Research Reports

Results of the Legal Services Client Satisfaction Survey
March 1997 - March 1998

Roberta Lynn Sinclair, Colleen Anne Dell & Roger Boe

Research Branch
Correctional Service Canada

November, 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• LIST OF TABLES
• INTRODUCTION
• METHODOLOGY
• RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
• FINDINGS
• A. USE OF LEGAL SERVICES
• B. COMMUNICATION
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Summary of Communication Findings
• C. TIMELINESS
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Summary of Timeliness Findings
• D. USEFULLNESS OF LSU COUNSEL AND ADVICE
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Summary of Usefulness of LSU Counsel and Advice
• E. QUALITY OF SERVICE
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Summary of Quality of Service
• F. OVERALL COURTESY OF SERVICE AT LSU
  • Qualitative Analysis
  • Summary of Overall Courtesy of Service at LSU
• G. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
  • APPENDIX A
  • APPENDIX B
  • APPENDIX C
  • APPENDIX D

LIST OF TABLES

• TABLE 1: SURVEY ISSUE & RESPONSE SUMMARY
• TABLE 2: NHQ DISTRIBUTION
• TABLE 3: JOB TITLE DISTRIBUTION
• TABLE 4: AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY DISTRIBUTION
• TABLE 5: COMMUNICATION FINDINGS
• TABLE 6: OVERALL COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION INDEX
• TABLE 7: TIMELINESS FINDINGS
• TABLE 8: OVERALL TIMELINESS SATISFACTION INDEX
• TABLE 9: USEFULNESS OF LSU COUNSEL AND ADVICE
• TABLE 10: OVERALL USEFULNESS OF LSU COUNSEL AND ADVICE SATISFACTION INDEX
• TABLE 11: QUALITY OF SERVICE
• TABLE 12: OVERALL QUALITY OF SERVICE SATISFACTION INDEX
• TABLE 13: OVERALL COURTESY OF SERVICE AT LSU
• TABLE 14: OVERALL COURTESY OF SERVICE AT LSU SATISFACTION INDEX

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this survey is to measure the Legal Services Unit's (LSU) maintenance of its service standards as well as provide a forum for suggestions to improve service delivery. The survey covers a wide range of issues: use of legal services, communication, timeliness, usefulness of LSU counsel and advice, quality of service, and overall courtesy of service at LSU.

The survey was constructed on a six point scale with space for explanations and examples following six of the seven sections (communication, timeliness, usefulness of LSU counsel and advice, quality of service, and overall courtesy of service at LSU). Additional space was provided for respondent suggestions and/or comments.

The survey was conducted in both official languages.

METHODOLOGY

Between March 2 and March 30, 1998, a mail-out survey of the clients of the LSU was conducted. The survey sample size is 238¹. The total number of returned surveys was 172, denoting a response rate of 72%. Although all regions had fairly high response rates, the Prairie region had the highest (74%) with the other regions and NHQ falling between 58% - 63%. The Atlantic region had the highest percentage of respondents who had used the service (100%), closely followed by respondents in the Ontario region (96%). The Pacific region had the lowest percentage of respondents who had used Legal Services within the past year (64%). See Table 1.

The high response rate is partially attributed to the respondent contact process. A letter introducing the survey was issued by e-mail on February 24, 1988 approximately one week prior to the surveys arrival by Canada Post or interdepartmental mail (see Appendix A). A second introductory letter was provided by Carolyn Kobernick, LSU Senior Counsel, with the issued survey on March 2, 1988 (see Appendix B). Two weeks following the approximate arrival of the survey (March 14, 1988), a third letter was sent by e-mail reminding the recipients of the survey and the importance of providing feedback on the level of services provided to them, if used (see Appendix C).

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

As reflected in the design of the survey, this report is primarily interested in LSU users in the past year. One hundred and thirty-four individuals (78%) indicated they had used LSU in the past year and 36 (22%) had not (2 missing). The remainder of this report focuses on those respondents who have used LSU in the past year.

As shown in Table 1, of the 134 respondents who indicated they had used LSU in the past year, 129 indicated their region: 14 respondents in Atlantic, 32 in Quebec, 23 in Ontario, 34 at NHQ, 17 in Prairie and 9 in Pacific. For those at NHQ, the sector distribution was:

Note: Three individuals indicated their sector but did not indicate NHQ as their region.

