Perceptions of Fairness and Satisfaction in Lawyer–Client Interactions Among Young Offenders in Hong Kong

Abstract

This study used a mixed methods approach to examine the perceptions of fairness and satisfaction young offenders have toward their lawyers in the Hong Kong criminal justice system, drawing on procedural justice theory. A sample of 168 young offenders aged between 14 and 21 years old was surveyed. Regression analyses indicated that participants who had private lawyers were more satisfied compared to those who had duty lawyers. Two elements of procedural justice, participation, and trustworthiness, demonstrated the strongest influence on youths’ satisfaction with their lawyers. Supplementary interviews with 30 young defendants further explained the discrepancy, revealing that the limited amount of time spent by duty lawyers in meetings and their detached focus contributed to clients’ low perceptions of participation and trustworthiness.

Keywords

young offenders lawyer–client interactions duty lawyers procedural fairness Hong Kong

In its principles on conduct of the legal profession, the International Bar Association (2011) states that as a fundamental principle “a lawyer shall at all times maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity and fairness [italics added] toward the lawyer’s clients, the court, colleagues and all those with whom the lawyer comes into professional contact” (p. 5). Clearly, fair treatment of each client is an ideal that the International Bar Association hopes that all lawyers worldwide strive for. In the criminal justice literature, the idea of fairness revolves around the concept of procedural fairness or procedural justice that was popularized by Tyler and subsequent colleagues (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). The main idea behind procedural justice theory is that the process by which people are treated is more important than the outcome that they receive. In turn, satisfaction with the process often leads to perceptions that the justice system is legitimate, and legitimacy leads to deference to authorities and adherence to their decisions (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). “Legitimacy” refers to the notion that the authority in question—namely, legal institutions—has the right to rule and that this right is accepted by the public (Crawford & Hucklesby, 2013).

Defendants’ perceptions of fairness toward their lawyers have however, remained an understudied area. The studies that have examined defendants’ perceptions of their experiences with lawyers rely predominately on quantitative methods (Boccaccini & Brodsky, 2002; Greene, Sprott, Madon, & Jung, 2010; Peterson-Badali, Care, & Broeking, 2007; Pierce & Brodsky, 2002). These studies are able to provide evidence of the correlations between procedural fairness, satisfaction, and legitimacy, but they do not demonstrate the subjectivities of why participants consider procedural fairness to be salient and how it can be improved.

To add to the limited literature and to extend the study of procedural justice to lawyer–client interactions, this study uses a mixed methods approach to examine the perceived fairness and satisfaction young offenders have toward their lawyers in Hong Kong. Through questionnaires and regression analyses, this study examines which elements of procedural justice affect satisfaction with lawyers, whether satisfaction differs between private and public lawyers, and whether satisfaction with lawyers affects perceptions of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Interviews with young defendants explain the saliency of certain variables in the statistical results. Not only does this mixed methods approach complement and add meaning to the statistical results, it also assists with policy recommendations. By uncovering areas where participants felt that they were treated in a procedurally unfair way, and why they felt this way, we can identify areas of improvement in the lawyer–client relationship, especially between lawyers and youth clients. Overall, the combination of the two methodologies provides a more comprehensive understanding of procedural fairness in the lawyer–young defendant relationship.

Literature Review

Research into procedural justice in the criminal justice scholarship over the past two decades or so has led to various procedural justice measures and variables (e.g., Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Four elements have been identified as contributing to the overall perception of procedural fairness with respect to legal authorities such as the police, courts, and lawyers: participation, objectivity, treatment with dignity and respect, and trustworthiness (Tyler, 2008). Participation, or voice, is about allowing defendants to express their side of the story to the authorities. For the defendants, it signifies their involvement in their own cases. “Objectivity” means that the authorities will make honest and impartial decisions based on facts and not from personal opinions or prejudice. “Treatment with dignity and respect” refers to the treatment of defendants with courtesy and politeness by the authority figure, as well as the upholding of their individual rights. Furthermore, decisions, particularly those of the court, ought to be transparent and consistent. Last, trustworthiness is about the level of trust that defendants have toward authorities, and this is achieved by the authorities being sincere and honest and wanting to do what is right for everyone involved (Rottman, 2007; Tyler, 2008).

Studies have found that those who participate in the court process are primarily concerned with how fairly they have been treated by the authorities (prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, and police) more than the outcome of their cases and other distributive fairness factors including costs and delays (Rottman, 2007; Tyler, 2008). More important, studies have found that people who are more satisfied with the way they have been treated are more likely to adhere to court decisions and perceive the legal authorities and the law as legitimate (Rottman, 2007; Tyler, 1990; Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes, & Woods, 2007).

Compared to adults, only a few studies have measured the perceptions of procedural justice of young offenders. Several studies examined young people’s perceptions of the procedural justice of the police (Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Hinds, 2007; Murphy, 2015; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009). Even fewer studies devoted attention to young people’s perceptions of procedural fairness of the court process, including interactions with lawyers. Specific studies on lawyer–youth client interactions were mainly conducted within the Canadian criminal justice context, which shares a lot of similarities with that of Hong Kong given their colonial histories. One recent study conducted by Sprott and Greene (2010) assessed the views of young offenders in a Canadian youth court. They measured how youths felt they were treated by their lawyer, the prosecution, and the judge at their first appearance and after their sentencing. A sample of young offenders (242 at first appearance and 97 after sentencing) were asked to answer a short questionnaire about their perceptions of procedural fairness on the four dimensions of respect, objectivity, participation, and trustworthiness. The study concluded that how youth felt that they were treated by the various courtroom actors affected their perceptions of the legitimacy of the justice system. Positive views of how fairly the judge and their own lawyers had treated them were the strongest predictors of legitimacy.

More specifically about lawyers, Peterson-Badali et al. (2007) asked a sample of 48 young offenders in a Canadian youth court to rate their perceptions of how fairly they felt their lawyers had treated them. They found a strong positive correlation between the perception of fairness in lawyers’ treatment of their young clients and young offenders’ satisfaction with their lawyers. They found no differences between privately retained lawyers and publicly funded lawyers. Youths were satisfied when their lawyers were seen as competent in their legal skills and laid out options for their young clients. Dissatisfaction was associated with a lack of responsiveness and respect from the lawyer.

In Hong Kong, research into young offenders’ attitudes toward the criminal justice system is scarce, and little attention has been paid to procedural justice. For instance, a study conducted by Bacon-Shone et al. (1995) primarily examined the social causes of juvenile delinquency but did include some measurements of reactions by young offenders to their criminal justice experiences. The study found that young offenders perceived negative labeling and stigmatization from magistrates, judges, and in particular the police. This contrasts with the view that young offenders have of family members and criminal justice personnel associated with rehabilitative work (e.g., probation officers, outreach workers, and social workers) as being supportive. However, drawbacks to this study are that it was largely descriptive and did not include young offenders’ views of lawyers.

