by commercial clients that their behaviour

towards lawyers is predicated on the belief that the lawyer or law firm can punish their

organisation or otherwise negatively affect the organisation’s well being. In contrast,

there is evidence that some private client behaviours may arise from a widely held per-

ception that dealing with lawyers will result in a negative experience for them:

I always advise people to steer clear of lawyers as far as possible


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Wariness would be my general attitude—I would be very, very wary of enter-

ing into any kind of position with lawyers. . .because you know the bill’s

going to be large and open-endedness is the thing I feel most—no control.

Low expectations of lawyers—you have to keep an eye on them, on what’s

going on, otherwise it can take too long.

Private clients perceive lawyers to be ‘other worldly’ and ‘remote’, believing that they

should be ‘used with caution’ and only when ‘absolutely necessary’ suggesting that,

while their expectations of what the legal profession should deliver have moved on,

they perceive lawyers to be clinging to the past, delivering services in ways which

demand the perception of legitimacy which clients are no longer prepared to afford

the profession. Even where they have previously had good personal experiences,

private clients readily report a belief that lawyers can exploit the client need for

their involvement; are expensive and do not appear to deliver good value; take over

to the extent that clients lose control; create complexity; cause inexplicable time

delays; and lack willingness to adapt their service to account for individual client

needs. These can all be interpreted as ‘punishments’ that lawyers can visit upon

their clients, and may indicate that private clients do perceive opportunities for

lawyers to exercise coercive power over them:

But my actual experience contradicts what my perceptions are in many ways

because I’ve had several encounters with the law and in every case I’ve found it

not expensive for what they’ve done and I’ve found the service they’ve

provided I couldn’t have got anywhere else. So personally I have very good

feelings about the individuals with whom I’ve worked but I still carry these

prejudices that I’m sure lawyers are going to rip me off at some stage or other.

One respondent likened the need to make personal disclosures to lawyers to ‘stripping

in front of a stranger’. Returning to the use of ‘client specific expertise’ (Hilton &

Migdal, 2005), such a response indicates that, at least some, private clients fear the

need to provide personal information which suggests that they do not necessarily

trust how lawyers will use that information. In these circumstances client specific

expertise results in a negative perception of lawyers and is therefore more likely to

lead to client behaviours that have a negative, rather than positive, impact on law

firms. Additionally, a number of responses indicate vulnerability and suggests that

private clients fear the consequences of dealing with lawyers who they believe have

the ability to exploit their position and punish their clients:

. . .I’ve still got this thing at the back of my mind—because they are so

specialized and expert that they have the scope to exploit their client. . .

. . .The experiences some colleagues and friends have had, going through

divorces and that, they’ve had a reasonably amicable divorce, for instance,

until they’ve approached lawyers, and then they suddenly find that they’ve

taken actions that have, shall I say, made things full of tension and they’ve

ended up with an acrimonious divorce whereas they might not have had

an acrimonious divorce.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

. . .A very closed profession. . .so if you need anything done then you have to

go to see a lawyer. . .and I think that the perception of the legal profession

generally is that they tend to take advantage of this situation.

Such responses from private clients indicate that there is a ready-perception that the

power which lawyers are able to wield over them can result in ‘punishments’ and as a

result they are less likely to trust lawyers than commercial clients. The fact that even

good individual experiences are not sufficient to override the fear of punishment that

private clients have when engaging lawyers is of great interest and suggests that a belief

in the potential for lawyers to exert coercive power is deeply entrenched and wide-

spread among private clients.

Reward-based power

Commercial clients readily acknowledge the benefits, or rewards, they receive from

working with external legal service providers and they frequently mention, spon-

taneously, the need for longevity to maximize these benefits. A law firm can reward

a commercial client that it has worked with for sometime by using the history develop-

ment (Gwinner et al., 1998) to provide a competent, speedy and tailored service inde-

pendent of managerial input from the client which delivers increased internal business

efficiency for the client, lowers their legal costs, and increases the fun aspects of the

relationship:

When we send work out we don’t want to spend timemanaging it. . .if we had

a range of firms we’d either have to spend a lot of time writing down

guidance and guidelines or we’d have to actively spend time working on

deals with them.