The greatest number of respondents worked in institutions (37%), followed closely by NHQ (27%) and RHQ (26%) and to a much lesser extent by parole (9%) and other (1%). One hundred and thirty individuals responded to this question. One hundred and thirty one respondents indicated their job title. The greatest representation was from Directors (n=21), Regional Administrators (n=21) and Wardens (n=16). See Table 3.

Note: Missing = 3

Area of employment responsibility was indicated by 109 respondents. The primary areas were other (n=32), followed by community/reintegration (n=14), management services (n=11) and correctional operations and institutions (both n=10). See Table 4.

Note: Missing = 25.

FINDINGS

The survey findings are categorized by the 7 sections of the survey: communication, timeliness, usefulness of LSU counsel and advice, quality of service, overall courtesy of service at LSU, and additional suggestions or comments. Within each section, both the quantitative and qualitative² analyses are provided as well as a table of the survey findings and an overall satisfaction index³. A summary is located at the conclusion of each section.

A. USE OF LEGAL SERVICES

• Fifty-six percent of respondents stated that in the past 12 months they had approached LSU on a particular matter between 1-10 times, 15% between 11-20 times, and 29% approached LSU over 21 times.
• Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated they received the assistance they requested 1-10 times, 16% indicated 11-20 times, and 28% received the requested assistance 21 times or more.
• Fifty-three percent of survey respondents approached LSU for Legal Advice, followed by Policy Advice, 45%.
• Seventy-four percent of respondents worked most often with a Staff Lawyer and 21% worked with both a Staff Lawyer and the Director.

B. COMMUNICATION

• The majority of respondents (70%) stated they were very satisfied with the time LSU lawyers took to listen to their requests carefully, while 28% indicated they were satisfied.
• Approximately half (49%) of the respondents were very satisfied with the availability/accessibility of the LSU lawyer working on their file, and 40% were satisfied. Two percent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction and 2% were neutral.
• Focussing on whether LSU lawyers regularly informed respondents of developments, 37% were very satisfied and 39% were satisfied. Very low levels of dissatisfaction were reported (1% dissatisfied and 1% very dissatisfied).
• Forty percent of respondents stated they were very satisfied with the explanation of the legal and cost implications of proposed or available courses of action and 35% were satisfied. This question was not applicable for 17% of respondents.
• In terms of LSU consultation with respondents (regarding provision of strategies, risk assessments and options), more than 1/3 of respondents (37%) were very satisfied and a higher percentage (43%) were satisfied. Only 1% of respondents stated they were dissatisfied.
• There was strong respondent satisfaction with LSU lawyers' identification of opportunities for alternatives to the judicial or regulatory process. Twenty-nine percent expressed they were very satisfied and 33% were satisfied.
• Nearly half of the respondents stated they were satisfied with LSU's delivery of complete, consistent and clear advice over time and by various lawyers. A large percentage, 43%, were very satisfied.

Qualitative Analysis^4,5

Fourteen respondents provided a written comment. Forty-three percent praised the high quality of customer service provided by LSU. Twenty-one percent commented on its prompt service and 21% on its tardiness. Thirty-six percent of the clients dealt with one lawyer and were very satisfied with the service provided and 21% indicated they dealt with various lawyers who provided inconsistent advice. Seven percent commented LSU was hard to get in touch with and 7% noted LSU's voice mail was not updated regularly. A further 7% commented LSU knows the "realities" of its clients and 14% stated it does not. Lastly, 29% of respondents indicated that LSU provided concise advice and never made the client feel they were asking a "dumb" question.

Summary of Communication Findings

Overall, LSU had a very high communication rating. The majority of respondents stated they were either very satisfied or satisfied with the communication services provided by LSU staff in the past 12 months. Extremely low levels of dissatisfaction (dissatisfied and very dissatisfied) were indicated for all of the seven communication variables. LSU rated highest with the time LSU lawyers take to listen to client requirements. The weakest area was LSU lawyer's lack of identification of opportunities for alternatives to the judicial or regulatory process (i.e., alternative dispute resolution). Only 61% of respondents indicated satisfaction in this area, while on other variables the combined average is well above 70%, and in many cases is close to 90%.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

C. TIMELINESS

• Forty-three percent of respondents were very satisfied with the promptness with which LSU informed them of the lawyer that would be handling their file(s). Thirty-nine percent were satisfied and 2% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction.
• Nearly half (49%) of the respondents expressed they were very satisfied with the promptness of service they received from LSU and 41% expressed satisfaction. Only 3% expressed dissatisfaction.
• One third of respondents (32%) were very satisfied with LSU's regular updates on the status and progress of their files and 41% reported satisfaction. Only 2% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction.
• Greater than one-third of respondents (35%) were satisfied with LSU staff attention on informing them of anticipated delays and 26% were very satisfied. Only 5% indicated dissatisfaction.
• Thirty-six percent of respondents were very satisfied with LSU's ability to complete work by the agreed upon deadlines and 44% were satisfied. Two percent reported dissatisfaction.
• A high level of satisfaction with LSU's overall timeframe for completion of work was reported: 38% of respondents were very satisfied and 47% were satisfied. Five percent of respondents reported they were dissatisfied.

