Young People's Perceptions and Experiences of the Lawyer–Client Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Youth Criminal Justice Act afford young people the same due process rights given to adults, including the right to legal counsel. However, there has been little empirical investigation of how lawyers represent adolescent clients or of the factors affecting youths’ evaluations of their lawyers and lawyer–client experiences. Insight into these issues is important in light of the potential legal and social ramifications of young people's appraisals of lawyers and their services. In the present study, 48 young offenders were interviewed regarding their experiences with defence lawyers, to examine the factors associated with young people's perceptions and evaluations of lawyers and the lawyer–client exchange. Results indicated that perceived fairness and various factors (some of them interpersonal) of the lawyer–client relationship were related to young people's satisfaction with their lawyers. Youths’ views about lawyers did not predict their satisfaction, and no client-specific or outcome-related variables were found to affect young people's appraisals of their lawyer-related experiences. Findings are discussed in terms of procedural justice theory as well as of their practical implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".