We want it to be fun. . .I’d rather deal with someone I know and like than

someone who I think is excellent but don’t care about.

I like to be able to get on with the people, have a good relationship and if that

can involve a bit of extra-curricular fun or whatever then all well and good

but it’s all to improving the working relationship.

Indeed, the power to reward the partner is not one-sided. Commercial clients

mention the rewards to the law firm of longevity too. Clients suggest that law firms

are happier to discuss speculative work in the knowledge that it is likely to occur;

that law firms are happier to expand through the recruitment of additional partners

with specialist knowledge in order to meet a specific business need from the client

because they know that such future work is guaranteed. In addition, satisfied clients

can reward law firms by praising and recommending them to other commercial

clients which is more likely to generate significant financial gains for law firms than

personal recommendations among private clients:

By creating the relationship you are better at knowing what the other one wants.

If we’ve said we’re going to do something, they are fairly confident that we

are committed to doing it and we will do it and follow it through. They


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

are much happier about negotiating around a fee on completion, what

percentage of the deal or whatever, because they know they’re not going

to be wasting a lot of time up front that’s never going to bear fruit.

Commercial clients perceive lawyers having the power to reward their clients and readily

acknowledge that rewards are two-way. This suggests a relationshipwhere partners trust

in each other and their ability to work together to achieve wider business goals.

Private clients believe that their relationships with lawyers exist in their minds

only and that the lawyers probably see them as ‘cases’, or ‘workloads’, and fail to

relate to their individual needs:

I could tell basically he’d got half an hour for me and that was it. . .. I actually

felt that he couldn’t be bothered.

Well my impression was that they had all the trimmings. . . the large office

and plush reception area. They had the front loading to attract the larger

clients really but then the process was very mechanistic after that. The

firm was large, and possibly too large to get to know the clients individually.

. . . they probably see me as just another house to buy or sell . . .

. . . it seems very rushed. . .maybe they don’t look into what the individual

needs are so much as to ‘we provide this service so that’s what you get’ really.

However, some private clients, particularly those who do maintain relationships with

lawyers, do perceive benefits, or rewards to be gained from working with lawyers.

Private clients thought that a lawyer who knew about their individual circumstances

(client specific expertise) was likely to give better advice (a reward) than one that

did not. Indeed the perception that lawyers have the power to ‘reward’ their clients

may affect the private client’s view of purchasing legal services, altering from that of

a commodity to a specialist purchase. Such a distinction may prove to be important

when clients consider whether or not they need to develop a relationship with a

given lawyer. The distinction may also affect a client’s overall perception of the

relationship since private clients who select lawyers on the basis of convenience talk

in terms of making a commodity purchase while clients who have developed a relation-

ship with their lawyer and have a positive view of that working relationship tend to talk

about the specialist provision they receive as a result of that relationship.

Some private clients suggested that long-term relationships also benefited the law

firm because clients actually become better clients when they learn how to deal with

the lawyer. In effect this is an explicit recognition of the power that private clients have

to reward lawyers through their behaviours:

I think you become more adept at being a client because you know the way

the system works—so it requires less explanation and you know better pre-

cisely what’s going to happen.

Well, we know each other. He understands me in terms of how I expect him

to behave and. . .therefore I suspect that it may be easier for him to deal with

me than with a new client that he doesn’t know. So I think that a huge benefit


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

of staying with the same person and getting to know each other is that you do

know how to deal with each other. You do know what people are expecting

and as a result you tend to be able to deliver on both sides.

So while both private and commercial clients believe that their relationships with legal

service providers are more effective for both sides when the relationship is established

and nurtured on the basis that both parties have the power to reward each other, such

relationships with private clients occur less frequently than in the commercial world.

Private clients are less likely to perceive benefits from using, or working with lawyers,

or to consider that they contribute towards positive personal outcomes than commer-

cial lawyers and therefore may be less likely to behave in ways that benefit lawyers and

law firms. There may be scope for lawyers to emphasise their ability to ‘reward’ private

clients through their service provision in much the same way that they do with com-

mercial clients. If private clients were to consider lawyers to have the potential to

reward them, rather than fearing the consequences of dealing with them, they

would be more likely to trust lawyers. Theory suggests this will result in private

client behaviours that will benefit lawyers and their firms. Lawyers able to reduce

client dependence on them while increasing trust in their service provision are

more likely to benefit from positive impact behaviours and secure a competitive

advantage over those that are unable to do so.