Current Study

Given the extant literature on procedural justice, this study tests the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference between the type of legal representation and perceptions of fairness among young offenders toward their lawyers.

Hypothesis 2: Perception of fairness in lawyer–client interactions positively affects satisfaction with lawyers.

Hypothesis 3: Each factor of procedural fairness in lawyer–client interactions positively affects satisfaction with lawyers.

Hypothesis 4: Perception of fairness in lawyer–client interactions positively affects views of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

Hypothesis 5: Satisfaction with lawyers positively affects views of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

Methods

This study adopted a quantitatively led sequential design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In the first stage, questionnaires were administered to a sample of youth defendants. After statistical analyses of the data, in the second stage, a smaller sample was drawn from the original pool of respondents for in-depth interviewing. The interviewees were selected based on the results of the first stage. The purpose of the interviews was to explain the results of the statistical analyses.

Research Location

Hong Kong provides a good context for inquiry because, even after 17 years since its handover back to China, its colonial era British justice system remains largely intact and closely resembles common law jurisdictions in the West (S. H. C. Lo & Chui, 2012). Therefore the results can be easily compared to past studies of procedural fairness in lawyer–client interactions in Western jurisdictions.

In the Hong Kong justice system, the right to legal counsel is a fundamental right. This right is outlined in the Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 35), the miniconstitution of Hong Kong (Wesley-Smith, 1998), and the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, which was put into effect through the Bills of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) under Article 11. This same right also extends to young defendants. Offenders who are between the age of 10 and 15 are referred to as “juvenile offenders,” those between the age of 16 and 20 are “young offenders,” and those between the age of 21 and 25 are “young adult offenders” (Lee, 2011). Hong Kong has a separate juvenile justice system for defendants between the age of 10 and 16. The only exception is for homicide cases, which are always heard in adult courts.

However, there is no separate Juvenile Court building. Rather, the Juvenile Courts are courtrooms within the Magistrates’ Courts, but a minimum of a 1-hour gap is necessary before an adult court can be used as a juvenile court. The procedure in the Juvenile Courts is largely the same as an adult court in which a magistrate sits alone without a jury. The only differences are that the proceedings tend to be more relaxed in Juvenile Courts, where young defendants are usually accompanied by their parents/guardians and public access is more restricted (Upham, 2008).

Over the past 50 years, there has been a movement in the West to transform the juvenile justice system from a welfare-oriented approach to one that focuses on the young offenders’ responsibilities and determination of guilt through due process. As opposed to detaining at length young people who are not convicted of any crimes as a means to help them, the new juvenile justice model seeks to treat young people as being responsible for their crimes. There is now a stronger emphasis on procedural rights, including the right to legal representation. This reform is evident in English-speaking common law jurisdictions such as the United States, England, Canada, and Australia (Travers, 2012).

Hong Kong’s system has been referred to as a disciplinary welfare system (Gray, 1994). In adjudicating guilt, the Hong Kong juvenile justice system takes into account the offender’s social, emotional, and educational circumstances, and punishment tends to be geared toward treatment (Lee, 2011). Rehabilitation remains a main focus in Hong Kong, even while it has been de-emphasized in the West (Jones & Vagg, 2007). Custodial sentences concentrate on discipline and rehabilitation of the youth. They also teach skills and provide educational training in order to help young offenders reintegrate into society (Chui, 2005; T. W. Lo, 2008). This combination of welfare and discipline has been criticized for bringing young people who have committed petty offenses into the justice system and for relying on disciplinary sanctions to deal with a young person’s welfare problems, including tensions in the family and school (Gray, 1994; Vagg, 1998).

Against this backdrop, the role of lawyers in the Hong Kong justice system has received virtually no attention. In both the Juvenile Courts and Magistrates’ Courts, legal representation can be obtained through either hiring private lawyers or hiring public lawyers through the Duty Lawyer Scheme. The latter was designed to help ensure that the needy would also receive legal representation. The Duty Lawyer Scheme was established in 1978, and although it is subsidized by the Hong Kong Government, it is independently run by both the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong. Since 1991, the scheme was expanded to cover basically all criminal offenses in the Magistrates’ Courts, including the Juvenile Courts. Previously, only nine statutory criminal offenses were covered. Currently, there is a Court Liaison Office that maintains the Duty Lawyer Scheme in each of the seven Magistrates’ Courts across Hong Kong (Department of Justice, 2013; see also Cheng, Chui, & Ong, 2015; Chui & Cheng, 2015).

On a daily basis, defendants make appointments with the Court Liaison Office to schedule a meeting with a duty lawyer. Oftentimes, defendants meet with their legal representative on the day of their court hearing immediately prior to the commencement of court. The first appearance by a duty lawyer is free, and a flat nominal fee of approximately HKD500 is charged for all subsequent appearances until the end of the case, provided that the defendant passes a means test, which was set at a gross income of HKD131,860 in 2009 (The Duty Lawyer Service, 2013). The exception is in the Juvenile Courts, where defendants are exempted from the means test, but their families are encouraged to pay the handling fee.

Duty lawyers are drawn from private practicing lawyers that have agreed to be on the Duty Lawyer Panel. In 2007, a total of 1,549 barristers and solicitors were on the Duty Lawyer Panel and assisted nearly 40,000 defendants (P. Y. Lo, 2009). Most defendants who appeared in the Magistrates’ Courts were represented by a duty lawyer (Cheng, 2013). Duty lawyers are paid a fee for their court appearances on a full- or half-day basis. In 2008, the rates for a duty lawyer stood at HK$2,710 for a half day and HK$5,430 for a full day (P. Y. Lo, 2009).

Stage 1: Surveying Young Offenders

The participants were recruited with the assistance of social workers from a transitional housing facility for young offenders and various youth outreach teams in Hong Kong. Purposive sampling ensured that the questionnaires were administered to youths who had experience with instructing lawyers. The reason for choosing to study the views of young offenders is that young people are disproportionately more likely to come into contact with law enforcement and brought into the justice system (Census and Statistics Department, 2012) and more vulnerable to waiving their legal rights (Abramovitch, Peterson-Badali, & Rohan, 1995; Grisso, 1981; Viljoen, Klaver, & Roesch, 2005). Therefore, it is essential to understand young peoples’ lawyer–client interactions and the criminal justice process in order to ensure that their rights are upheld and to steer young offenders toward a life of law abidance.