Qualitative Analysis

Fourteen respondents provided a written response. Forty-two percent indicated their dissatisfaction with the long length of time it took for LSU to respond to their requests while the same percentage noted LSU's quick response rate. An additional 21% noted the quickness of LSU's response in an emergency situation. Fourteen percent noted they were not informed of delays when they occurred with their file and 15% of those who responded claimed LSU did not return telephone calls. Twenty-one percent indicated their awareness that LSU was extremely busy.

Summary of Timeliness Findings:

Although rating well in this area, respondents were more apt to report they were satisfied rather than very satisfied. The strongest level of respondent satisfaction pertained to the promptness of service received from LSU (90% of respondents expressed satisfaction). The area of least satisfaction was LSU staff keeping respondents informed of anticipated delays (62%). The remaining areas revealed levels of satisfaction near 80%.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

D. USEFULLNESS OF LSU COUNSEL AND ADVICE

• Well over half (64%) of the respondents reported they were very satisfied with the LSU lawyers' professionalism and depth of information. Thirty-four percent indicated they were satisfied and a mere 1% of respondents reported they were dissatisfied.
• Fifty-three percent of respondents stated they were very satisfied and 40% were satisfied with LSU's provision of clear advice to guide actions. Similar to the above finding, only 1% expressed dissatisfaction.
• In terms of LSU's provision of useful predictions of likely developments in the law, only 21% of respondents were very satisfied, whereas 40% were satisfied. Approximately 40% were divided between the neutral and not applicable categories.
• Thirty-nine percent of respondents stated they were very satisfied with LSU's provision of practical solutions to their legal problem(s). However, a greater number (49%) reported they were satisfied. Two percent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction.
• In response to LSU's provision of adequate legal training sessions, only 20% of respondents reported they were very satisfied while 34% stated they were satisfied. Two percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the legal training sessions provided by LSU.

Qualitative Analysis

Nine individuals provided a written response. Forty-four percent commented on the usefulness of training seminars and the need for additional ones. Sixty-seven percent commented specifically on the clarity and appropriateness of the sessions. With respect to LSU services, 11% of respondents indicated that LSU knows the field of corrections, 33% stated the opinions provided by LSU were clear and concise and 11% noted LSU's proposed solutions were realistic. Conversely, 11% of respondents stated that LSU was not able to provide advice on how to implement the solutions. Thirty-three percent of respondents indicated general satisfaction with LSU.

Summary of Usefulness of LSU Counsel and Advice

LSU faired well in specific portions of this section. The highest level of satisfaction was reported in respondent's perception of LSU's provision of informed and professional lawyers. Strong levels of satisfaction were also indicated in respect to LSU's provision of clear advice and provision of practical solutions to legal problems. The lowest level of satisfaction was associated with the training sessions provided by LSU (54%), followed by its predictions of developments in the law (61%). Overall, respondents expressed very low levels of dissatisfaction.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