Referent power

All commercial clients and the majority of private clients interviewed acknowledged

that there were occasions that called for specialist legal advice or representation.

Private clients talked about the need for a criminal lawyer as a ‘one-off’ while com-

mercial clients recognized a role for the ‘large city firms’, ‘the magic circle’ or a

London branch of a US/New York based firm. It appears that there are times when

clients need ‘a feeling of oneness with [the provider], or a desire for [their] identity’

(French & Raven, 1959, p. 161).

The French and Raven definition of referent power is unhelpful in determining if

referent power is more likely to lead to dependence or trust since it encompass both

the ‘want’ and ‘have’ to motive for the relationship and is therefore inconsistent with

the majority of literature on relationship maintenance. However, given that all clients

participating in this study referred to ‘one off’ needs the implication is that referent

power would create dependence upon the lawyer and would therefore be more

likely to result in client behaviours that have a negative rather than positive impact

for the law firm involved. This appears to be equally true for commercial clients as

for private clients in this context. The impression gained from the interviews is that

while commercial clients would actively work with lawyers they have chosen, when

that choice is removed they are less likely to demonstrate an active commitment

through positive impact behaviours:

There’s been a tendency for them [American Head Office] to want to see XX

[London ‘magic circle’ firm) involved on transactions. I’ve argued, you are

paying London rates when you could get work done as well by YY (large


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

regional firm) at Bristol rates. There’s a cost benefit therefore to sticking with

YY. There’s no difference in quality but, at the end of the day, my American

directors were happier to way to their American colleagues, ‘we’ve used XX’,

rather than, ‘we’ve used YY’. They always perceived there was the potential

for criticism if they used an unknown firm in that regard.

This analysis is useful for law firms that might acquire clients as a result of referent

power. While it must be a useful tool for client acquisition, lawyers should not rely

upon referent power as a means of managing client relationships. Law firms are

more likely to reap benefits from positive client behaviours if clients do not feel

forced to work with them.

Conclusions

Of the five bases of social power reward-based power is most likely to encourage the

development of trust while the remaining four sources of power are more likely to

create dependence on the lawyer or law firm. Consequently lawyers are more likely

to benefit from client behaviours that deliver a positive impact on the firm where

clients perceive lawyers having the power to reward them and believe they benefit

from working with lawyers. Perceptions of coercive power, along with the perception

of the exertion of legitimate-power by lawyers, are least likely to generate trust and

most likely to create dependence.

Commercial clients are more likely than private clients to believe that lawyers have

the power to reward them and their organisations which suggests they are also more

likely to trust lawyers and exhibit behaviours that have a positive impact on law

firms. Private clients are more likely to perceive lawyers to have the potential to

‘punish’ them and therefore fear the consequences of working with lawyers which indi-

cates a perception of coercive-based power. While clients no longer perceive lawyers to

have the legitimate authority they once had, some of the less trusting private client per-

ceptions of the legal profession appear to stem from the era when such authority was

readily accepted. Although expert-based power is more likely to generate dependence

than trust the legal service context is unlikely to generate high dependence on

lawyers for their legal expertise because both commercial and private clients find that

expertise to be readily available and easily replicable. The discussion in this paper

extends the conclusion drawn by Hilton and Migdal (2005) that legal expertise and

client specific expertise are perceived differently by clients. Where clients perceive

lawyers to use their ‘client specific expertise’ constructively to benefit them (reward-

based power) they are more likely to trust, rather than depend upon the lawyer.

However, where clients do not perceive benefits arising from their personal disclosures

and perceive a mechanistic rather than tailored service, they are more likely to fear the

consequences (coercive power) of working with that lawyer and act in ways that are

unlikely to deliver benefits to the law firm. Commercial clients are more likely to per-

ceive benefits arising from client specific expertise than private clients. Referent

power is linked to dependence rather than trust and is best considered a strategy for

client acquisition, rather than retention. To truly benefit from the acquisition of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

clients in this way, law firms should manage the resultant relationship to encourage

clients to perceive the benefits, and rewards, of working with their firm.