Data collection spanned approximately 12 months from early 2012 to 2013. Overall, 168 young offenders with experience in hiring lawyers to represent them in their criminal cases completed the questionnaire in full. Each questionnaire was self-administered and took around 15 minutes to complete. Prior to the beginning of each questionnaire, we explained to each participant the purpose of the study and provided a guarantee that his or her answers would remain in strict confidence. The authors’ university’s ethical commission board approved the study.

Out of 168 participants, 137 (81.5%) were male, and only 31 (18.5%) were female. Participants ranged in age from 14 years to 21 years with a mean of 17.53 years. For simplicity, we refer to all the participants as “young offenders,” although we recognize that they may be referred to as “juvenile offenders” or “young persons” in various circumstances. The highest completed education level of the sample population ranged from primary education to high school. Most of the participants (58.9%) had completed lower secondary education (from Form 1 to Form 3). All the participants were ethnically Chinese.

All the young offenders at the time of the interview were serving a noncustodial sentence, with the vast majority on probation, indicating that they had all been convicted before. The number of convictions for our sample ranged from one to nine, with a mean of 1.86 convictions. All participants indicated that they had hired a lawyer to represent them in their criminal case(s). Fifty participants (29.8%) reported that either they or their parents/guardians had hired a private lawyer, and 118 (70.2%) had used the services of a duty lawyer.¹ Beside the experiences of being a defendant, 63 participants (37.5%) indicated that they had previously served as a victim, witness, or spectator in court.

Measures

The outcome variable for this study was young offenders’ perceived fairness of their lawyers. The Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale (Peterson-Badali et al., 2007) was used to capture how young offenders felt that they were treated by their legal representative. The scale has 20 items measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Each element consists of five items that correspond to the four elements of procedural fairness (Tyler, 2008), and they are presented in Appendix A. These elements of procedural justice have received strong support for the scale’s validity (Reisig et al., 2007).

Cronbach’s alpha for the subscale participation in this study was .82. For the subscale of objectivity, Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was .46. In terms of treatment with dignity and respect, Cronbach’s alpha was .73. Last, for trustworthiness, Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was .92. For the whole scale, Cronbach’s alpha for our study was .92. Higher scores indicate higher perceptions of fairness in the young offenders’ interaction with their lawyer.

We were interested to see if perceived fairness would correlate with satisfaction toward lawyers. The Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale was rated by five items (Peterson-Badali et al., 2007) also on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The five items are also presented in Appendix A. Cronbach’s alpha for our study was .87. Higher scores indicate higher satisfaction with lawyers.

To go beyond the perceptions of lawyers, we tested whether procedural fairness and satisfaction with lawyers would affect young offenders’ views of the legitimacy of the justice system. The legitimacy of the justice system was measured by seven items (Greene et al., 2010) on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The items were reworded to suit the context of Hong Kong. The seven items are presented in Appendix A. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in our study was .83. Higher scores indicate a stronger regard for the legitimacy of the law and courts.

Independent variables included the participants’ knowledge of lawyers’ roles. We wanted to determine if knowledge about lawyers would affect participants’ perceptions of them. We used the Understanding About Lawyers Scale (UALS; Pierce & Brodsky, 2002; Peterson-Badali et al., 2007). Previous studies have raised the notion that knowledge about lawyers may be related to young people’s perceptions and appraisals of them (Peterson-Badali et al., 2007). A lack of understanding may lead to mistrust of lawyers’ roles and adversely affect attitudes toward them. The UALS comprises two yes/no questions and five multiple-choice questions that measure participants’ understanding about lawyers’ roles. For each item there is a correct answer. Each correct answer earns one point, for a total of seven possible points. An example of a question is “Which of the following is the most important role of defense lawyers,” followed by the three choices: “To do what your parent(s) wants them to do,” “To do what you want them to do,” and “To do what the judge wants them to do.” The correct answer is “To do what you want them to do.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in our study was .58. A higher score indicates a better understanding of lawyers.

Other independent variables included participants’ demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, and education level, and the participants’ experiences in the justice system, measured by whether they hired a private lawyer or a duty lawyer; whether they had served as a victim, witness, or spectator in court; and the number of convictions they had. Previous studies have included these as control variables (Peterson-Badali et al., 2007). We captured the number of indirect encounters the participants had with lawyers by determining whether the participant had previously served as a victim, witness, or spectator in court. The number of convictions controlled for the offender’s criminal history. The coding of the independent variables is presented in Appendix B.

Results

Several sets of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions were performed to test the effects on the various outcome variables. In the first set, each subscale of the Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale served as the dependent variable. We examined the effects of young offenders’ demographic characteristics, type of legal counsel, understanding of lawyers, and experience of being a victim, witness, or spectator in court.

Another regression model for the Perception of Fairness on the Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale as a whole was then replicated. In the next set, we tested the effects on satisfaction with lawyers. The score of the Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale served as the outcome variable, with the perception of fairness of lawyers and its different dimensions included into the regression models along with the previous independent variables. Last, we tested the effects on young offenders’ views of the legitimacy of the justice system. In particular, we wanted to ascertain the effects of the perceived fairness of lawyers and satisfaction with lawyers on legitimacy. Two additional regression models were performed to test these variables.

Relationships Between the Scales

Correlations were used to examine the interscale relationship of the UALS, the four subscales of the Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale (participation, objectivity, treatment with dignity and respect, and trustworthiness), and the Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale as a whole; the Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale; and the legitimacy of the justice system. Table 1 presents the results of the interscale correlations. All scales showed significant positive correlations with each other, with the exception of the UALS.

Table 1.

Correlations Between Scales.

Scales	Understanding About Lawyers Scale	Participation	Objectivity	Treatment with dignity and respect	Trustworthiness	Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale	Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale	Legitimacy of the justice system
Understanding About Lawyers Scale	1.00
Participation	.11	1.00
Objectivity	−.08	.55**	1.00
Treatment with dignity and respect	.03	.62**	.68**	1.00
Trustworthiness	−.05	.72**	.78**	.79**	1.00
Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale	−.01	.84**	.84**	.88**	.94**	1.00
Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale	−.04	.73**	.59**	.63**	.74**	.77**	1.00
Legitimacy of the justice system	−.07	.19*	.17*	.17*	.18*	.20**	.21**	1.00

Note. The number in each cell indicates the Pearson correlation.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale

A series of OLS regressions was performed to assess the variables that affected young offenders’ perception of fairness in their interactions with lawyers. OLS regressions were conducted for each subscale of the Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale and for the scale as a whole. The results are presented in Table 2. Consistent across each subscale and for perception of fairness toward lawyers as a whole is a significant difference between young offenders who had hired private lawyers and those who had a duty lawyer. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, young offenders who had a private lawyer had higher perceptions of fairness from their lawyers in the areas of participation (B = 0.56, p < .01), objectivity (B = 0.34, p < .05), treatment with dignity and respect (B = 0.56, p < .01), trustworthiness (B = 0.64, p < .01), and for the scale as a whole (B = 0.53, p < .01) compared with young offenders that were represented by duty lawyers.

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Squares Regressions on Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interaction Scale (N = 168).

Independent Variables	Participation, B (SE)	Objectivity, B (SE)	Treatment with dignity and respect, B (SE)	Trustworthiness, B (SE)	Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interaction, B (SE)
Gender	−0.07 (0.24)	0.38 (0.18)*	0.13 (0.22)	0.09 (0.26)	0.14 (0.19)
Age	0.02 (0.06)	0.08 (0.04)	0.03 (0.05)	0.05 (0.06)	0.04 (0.05)
Education level	−0.06 (0.18)	−0.22 (0.13)	−0.03 (0.16)	−0.21 (0.19)	−0.13 (0.14)
Number of convictions	−0.02 (0.06)	−0.06 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.05)	−0.04 (0.06)	−0.03 (0.05)
Experience as victim, witness, or spectator	0.09 (0.19)	0.17 (0.14)	0.15 (0.17)	0.22 (0.20)	0.16 (0.15)
Private lawyer	0.56 (0.19)**	0.34 (0.14)*	0.56 (0.18)**	0.64 (0.20)**	0.53 (0.16)**
Understanding About Lawyers Scale	0.03 (0.06)	−0.09 (0.04)*	−0.05 (0.05)	−0.08 (0.06)	−0.05 (0.05)
Adjusted R²	.03	.08	.04	.06	.06
F	1.54	2.65	1.88	2.22	2.27
Constant	4.25 (0.80)	3.30 (0.60)	4.47 (0.72)	4.93 (0.86)	4.24 (0.65)

p < .05. **p< .01.

None of the other independent variables such as gender, age, education level, number of convictions, understanding of lawyers, and experiences as a victim, witness, or spectator in court were found to be significant. The only exception was the perceived objectivity of lawyers. In the objectivity subscale, female offenders perceived their lawyers as significantly more objective compared to their male counterparts. In addition, greater knowledge about lawyer roles, as indicated by a higher score in the UALS, had a negative association with perceived objectivity. It could be that greater understanding about what lawyers do leads to defendants having higher expectations of lawyers, and therefore they perceive them as not performing to the best of their abilities.

Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale

OLS regressions were also performed to test the effects on satisfaction with lawyers. The score of the Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale was used as the outcome variable, and the score of the Perception of Fairness in Client–Lawyer Interactions Scale was included as an independent variable in order to determine if procedural fairness correlates with satisfaction (Hypothesis 2). Table 3 presents the regression results. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Perception of fairness had a significant positive association with satisfaction with lawyers (B = 1.00, p < .001). This is consistent with past studies that measured the attitudes of young offenders in Western countries (Peterson-Badali et al., 2007).

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares Regressions on Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale (N = 168).

Independent Variables	Satisfaction With Lawyers Scale, B (SE)
Gender	0.23 (0.18)	0.37 (0.18)*
Age	0.03 (0.04)	0.05 (0.04)
Education level	−0.03 (0.14)	−0.07 (0.13)
Number of convictions	−0.05 (0.05)	−0.06 (0.04)
Experience as victim, witness, or spectator	0.15 (0.14)	0.18 (0.13)
Private lawyer	0.39 (0.15)*	0.38 (0.14)*
Understanding About Lawyers Scale	−0.06 (0.04)	−0.10 (0.04)*
Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale	1.00 (0.08)***
Participation		0.54 (0.09)***
Objectivity		−0.02 (0.14)
Treatment with dignity and respect		0.09 (0.11)
Trustworthiness		0.31 (0.12)*
Adjusted R²	.60	.64
F	26.12	22.95
Constant	−0.55 (0.70)	−0.39 (0.68)

p < .05. **p< .01. ***p < .001.

Moreover, similar to the effects on perceptions of the fairness of lawyers, young offenders who had hired a private lawyer were significantly more satisfied with their lawyers than young offenders who had a duty lawyer (B = 0.39, p < .05). This finding differs from past studies in Western jurisdictions that found no significant differences between young offenders’ satisfaction with private lawyers and their satisfaction with publicly funded defense lawyers (Peterson-Badali et al., 2007).

Another OLS regression was conducted with the four subscales of the Perception of Fairness in Client–Lawyer Interactions Scale as independent variables. Table 3 also presents the results of this regression analysis. Female offenders were found to be significantly more satisfied with their lawyers than young male offenders. Interestingly, a greater understanding of lawyers had a negative association with satisfaction with lawyers. One possible reason is that young offenders who have more knowledge about lawyers’ roles have higher expectations; hence they are less satisfied. Consistent with the regression results on the perceived fairness of lawyers, young offenders who had instructed a duty lawyer were less satisfied than young offenders who had hired a private lawyer.

In terms of the subscales of perceived fairness, only participation and trustworthiness were significant. This partly confirms Hypothesis 3. The more the young offenders felt that they were given an opportunity to participate and voice their opinions in their interaction with lawyers, the more satisfied they were with their lawyers (B = 0.54, p < .001). Likewise, the more the young offenders considered their lawyers to be trustworthy, the more satisfied they were with them (B = 0.31, p < .05). The results provide evidence for the salience of procedural justice. By giving people voice and demonstrating trustworthiness, procedural justice theory argues that legal practitioners are relaying to offenders that they are still valued, and this strengthens the bond between the two parties (Murphy & Cherney, 2012). From the results, it can be seen that procedural justice is a way to enhance the lawyer–client relationship.

Legitimacy of the Justice System

Two sets of regressions were performed to test the effects of young offenders’ views of the legitimacy of the justice system. In the first regression model, we tested whether the perception of fairness in lawyer–client interaction would affect young offenders’ regard for legitimacy (Hypothesis 4). In the second regression model, satisfaction with lawyer (measured by the score of the Satisfaction with Lawyers scale) replaced the score of perception of fairness of lawyers (Hypothesis 5). All the previous variables were retained. Table 4 presents the results.

Table 4.

Ordinary Least Squares regressions on Legitimacy of the Justice System (N = 168).