E. QUALITY OF SERVICE

• Fifty-six percent of respondents stated they were very satisfied and 39% were satisfied with the overall quality of services provided by LSU.
• Twenty-one percent of respondents reported they were very satisfied with LSU's contributions to non-legal policy making. Twice as many individuals (42%) expressed satisfaction and 14% reported neutrality.
• Fourteen percent of respondents indicated they were very satisfied with LSU's advice on contracts or real property matters. Twenty-four percent of respondents indicated they were satisfied and 16% expressed neutrality.
• Twenty-two percent of respondents noted they were satisfied and 13% were very satisfied with LSU's ensurance of consistency with intergovernmental and international agreements.
• Thirty-nine percent of respondents were very satisfied and 36% were satisfied with LSU's advice/counsel on their department's mandates, statutes and regulations. For 18% of respondents this question was not applicable.
• Thirty-two percent of respondents revealed they were very satisfied with LSU's assistance in dealing with disputes prior to litigation. Twenty-seven percent revealed satisfaction and 8% stated neutrality. For 33% of the respondents this question was not applicable.
• With respect to LSU's advice regarding proposed legislation and/or legal instruments, 41% of respondent's claimed they were satisfied and 31% very satisfied. Only 1% of respondents reported dissatisfaction. This question was not applicable for 23% of respondents.
• Thirty-two percent of respondents were very satisfied with LSU's advice on civil or criminal litigation. Thirty-two percent of respondents were satisfied, 6% were neutral and 29% indicated the question was not applicable.
• Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated they were very satisfied, 37% satisfied, 4% neutral and 1% dissatisfied with LSU ensuring departmental compliance with the Charter. Twenty-one percent noted the category was not applicable.
• Twenty-five percent of respondents indicated they were very satisfied with the overall quality of legal training sessions provided by LSU. Thirty-one percent indicated they were satisfied, 13% were neutral, 1% dissatisfied and 1% reported they were very dissatisfied. This question was not applicable for 30% of respondents.

Qualitative Analysis

Twelve respondents commented in this section. Eight percent indicated that LSU requires a strategic plan in respect to provision of advice on proposed legislation. A further 17% suggested LSU provide increased training time. A third suggestion by 8% of respondents was that LSU be more proactive in ensuring departmental compliance with the Charter. Noting the positive attributes of LSU, 25% mentioned the high quality of assistance, especially in emergency situations, 8% noted the availability of LSU staff, 25% commented on the clear and consistent advice provided to them by LSU, 17% indicated they were impressed with LSU's professional training and 8% were impressed with the written feedback provided by LSU.

Summary of Quality of Service

The highest level of satisfaction pertained to the overall quality of service provided by LSU (95%). The lowest degree of respondents' satisfaction was with LSU's assurance of consistency with intergovernmental and international agreements (35%) and with LSU's advice on contracts or real property matters (39%). These are the lowest percentages of all components measured in this survey. The two areas receiving only slightly above 50% satisfaction were overall quality of legal training sessions provided and LSU's assistance in dealing with disputes prior to litigation.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

* Question 3 & 4 are not included in the satisfaction index calculation. This area was identified as unique requiring specialized counsel. Counsel has since been hired to address this weakness.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

F. OVERALL COURTESY OF SERVICE AT LSU

• The level of satisfaction with the availability of LSU personnel during office hours was rated as very satisfactory by 47% of respondents, satisfactory by 46%, neutral by 3% and 2% of respondents were dissatisfied.
• Sixty-seven percent of respondents were very satisfied with the professional and courteous manner in which LSU treated them and their staff at all times. Thirty-one percent of respondents reported to be satisfied.
• Fifty-two percent of respondents were very satisfied with the promptness with which LSU returned phone calls. Thirty-eight percent reported satisfaction, 7% neutrality and 2% dissatisfaction.
• Forty-three percent of respondents were very satisfied with the promptness with which LSU returned e-mail inquiries. Thirty-eight percent reported satisfaction, 7% neutrality and 2% dissatisfaction. This question was not applicable for 10% of respondents.
• LSU's response time in emergency situations was rated as very satisfactory by 59% of respondents and satisfactory by 13%. Five percent of respondents expressed neutrality while the question was not applicable for 23%.
• Fifty-eight percent of respondents expressed they were very satisfied with LSU services. Thirty-eight percent reported they were satisfied, 3% expressed neutrality and only 1% reported dissatisfaction.

Qualitative Analysis

Nine individuals provided a written comment. Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated that the service provided by LSU was excellent, professional and/or courteous. A further 33% noted it was respectful and 44% noted that the service was timely. Twenty-two percent of respondents indicated they were not satisfied with the timeliness of LSU's service.

Summary of Overall Courtesy of Service at LSU

The highest level of satisfaction corresponded with LSU's professional and courteous treatment of its clients (99%). This is the highest rating of all categories measured in this survey. A significantly lower level of satisfaction was indicated for LSU's response time in emergency situations (72%). The remainder of the categories in most cases rated well above 80% satisfaction.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to N/A responses.

G. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Twenty-two individuals (16% of respondents who used LSU services in the past year) provided a written response to the final comment and suggestion section of the survey. The following is a qualitative analysis of their responses.

Recognition of the good or excellent quality of service that LSU staff provide was referred to 27 times in the 22 written comments. This finding concurs with the overall positive response and satisfaction with LSU services by its clients. Many took advantage of the provided space to praise the work of LSU.