A problem with the way in which we understand dependence and trust has

resulted from previous researchers focusing on the influence that either trust or

dependence has on relationships. It has become an ‘absolute truth’ that customers

maintain relationships either because they want to OR because they have to.

Equally well known, among academics, is the causal link of trust to commitment

and the desire to maintain a relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). As a result trust

is perceived as a functional influence while dependence is assumed to be dysfunc-

tional. This leads to the assumption that client behaviours are the result of their per-

ception of either trust or dependence. What if trust and dependence are not two ends

of the same continuum, but two separate continuums operating symbiotically within

relationships? Bendapudi and Berry (1997, p. 20) imply that dependence is not always

a dysfunctional influence:

Dependence may also serve to enhance the dependent party’s dedication to

the relationship. The dependent party in a relationship is generally wary of

exploitation by the partner. If the partner is non-exploitative and fair, ded-

ication to the partner should grow because of the absence of opportunistic

behaviour. The dependent party may thus begin to experience genuine

appreciation for the relationship.

Some clients may become more dependent upon their lawyer as a result of trust.

Indeed, once trust is established the degree of dependence might actually grow:

There would be that question mark in mymind. I would wonder if X [a new]

solicitor is going to do things in the same professional way as our solicitor at

the moment. (Private client)

Perhaps client perception of the nature of the power that lawyers exert within the

relationship is the crucial factor when determining whether the relationship is func-

tional or dysfunctional since the power perception will indicate whether sufficient

trust exists to transform dependence from a dysfunctional influence into a functional

one. Figure 2 below identifies the relative influences of trust and dependence associ-

ated with each of the five sources of power as implied by this study:

Lawyers may have a very real opportunity to benefit from the effective manage-

ment of client perceptions. This paper has considered the influence that client percep-

tions of power may have on client behaviours. Repeat patronage is not the only client

behaviour that brings benefits to law firms. Equally, a failure to return to the law firm

when a new need arises is not the only behaviour that can have a negative impact on

the firm. How clients behave while working with lawyers on a matter can have positive

and negative impacts as can the way in which clients convey their experiences to

others. The findings above indicate that while commercial lawyers generally appear

to benefit from client behaviours that have a positive impact on their business,

private client lawyers have an opportunity to improve their situation. In a competitive

marketplace, lawyers can gain an advantage if they are able to encourage more private

clients to exhibit positive impact behaviours more frequently than their competitors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lawyers who manage their relationships with private clients in ways that are consist-

ent with reward-based power are more likely to achieve this competitive advantage.

References

Bendapudi, N. & Berry, L.L. (1997) Customers’ motiviations for maintaining relationships with service

providers, Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 15–37.

Ennew, C.T. & Binks, M.R. (1999) Impact of participative service relationships on quality, satisfaction

and retention: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Research, 46, 121–32.

French, J.R.P. Jr. & Raven, B. (1959) The bases of social power, in: D. Cartwright (Ed) Studies in Social

Power (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan).

Gwinner, K.P. et al. (1998) Relational benefits in services industries: the customer’s perspective, The

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 101–14.

Hilton, T. & Migdal, S. (2005) Why clients need, rather than want, lawyers, International Journal of the

Legal Profession, 12(1), 145–63.

Johnson, M.P. (1982) Social and cognitive features of the dissolution of commitment to relationships, in:

S. Duck (Ed) Personal Relationships, Volume 4: Dissolving Personal Relationships (New York, Academic

Press), 51–73.

Mishler, E.G. (1986) Research Interviewing (Context and Narrative) (Cambridge, MA, Harvard Press).

Murray, K.B. (1991) A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities,

Journal of Marketing, 55, 10–25.

Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D. (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of

Marketing, 58, 20–38.

Richins, M.L. (1983) Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study, Journal of

Marketing, 47, , 68–78.

Robertson, M. & Corbin, L. (2005) Specialist lawyers’ perceptions of client involvement, International

Journal of the Legal Profession, 12(1), March, 121–43.

Zeithaml, V.A. et al. (1996) The behavioral consequences of service quality, Journal of Marketing, 60,

April, 31–46.

Figure 2. Relationship between perceptions of power, trust and dependence


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

09 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

The link between perceptions of power and client behaviours