Independent Variables	Legitimacy of the justice system, B (SE)
Gender	0.02 (0.18)	0.00 (0.18)
Age	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.01 (0.04)
Education level	0.04 (0.13)	0.04 (0.13)
Number of convictions	−0.06 (0.04)	−0.06 (0.04)
Experience as victim, witness, or spectator	0.01 (0.14)	0.00 (0.14)
Private lawyer	−0.10 (0.15)	−0.12 (0.15)
Understanding About Lawyers Scale	−0.05 (0.04)	−0.04 (0.04)
Perception of Fairness in Lawyer–Client Interactions Scale	0.19 (0.08)*
Satisfaction With Lawyer Scale		0.12 (0.06)*
Adjusted R²	.02	.01
F	1.28	1.12
Constant	2.40 (0.64)	2.60 (0.62)

p < .05.

Consistent with Hypotheses 4 and 5, both the perception of fairness of lawyers and satisfaction with lawyers were found to have a positive association with legitimacy of the justice system. The more that young people perceived themselves to be treated fairly by their legal representatives, the more they regarded the justice system as legitimate (B = 0.19, p < .05). This confirms the premise of procedural justice theory, wherein treating individuals in a procedurally just way can enhance people’s perception of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Similarly, the more satisfied young offenders were with their lawyers, the more they viewed the courts and law as legitimate (B = 0.12, p < .05). This is significant because it demonstrates that interactions with lawyers are not limited to the lawyer–client relationship but have an effect on obedience to the justice system more generally.

Stage 2: Interviewing Young Offenders

After the collection of questionnaires, we gathered the experiences and views of young offenders through semistructured in-depth interviews with 30 participants. Interviewees were selected from the original sample of respondents who answered the questionnaire, and a purposive sampling technique ensured that youths who had hired private lawyers and those who had used public lawyers would both be represented. The purpose of the interviews was to supplement the quantitative results and to add meaning to the results that could not be captured by a questionnaire. From the regression results, it was found that perceptions differed for private and public lawyers, and the interviews provide an explanation for the results. The combination of these two methodologies allows for a more comprehensive study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

The age of the interview sample ranged from 15 years old to 22 years, with an average age of 17.6. Most of the participants were male (N = 21) and the rest were females (N = 9). Over half of the participants had attained a lower secondary school education (Form 1 to Form 3, N = 17). One participant had attained a primary school education. Eleven of the participants had attained a higher secondary school education of Form 4 to Form 7, and one participant had attained an associate’s degree.

At the time of the interview, all of the participants (with the exception of one) were either employed part-time or full-time or still studying (N = 7). Jobs included working in bars/restaurants as waiters (N = 5), working as decorators/technicians (N = 4), and working as couriers (N = 2). Participants’ income ranged from less than HK$4,999 per month (N = 9) to HK$5,000 to HK$9,999 (N = 12) to more than HK$10,000 (N = 9). The vast majority had been convicted of at least one crime (N = 28). The crimes included assault (N = 13), criminal damage (N = 3), claiming to be a triad (gang) member (N = 3), and theft (N = 3). Twenty-one participants had used the services of duty lawyers, whereas only three had hired a private lawyer. Six participants had previous experience with both duty and private lawyers.

Interview Procedure

All interviews were conducted in a private room in the welfare organization. Both verbal and written consent were obtained from each informant prior to the commencement of the interviews. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, with the average duration being around 60 minutes. All of the interviews were conducted in Cantonese, the primary dialect of the informants; audio recorded; transcribed verbatim; and translated into English. Quotes are reproduced verbatim, with grammatical changes to ensure readability without diluting the content.

While a set of preworded open-ended questions were brought to the interviews, these questions acted as prompts to ensure that the interviews remained focused. The questions were modeled after procedural justice theory and example questions include “Were you able to express your concerns to your lawyer?” (participation); “Do you think that your lawyer tried his/her best to help you?” (objectivity); and “Did your lawyer only discuss case-related matters or were there any positive/negative reinforcements?” (treatment with dignity and respect). Informants who had prior experience with multiple lawyers—even multiple lawyers for a single case—were asked to speak about their most recent encounter and contrast their experiences where appropriate.

Likewise, thematic analysis of the transcripts was guided by the factors of procedural justice: participation, objectivity, treatment with dignity and respect, and trustworthiness (Tyler, 2008), as well as other themes that related to the youths’ evaluation of their lawyers, including satisfaction with case outcomes. The analysis expands on and presents contrasts between the differing experiences with and views of duty lawyers and private lawyers. To ensure confidentiality, informants will simply be referred to by the order in which they were interviewed (N1, N2, N3, and so forth).

Interview Findings

Differences were found between young offenders’ perceptions and evaluations of duty lawyers and private lawyers in each area of procedural justice. Private lawyers were regarded much more favorably. The general impression is that all private lawyers would do their best because they are paid handsomely, while duty lawyers are there only to fulfill their job requirements on behalf of the government.

Level of Participation

This section describes the findings of the interviews with young offenders. Consistent with the quantitative results, the young offenders expressed a lack of participation in their interaction with duty lawyers, which led to the perception that the lawyers did not care. From the experiences of all the participants who used the services of the Duty Lawyer Scheme, it was understood that they all met their assigned duty lawyer on the day of their court appearance. The young defendants arrived in court earlier and went to the Duty Lawyer Liaison offices located inside the courthouse. They had heard about the Duty Lawyer Scheme from friends who had previously been tried in court, social workers, or liaison officers that they encountered in the courthouse.

The young offenders, sometimes with their parents, would meet with a duty lawyer to discuss their case. The length of the meetings varied, ranging anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes to about 3 hours per participant. These meetings mainly involved the duty lawyer going through the facts of the case, confirming whether the defendant chose to plead guilty or not guilty, and briefly explaining the criminal procedure. Immediately following the meeting, the duty lawyer would represent the defendant in court. For young defendants, these rushed meetings made them feel uncomfortable, as one female aged 16 (charged with wounding another person) illustrated:

He [the duty lawyer] met me for 15 minutes and finished telling me about the [police] report in two phrases within those 15 minutes, and said “The report tells you about . . .” and asked me “Do you understand? Is there anything that is not clear to you?” . . . I answered “No . . .” Then he said “If you have no questions about the report, it’s OK. You will meet with the judge in the court later on, and you can sit and wait outside the court. They will call your name later.” Then he left. I was astonished when he walked away. (N22)

With such brief meetings, the defendants’ level of participation was not very high.

This lack of participation can lead to frustration among the young defendants. When asked about their meetings with the duty lawyers, one participant, a 16-year-old male who faced charges of criminal damage, referred to being “annoyed” as he stated,

I was dissatisfied that he was too annoying. He spoke too much like my mom. In that 5-minute meeting, I only talked about one minute. He spoke for the other four minutes. Since I did not get a chance to speak, I got annoyed. (N17)

Overall, face-to-face meetings between duty lawyers and clients are limited. Another 16-year-old male who was charged with assault (N8) described how, similar to numerous other defendants, he did not get to see his duty lawyer until his trial date. Initially, one duty lawyer met with all five codefendants at once and represented all of them in the first hearing. Then each defendant was assigned his own duty lawyer, who was different from the previous lawyer that they had met. In the weeks leading up to the second court date, the duty lawyer took instructions over the phone with the defendant. It was only “half an hour before the court session began . . . [The lawyer] met with me and my dad,” recalled the young defendant.

This contrasts with the experiences of those who hired private lawyers. Private lawyers met with their clients much more frequently and for much longer durations. More important, private lawyers were more willing to get the story and views of their clients. This provided the young defendants with a greater opportunity to actively engage with their private legal representatives. A 15-year-old male defendant facing assault charges revealed that he had met with his private lawyer seven to eight times before his court date, with each meeting lasting around 2 hours. In those meetings, they discussed a variety of matters, and the dialogue was not one-way in which the lawyer asked a series of short questions. In fact, the young defendants were encouraged to participate in their meetings with their private lawyers. If the young defendants were unable to address particular points in one meeting, they had the opportunity to raise those points in subsequent encounters. One participant recalled his interactions with a private lawyer that his family hired for him:

We would discuss how to settle the case every time, like . . . we had to discuss a lot . . . detailed things. I had to recall and tell him about all the details of the case. Sometimes I failed to remember, he would ask me to go back home and think deeply, then later tell him the details . . . If I suddenly remembered, he asked me to find a pen and write it down first. Later . . . at that time we would meet once a week . . . so I would write it down first then tell him the next time we met. (N21)

The main difference between duty lawyers and private lawyers is that duty lawyers ask short succinct questions to confirm facts from police reports whereas private lawyers tease out the details of a case. That is something that can be collected only through active participation of the defendant.

Objectivity

The duty lawyers were regarded as having a businesslike demeanor, and this affected the perception of the lawyers’ objectivity. Overall, the participants did not feel that the duty lawyers tried their best to help them. An 18-year-old male defendant, who had claimed to be a triad member, differentiated between the efforts that a private lawyer and a duty lawyer would put into a case:

A private lawyer would find you before the court session . . . maybe a week or two weeks earlier, [he] may find you to discuss with you, and then to explain, and tell you the possibility of the development of the case. He will also teach you about what to say in court, and do some research for you, like finding past cases and so on. Duty lawyers would not do something like this, they need to help you immediately after meeting with you for 15-30 minutes, and actually it is difficult (for them to do so). The usefulness would not be that high. It’s what you get for the amount you pay. (N9)

While the defendant in question had not hired a private lawyer, his understanding of private lawyers was based on conversations with friends who had previously hired a private lawyer. Another female defendant, age 17 and charged with assault, held similar perceptions, although she had used only duty lawyers. She differentiated between duty lawyers and private lawyers by stating,

It depends on what kind of lawyer . . . If he was the one I paid for, he would help me for sure. But if it was from the duty lawyer service, I did not think those lawyers would care much because they have seen so many similar cases. They would think . . . you either plead guilty or not, just don’t cause so much trouble. (N29)

The negative impression of duty lawyers stems from the notion that one receives what one pays for. Young defendants had the expectation that they would receive inferior legal services compared with those who could afford private lawyers.

In the case of private lawyers, because they are able to spend more time on a case and meet more frequently with clients, they are able to better demonstrate the time and effort they put into the defendants’ case. A 15-year-old defendant was content with regard to the effort that his private lawyer had shown, as he remarked,

We still had two more months before I had to attend the court session, but he couldn’t wait to see me, and we met once a week. I heard from other friends . . . other lawyers do not meet as many times as I did, usually just two or three times. But I met for seven, eight times . . . though he talked about the same things every time. Although he kept repeating the same things, I think that he really tried to help me and he wanted me to think clearly before I answered. (N21)

Treatment With Dignity and Respect

The short time with which duty lawyers met with their clients inevitably leads them to get to the point and to avoid spending time on non–case-related matters such as providing encouragement for the defendants or asking them about their personal feelings. The directness of duty lawyers gave young defendants the impression that their duty lawyers were not really on their side. Rather, meetings with duty lawyers were regarded as an extension of interrogation, as one participant remarked,

If she [the duty lawyer] can be more enthusiastic and sympathetic, it will be better . . . now it just feels like strictly business . . . she analyzed my case neutrally, neglecting my personal feelings . . . she asked sensitive questions without hesitation . . . For example, I hit someone . . . she would ask how I hit him . . . I know she wanted to understand my case, but she may be . . . it’s difficult to say . . . Maybe because when she wanted to understand the case, she would ask really sensitive questions, which she did not restrain the wordings so the conversation seemed to be directed against me. (N2)

Another young defendant, a 19-year-old male charged for selling illegal cigarettes, went as far as to state that he felt his duty lawyer treated him as a criminal. The duty lawyer based her questions on the probation officer’s report and accused him of wrongdoing. This caused the young defendant to not being willing to cooperate any further with his legal representative, as the defendant said,

She was not okay when she got my probation officer report . . . I felt that she . . . I was like a criminal to be examined by her . . . she asked “Why did the probation officer write such bad comments on the report?” . . . and she looked back at me, which I could not understand, she said “What did you say [to the probation officer] so that the probation officer wrote something like this?” When she was reading the report in the conference room, she treated me like a criminal and kept hitting the desk. She disliked that my report was so badly written . . . Actually I knew I failed, but . . . I saw her pouting, and had no manners. I didn’t have any motivation to listen to her. (N3)

The verbal and nonverbal actions of the duty lawyer, for example, hitting the desk and pouting, made the young defendant feel that his lawyer was out to further accuse him rather than defend him. Indeed, past studies have shown that lawyers can adopt a crime control ideology toward their clients, assuming that they are factually guilty and morally culpable (McConville, Hodgson, Bridges, & Pavlovic, 1994; Mulcahy, 1994). This goes against the notion that defense lawyers should be staunch defenders of their clients.

The experience of the young defendants who had hired private lawyers was markedly different. From our interviews we found that private lawyers, in addition to being much more patient, sought to create a more informal setting as they interacted with their young clients. The 15-year-old young defendant cited above referred to his private lawyer as a “friend,” stating,

We talked like friends. Sometimes I felt quite relaxed when I talked with him. When he met with me alone, he treated me like his friend, not so distanced. And I did not feel too reserved that I had to be too polite . . . When my parents were here, he was polite to my parents, and he would call them uncle and auntie . . . But when he was with me, he would treat me as his friend. (N21)

Likewise, another participant supported this claim, saying that, by discussing non–case-related matters, the lawyer was able to create a more relaxing atmosphere. Another defendant, a 17-year-old male who was charged with claiming to be a triad member who had hired a private lawyer who was his father’s friend, appreciated how the lawyer asked about his personal life, as he recalled,

After discussing the case-related matters, she would ask me about my matters in my daily life . . . like where I usually go for leisure . . . I think it was good, as she did not always focus on the case, at least she would talk about things unrelated to the case to let you feel more comfortable. (N4)

Talking about the defendant’s personal life allowed for the defendant, who was understandably nervous about facing criminal prosecutions, to calm down. As such, the defendant was more comfortable in disclosing information and cooperating with the legal advocate.

Trustworthiness

Given the differences in interactions with duty lawyers and private lawyers, it was not surprising to find that young defendants were more readily trusting of private lawyers than public defenders. One main reason why young defendants were not able to fully trust their duty lawyers is because the perception that duty lawyers are government employees. As noted, defendants arrive at the magistrates’ courts and then head to the Duty Liaison Office to meet with their assigned lawyers. The Liaison Offices are located in each magistrate’s court in Hong Kong, and the duty liaison officers in many ways act as civil servants by ensuring the efficiency of the judicial system. In addition, because duty lawyers are not paid by the defendant (the flat fee is symbolic in nature) and defendants know that they are subsidized by the government, defendants do not fully trust duty lawyers and do not believe duty lawyers to be totally honest with them. When asked if he trusted his duty lawyer, a 16-year-old male defendant who had been charged with drug possession indicated,

Of course not to a full extent, because they are paid by the government. They might be on the government’s side. Duty lawyers are different from private lawyers; private lawyers would help you wholeheartedly. Duty lawyers . . . they won’t disclose everything to you honestly, I think. They are on the government’s side. (N18)

Similarly, another 20-year-old male defendant viewed duty lawyers as government employees rather than someone hired by the defendant. He commented, “If he is a private lawyer, you are his client. But if he is a duty lawyer, he is representing the government to help you, so you are not his client” (N20).

Such a concept is problematic because youths may be hesitant to fully cooperate with duty lawyers and withhold information, making it harder for duty lawyers to represent clients. Certainly this is a position that was adopted by the young defendants interviewed, as a 21-year-old male who was charged with theft said,

Actually he was the only one that could help me at that moment. [But] I held back a bit from him, like what I said, evaded the crucial point, which was, I would answer what he asked, but I would not tell him what he didn’t ask. (N7)

Even though the young defendants knew that duty lawyers were supposedly there to assist them in their cases, they purposely withheld information from their duty lawyer.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examined young offenders’ perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with lawyers in the Hong Kong justice system. Unlike results from studies in Western jurisdictions, there was a consistent differentiation in perceived fairness in lawyer–client interactions and satisfaction with lawyers between young offenders in Hong Kong who had hired a private lawyer and young offenders who were represented by a duty lawyer. The results indicated that young offenders who had private lawyers felt that they were treated more fairly by their legal representatives and in turn were more satisfied in their interactions with their lawyers.

Two elements of procedural fairness stood out: participation and trustworthiness. The regression results showed that young offenders who felt that they were given a greater voice in their encounters with their lawyers were more satisfied. Likewise, youth clients with more positive views about the trustworthiness of their lawyers were also more satisfied with their lawyers. Qualities of lawyers that can promote trustworthiness include honesty, sincerity, and care.

The interviews with a small sample of young offenders supplemented the statistical results from the larger young offender sample group and provided possible reasons for the findings. Young defendants who had duty lawyers tended to have short meetings with their assigned lawyers just prior to their appearance in court. Given the limited meeting duration and the need for duty lawyers to get instructions in a short time frame, it is not surprising to find that young offenders did not participate much in their encounters with their lawyers. In these time-constrained meetings, the lawyers typically focused on the facts of the case, determining the defendants’ choices (e.g., plea decisions), and explaining potential outcomes. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that young offenders could not fully perceive their lawyers as caring, sincere, and trustworthy.

However, this does not mean that it is not possible for young offenders to view duty lawyers as fair. Even in brief meetings and encounters, the duty lawyers who make an effort to remind their young clients not to be so nervous or show that they care contribute to a lasting positive image in the minds of young offenders. As young offenders are understandably anxious when they are summoned to appear before the court and have little prior knowledge about criminal justice procedures, a few words of encouragement can go a long way. How young offenders view lawyers is important to the justice system as a whole. The results confirmed that young offenders’ perception of fairness and satisfaction with lawyers have a positive association with views about the legitimacy of the justice system. However, it should be emphasized that the correlations were much lower than the correlations for the other measures.

Several limitations of this study needs to be highlighted. First, this study draws on a cross-sectional survey. Therefore one must be cautious when interpreting the casual relationships. It is not known whether young offenders who originally held negative predispositions toward lawyers, especially duty lawyers, would likely make more negative verdicts about procedural justice in lawyer–client interactions. Future research could consider adopting a longitudinal approach to measure participants’ perceptions before and after their interactions with lawyers. Second, unlike numerous previous procedural justice studies, this study did not measure the effects of legitimacy toward the criminal justice system on willingness to cooperate with legal authorities or future compliance with the law (e.g., Jackson et al., 2012; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Third, the present study adopted a limited view of legitimacy. Recent research has underscored the different dimensions of legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Tankebe, 2013). Tankebe (2013) contends that there are multiple dimensions of legitimacy that extend beyond procedural fairness. They include distributive fairness, lawfulness, and effectiveness. “Distributive fairness” refers to the perceptions that the outcomes that people receive are fair and evenly distributed regardless of race, class, gender, and so forth. Lawfulness is about the exercise of power derived from the law or code of standards. Last, effectiveness is the capacity of the authority to achieve effective results. In other words, are the authorities viewed as being competent in their tasks? However, these various dimensions were discussed in the context of police legitimacy. Future research should examine these dimensions with respect to lawyer–client relations.

Nonetheless, this study highlights the importance of procedural fairness in lawyer–client interactions, which in turn has important policy implications for Hong Kong lawyers as well as lawyers internationally. Many young offenders are brought into the justice system, and many will use the services of duty lawyers. It is thus vital for duty lawyers to be perceived as treating their young clients with fairness. Therefore, training for duty lawyers, and private lawyers, should place more emphasis on procedurally fair interactions. These interactions should moreover be designed specifically for youths, as young offenders are likely to have different needs compared with adults. This would increase both young offenders’ satisfaction and their perception of the justice system as a legitimate body. For instance, it is recommended that duty lawyers pay more attention to the areas of procedural fairness such as being supportive by reminding young offenders to be more relaxed, and demonstrating effort as they handle their cases.

This study does not mean to imply that publicly funded lawyers are in any way inferior or do not try their utmost in carrying out their work. The current structure of the Duty Lawyer Scheme, especially the limited time allocated for lawyer–client meetings, makes it difficult for young clients to perceive a sense of fairness from their duty lawyers. Therefore, it is recommended that, at the system level, the Duty Lawyer Scheme allot more time for individual lawyers to meet with their clients. As opposed to having defendants meet with their legal representative right before their court appearances, perhaps the court can liaise with the Scheme and duty lawyers to arrange meetings with defendants a day or two before their actual court appearance. Meetings can take place outside of the courts or in lawyers’ offices, which would help reduce the impression that duty lawyers are government employees. In this way, time constraints can be alleviated and lead to more procedurally just outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Independent Variables.

Items	Coding
Gender	1 = female, 0 = male
Age	Continuous variable
Education level	1 = primary school, 2 = lower secondary school, 3 = upper secondary school, 4 = diploma, 5 = university and above
No. of convictions	Continuous variable
Experience as victim, witness, or spectator in court	1 = yes, 0 = no
Type of lawyer	1 = private lawyer; 0 = duty lawyer
Understanding About Lawyers Scale	Score of 0 to 7: A higher score indicates a better understanding about lawyers (Peterson-Badali, Care, & Broeking, 2007).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work described in this article was fully supported by a grant offered by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. HKU 743511H).

Notes

References

Abramovitch

Peterson-Badali

Rohan

(1995). Young people’s understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 1-18.

Bacon-Shone

Gray

Lam

D. O. B.

Leung

J. Y. M.

Traver

Vagg

Winter

(1995). Research on the social causes of juvenile crime: Final report. Hong Kong: Fight Crime Committee.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Brodsky

S. L.

(2002). Attorney-client trust among convicted criminal defendants: Preliminary examination of the attorney-client trust scale. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 69-87.

Bottoms

Tankebe

(2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102, 119-170.

Census and Statistics Department. (2012). Hong Kong annual digest of statistics. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Cheng

K. K. Y.

(2013). Pressures to plead guilty: Factors affecting plea decisions in Hong Kong’s magistrates’ courts. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 257-275.

Cheng

K. K. Y.

Chui

W. H.

Ong

(2015). Providing justice for low-income youths: Publicly-funded lawyers and youth clients in Hong Kong. Social & Legal Studies, 24, 577-593.

Chui

W. H.

(2005). Detention center in Hong Kong: A young offender’s narrative. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, 67-84.

Chui

W. H.

Cheng

K. K. Y.

(2015). Young people’s perception of lawyers in Hong Kong: A comparison between offenders, youth-at-risk and students. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43, 481-495.

10.

Crawford

Hucklesby

(Eds.). (2013). Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Department of Justice. (2013). Legal system in Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/legal/

13.

The Duty Lawyer Service. (2013). Annual report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.dutylawyer.org.hk/en/annual_12/scheme.asp

14.

Fagan

Tyler

T. R.

(2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18, 217-241.

15.

Gray

(1994). Inside the Hong Kong Juvenile Court: The decision-making process in action (Research Paper Series No. 23). Hong Kong: Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong.

16.

Greene

Sprott

J. B.

Madon

N. S.

Jung

(2010). Punishing processes in youth court: Procedural justice, court atmosphere and youths’ views of legitimacy of the justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 527-554.

17.

Grisso

(1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York, NY: Plenum.

18.

Hinds

(2007). Building police—youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 7, 195-209.

19.

Hinds

Murphy

(2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27-42.

20.

International Bar Association. (2011). International principles on conduct for the legal profession. London, England: Author.

21.

Jackson

Bradford

Hough

Myhill

Quinton

Tyler

(2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071.

22.

Jones

Vagg

(2007). Criminal justice in Hong Kong. London, England: Routledge-Cavendish.

23.

Lee

F. W.

(2011). Nurturing the pillars of society: Understanding and working with the young generation in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

24.

P. Y.

(2009). Legal assistance. In Gaylord

M. S.

Gittings

Traver

(Eds.), Introduction to, crime, law and justice in Hong Kong (pp. 131-46). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

25.

S. H. C.

Chui

W. H.

(2012). The Hong Kong legal system. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

26.

T. W.

(2008). Custodial sentences and correctional services. In Chui

W. H.

T. W.

(Eds.), Understanding criminal justice in Hong Kong (pp. 224-247). Cullompton, England: Willan.

27.

McConville

Hodgson

Bridges

Pavlovic

(1994). Standing accused: The organisation and practices of criminal defence lawyers in Britain. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

28.

Mulcahy

(1994). The justifications of “justice”: Legal practitioners’ accounts of negotiated case settlements in Magistrates’ Courts. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 411-430.

29.

Murphy

(2015). Does procedural justice matter to youth? Comparing adults’ and youths’ willingness to collaborate with police. Policing & Society, 25, 53-76. doi:10.1080/10439463.2013.802786.

30.

Murphy

Cherney

(2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181-201.

31.

Peterson-Badali

Care

Broeking

(2007). Young people’s perceptions and experiences of the lawyer-client relationship. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49, 375-402.

32.

Pierce

C. S.

Brodsky

S. L.

(2002). Trust and understanding in the attorney-juvenile relationship. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 89-107.

33.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

M. G.

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005-1028.

34.

Reisig

M. D.

Lloyd

(2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Policing & Society, 12, 42-62.

35.

Rottman

D. B.

(2007). Adhere to procedural fairness in the justice system. Crime and Public Policy, 6, 835-842.

36.

Sprott

J. B.

Greene

(2010). Trust and confidence in the courts: Does the quality of treatment young offenders receive affect their views of the courts? Crime & Delinquency, 56, 269-289.

37.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-547.

38.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-135.

39.

Travers

(2012). The sentencing of children: Professional work and perspectives. Washington, DC: New Academia.

40.

Tyler

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

41.

Tyler

(2008). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review, 44, 26-31.

42.

Tyler

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

43.

Tyler

Jackson

(2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 78-95.

44.

Tyler

Sherman

Strang

Barnes

G. C.

Woods

(2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41, 553-585.

45.

Upham

(2008). Criminal trial courts. In Chui

W. H.

T. W.

(Eds.), Understanding criminal justice in Hong Kong (pp. 131-164). Cullompton, England: Willan.

46.

Vagg

(1998). Delinquency and shame: Data from Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 247-264.

47.

Viljoen

J. L.

Klaver

Roesch

(2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communications with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 253-277.

48.

Wesley-Smith

(1998). An introduction to the Hong Kong legal system (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.