Further, LSU's helpfulness and willingness to provide assistance and promptness of technical and legal advice was praised by 64% of respondents. An additional 23% indicated the ability of LSU to provide legal services. The courteousness of LSU was recognized by 27% of respondents.

Fourteen percent of respondents noted the positive and useful nature of the Quebec pilot project, while 5% indicated a lack of services in the Quebec region.

With respect to areas of improvement, the following were suggested:

• 32%

  the necessity to assign only one lawyer to a specific area because specified knowledge is required and it is not advantageous to switch lawyers in the midst of dealings because different opinions are provided;

  
  
  
• 27%

  suggested legal bulletins be provided to staff nationally so that they would be aware of new issues, such as amendments to the criminal code;

  
  
  
• 23%

  CSC staff be provided with increased legal education, specifically management officers;

  
  
  
• 18%

  increased promptness of responses by LSU;

  
  
  
• 14%

  lawyers' lack of operational understanding;

  
  
  
• 14%

  LSU was at times "over-protective" and "over-cautious" and thus attention is placed on what cannot be done rather than what can;

  
  
  
• 14%

  suggested LSU be part of the policy tea and not merely passive reviewers of legislation;

  
  
  
• 9%

  elimination of voice mail at LSU; and

  
  
  
• 5%

  Not impressed with the current level of training provided.

  
  
  

The following regarding LSU lawyers were acknowledged once (5% of total):

• Need to use "understandable" language;
• Need the ability to adjust communication style (specifically when it is a high stress situation);
• Need to be able to adequately take over for one another; and
• Need to provide clear legal opinion

APPENDIX A

February 24, 1998

Re: Upcoming Legal Services' Client Satisfaction Survey

This is to inform you that within the next week you will be receiving CSC's Legal Service's Unit's Client satisfaction Survey by Canada Post. You, and other Senior Managers across Canada, are being asked to complete a survey in order to measure LSU's performance in maintaining its service standards and improve service quality.

We ask that you please take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire. It is important for us to receive feedback on the level of services provided to you.

If you have any questions, please contact the coordinators, Colleen Dell or Roberta Sinclair, at (613) 995-3006.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Colleen Dell and Roberta Sinclair

Project Coordinators

APPENDIX B

March 2, 1998

Re: Legal Services' Client Satisfaction Survey

CSC's Legal Services Unit (LSU) is committed to providing high-quality legal services to CSC. You, and other Senior Managers across Canada, are being asked to complete a survey in order to measure the LSU's performance in maintaining its service standards and improving service quality. It is important for us to receive feedback on the level of services provided to you.

The survey is brief and covers a range of issues - use of legal services, communication, timeliness, usefulness of LSU counsel and advice, quality of service and overall courtesy of service by the LSU. We have provided space for your suggestions and comments, and I encourage you to take the opportunity offered to do so.

We ask that you take a few minutes to complete the following questionnaire and return same in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope. Please help make the survey a success by returning the questionnaire to Correctional Service Canada, Research Branch, BY FRIDAY, MARCH 20. All replies will be confidential.

NOTE: IF YOU HAVE NOT USED LEGAL SERVICES WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, PLEASE INDICATE THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE SURVEY AND RETURN IT UNCOMPLETED.

If you have any questions, please contact the coordinators, Colleen Dell or Roberta Sinclair, at (613) 995-3006.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Kobernick

Senior Counsel

Correctional Services, Legal Services

APPENDIX C

March 14, 1998

REMINDER: LEGAL SERVICES' CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

This is to remind you that if you have not yet completed CSC's Legal Services' Client Satisfaction Survey, please do so and return it to Correctional Service Canada, Research Branch, BY THE END OF THIS WEEK.

If, by chance, you have not received a copy by mail, please contact the coordinators, Colleen Dell or Roberta Sinclair, at (613) 995-3006. One will be sent out immediately.

NOTE: IF YOU HAVE NOT USED LEGAL SERVICES WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, PLEASE INDICATE THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE SURVEY AND RETURN IT UNCOMPLETED.

To those who have already returned the questionnaire, thank you.

APPENDIX D

LEGAL SERVICES CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY
1998

The Department of Justice is committed to providing high-quality legal services to government departments and agencies. CSC's Legal Services Unit (LSU) has adopted general service standards to ensure consistency in the quality and level of service and to ensure that CSC is satisfied with the legal services provided by the lawyers and support staff in your legal services unit. You are being asked to complete this survey in order to measure the Legal Services' performance in maintaining these service standards and improve service delivery. Thank you for your cooperation.

I. RESPONDENT INFORMATION

1. Job Title (i.e., Assistant Warden): ________________
   
   Area of Responsibility: ________________
   
   
2. Location:
   ☐ Institution ☐ Parole ☐ RHQ ☐ NHQ ☐ Other ______
   
   
3. In which region do you work?
   ☐ Pacific ☐ Prairie ☐ Quebec ☐ Ontario ☐ Atlantic ☐ NHQ
   
   
4. If you work at NHQ, indicate which sector. _____________________
   
   

II. USE OF LEGAL SERVICES

1. How many time in the past 12 months have you approached the LSU on a particular matter? ______________
   
   
2. How many times did you receive the assistance you requested? ______________
   
   
3. What is the main type of service you approached LSU for?
   ☐ Policy Advice ☐ Legal Advice ☐ General Information ☐ Legal Awareness Training ☐ Other ______
   
   
4. Who do you usually work with at LSU?
   ☐ Staff Lawyer ☐ Director ☐ Both ☐ Other _____________
   
   

Sections III through VIII address your satisfaction, over the past 12 months, with the services provided by LSU staff in terms of the handling of work you or your Branch/Bureau/Division has requested of it. Please indicate your level of satisfaction to each of the following statements:

III. COMMUNICATION

1. Time LSU lawyers take to listen to my requirements carefully.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
2. The LSU lawyer who is on my file is readily available/accessable
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
3. LSU lawyers keep me regularly informed of proposed or available courses of action.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
4. LSU lawyers explanation of the legal and cost implications of proposed or available courses of action.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
5. LSU lawyers consultation with me and provision of strategies, risk assessments and options.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
6. LSU lawyers identification of opportunities for alternatives to the judicial or regulatory process (i.e.,alternative dispute resolution)
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
7. LSU's delivery of complete, consistent and clear advice over time and by various lawyers.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   

If you answered 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' to any of the above questions please explain and provide an example:

IV. TIMELINESS

1. The promptness with which LSU informed me of the lawyer handling my file(s).
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
2. The promptness of service I receive from LSU.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
3. LSU keeps me regularly informed on the status and progress of my file.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
4. LSU staff inform me of any anticipated delays.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
5. LSU completes work by agreed upon deadlines.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
6. LSU's overall timeframe for completion of work.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   

If you answered 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' to any of the above questions please explain and provide an example:

V. USEFULNESS OF LSU COUNSEL & ADVICE

1. LSU provides informed and professional lawyers.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
2. LSU provides clear advice to guide actions.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
3. LSU provides useful predictions of likely developments in the law.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
4. LSU focuses on providing practical solutions to my legal problem(s).
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
5. LSU provides adequate legal training sessions.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   

If you answered 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' to any of the above questions please explain and provide and example:

VI. QUALITY OF SERVICE

1. Overall quality of services provided by LSU.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
2. Contributions to non-legal policy making.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
3. Advice on contracts or real property matters.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
4. Ensuring consistency with intergovernmental and international agreements.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
5. Advice/counsel on clients department's mandates, statutes and regulations.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
6. Assistance dealing with disputes prior to litigation
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
7. Advice regarding proposed legislation and/or legal instruments.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
8. Advice on civil or criminal litigation.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
9. Ensuring departmental compliance with the Charter.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
10. Overall quality of legal training sessions provided.
    ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
    
    

If you answered 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' to any of the above questions please explain and provide and example:

VII. OVERALL COURTESY OF SERVICE OF LSU

1. Availability of LSU personnel during regular office hours.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
2. LSU treats myself and my staff in a professional and courteous manner at all times.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
3. LSU returns phone calls promptly.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
4. LSU returns e-mail inquiries promptly.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
5. LSU response time in emergency situations.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
6. Overall satisfaction with LSU services
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   

If you answered 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' to any of the above questions please explain and provide an example:

VIII. LSU SUPPORT STAFF (Director(s) and Lawyers excluded)

1. The promptness with which administrative support staff responded to my request for assistance.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
2. LSU staff was accurate and comprehensive in response to my request.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   
3. LSU staff treated me in a courteous and professional manner at all times.
   ☐ Very Satisfied ☐ Satisfied ☐ Neutral ☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Very Dissatisfied ☐ N/A
   
   

If you answered 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' to any of the above questions please explain and provide an example:

Please indicate any suggestions or comments in the space provided: