1998 Member Survey: Gauging Members' Needs

By Dianne Molvig

Editor's Note: To view the figures referenced in this article you must have and/or install Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 on your computer.

"You have gotten away from primarily big-to-huge firm interests, and that's great."

"There has been a clear effort over the past several years to include the interests of the government lawyers in overall State Bar activities. Earlier I had felt that my interests were being ignored."

"I appreciate the change in attitude."

"If the bar were disbanded tomorrow, I doubt anyone except the groupies would care."

These are just a few of the comments from the more than 700 attorneys who took advantage of the opportunity to air gripes, convey kudos, or offer suggestions in the latest State Bar membership survey. The 1998 membership survey is part of a continuing effort to learn more about members' needs and how the Bar can better meet those needs.

With that goal in mind, earlier this year a six-page survey questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1,467 resident attorneys and 1,035 nonresident Bar members, who responded at rates of 34 percent and 24 percent, respectively. Precision of results is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for residents and plus or minus 6.1 percentage points for nonresidents.

The content of this year's survey questions was similar to that of the most recent prior survey conducted in 1992, with some adaptations. The Bar intends to continue to conduct membership surveys on a periodic basis in an effort to keep up with members' changing needs and to improve Bar services. For those of you who didn't get to participate this year, look for your chance next time around. Below are a few highlights from this year's survey results.

About you

The average age of resident survey respondents is 44.4 years, and 41.8 years among nonresidents. Most of you are men (73.6 percent of residents and 72.8 percent of nonresidents), but the gender distribution has shifted somewhat compared to the 1992 survey. Back then men accounted for 80 percent of residents, 81 percent of nonresidents. The gender composition of the latest survey sample closely mirrors the current makeup of the State Bar membership as a whole, which has resident and nonresident male ratios of 75.5 percent and 73.9 percent.

How do you work? About one-third of residents are law firm partners, while 20.7 percent are sole practitioners, and 12 percent are law firm associates. Sole practice proves to be rarer among nonresidents, at 11.7 percent. Among nonresidents, law firm partners again make up the largest group (26 percent), followed by law firm associates at 16.1 percent. (See Figure 1: Practice Settings of Residents and Nonresidents.) Of all nonresident respondents, about two-thirds work in the District of Columbia or one of three states: Minnesota, Illinois, or Michigan.

The largest share of resident respondents (36.2 percent) say they invest 40 to 49 hours per week in practicing law, followed by another 30.4 percent who put in a 50-to-59-hour work week. Nonresidents show a reverse trend: 38.9 percent work 50 to 59 hours a week, and 24.5 percent practice law 40 to 49 hours per week. (See Figure 2: Hours Devoted to the Practice of Law.)

As for types of practice, the top five among residents are general practice, business/corporate, civil litigation, criminal law, and employment/labor. Nonresidents are most apt to be in civil litigation, followed by general practice, business/corporate, employment/labor, and insurance.

What about pay? The span in net income is wide, from less than $20,000 to more than $200,000 a year. Most surveyed members, whether residents or nonresidents, are in the $40,000-to-$59,999 income bracket. (See Figure 3,:Net Income.) More than half of resident lawyers have their Bar dues paid by the firm that employs them. If you're a nonresident, you're more apt to have to pay dues out of your own pocket.

Meeting your needs

The questionnaire asked lawyers to rate how well the Bar responds to their needs, to the issues facing the legal profession, and to helping members prepare for future changes in the profession. Ratings ranged from 3.06 to 3.56, with 5 being the highest possible score and 1 being the lowest.

An additional question posed to residents cut to the heart of the question of the Bar's usefulness to its members. It asked: "If State Bar of Wisconsin membership were voluntary, would you remain a member?" Nearly 80 percent of residents said they would. (See Figure 4: Retain State Bar Membership if Voluntary Bar?)

For nonresidents, many of whom are not required to belong to the Bar, the survey asked why they retained their memberships. The top three reasons were to preserve the ability to practice law in Wisconsin in the future, to receive the Wisconsin Lawyer, and to be able to practice in Wisconsin this year. (See Figure 5: Nonresidents: Why Retain Membership?)

Another section of the survey asked members to rate the Bar's customer service on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being "excellent." Ratings on service by telephone, fax, email, Internet, and order fulfillment ranged from 3.73 to 4.36. The highest scores appeared in the areas of friendly staff, timely email, timely orders, and accurate orders.

Rating the Bar's offerings

The survey aimed to find out which Bar products and services you perceive to be most valuable. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 designating "very high value," the following earned scores in the "high value" to "very high value" range among residents: CLE seminars (4.28), CLE books (4.27), Wisconsin Lawyer magazine (4.15), Wisconsin Lawyer Directory (4.10), and CLE seminar written materials (4.08). Close behind was the Ethics Hotline (3.98). Nonresident members gave highest ratings to Wisconsin Lawyer (4.07) and CLE seminars (4.06). (See Figure 6: Offerings Members Value.)

Another approach to evaluating the Bar's offerings was to ask respondents if they actually use or participate in various products or services. More than 95 percent of residents and nearly 90 percent of nonresidents say they use the Wisconsin Lawyer. Also coming in with high usage/participation rates among residents are CLE seminars (94.4 percent), the State Bar Newsletter (91.6 percent), CLE books (90.5 percent), CLE seminar written materials (89.9 percent), and the Wisconsin Lawyer Directory (87.4 percent). The same products and services ranked highest for nonresidents, but in different proportions and order. (See Figure 7: Offerings Members Use or Participate In.)

Career satisfaction

How happy are you about being a lawyer? Roughly 70 percent of all respondents say that if they had to select a career all over again, law would be their choice. Another quarter of respondents say they're considering leaving the legal profession within the next five years.

While many of those planning to leave the legal profession are retiring, others are abandoning law practice for other reasons. In some cases, it's simply a matter of moving on to more appealing endeavors. But of respondents who gave reasons for wanting to leave law behind, many (75.5 percent of residents and 63.6 percent of nonresidents) say they're frustrated and disillusioned. One respondent summed up typical sentiments of the disenchanted as follows: "I do not find (law practice) fulfilling. Clients are never happy with their experience with the legal system and blame you. Society views us with complete disdain and 'we eat our own young' - that is, [there's] very little loyalty or civility among attorneys."

When asked how the Bar could help them make the transition to a new career, most respondents indicated they didn't know, while others felt the Bar shouldn't be involved in such an activity. But some had specific suggestions for ways the Bar could help: offer an outplacement service, maintain job listings, or provide information on how attorneys can use their law degrees in other lines of work. One respondent suggested the Bar should "encourage a different, less 'macho' attitude" to help make the practice of law more rewarding and enjoyable.

Identifying unmet needs

The last section of the survey asked respondents to answer four open-ended questions. The first of these was, "What do you need from the State Bar that is currently not being provided?" Of the 700-plus survey participants, 145 resident members wrote in comments on this question. Responses covered the full gamut, from "get out of our way" to wishes for "more opportunities to become involved."

Comments tended to cluster around a few key issues. Nineteen lawyers wanted lower costs for everything from Bar dues to convention and seminar registration fees. Some suggested the Bar give price breaks on dues and CLE fees, in recognition of the fact that lawyers' salaries vary greatly.

Another suggestion that surfaced frequently was that the Bar should be more involved in improving the public image of lawyers. Comments to that effect appeared in 15 responses. And nine attorneys indicated they'd like to see the Bar do more to meet the needs of government lawyers. One respondent called for "better facilitation of interaction between government and private lawyers. There's a huge wall and nobody seems to care."

Among the 63 nonresident members who wrote in comments on unmet needs, a dozen mentioned they wanted better local access to Bar services. Some asked for CLE classes to be offered locally; some requested more seminars available through teleconferences or the Internet. Others would like to see regional programs or classes convened near state borders, such as in St. Paul, Hudson, or Beloit.

The worst and the best

Two other open-ended questions asked attorneys to describe their "worst" and "best" experiences with the State Bar. The first question drew 170 responses, covering wildly divergent issues that are difficult to categorize overall. Seventeen attorneys mentioned bad experiences with ethics complaints or fee arbitration, described by one respondent as "an onus against the attorney" and by another as a "witch hunt against me."

Several commented on lack of parking at the Bar Center. Others complained about "political squabbles," an "overload of junk mail," the "old boys' network in the State Bar leadership," and "a poorly planned seminar." A handful of participants also voiced their dismay about the Bar getting involved in highly controversial political issues, such as gun control and abortion.

Among all respondents, 259 commented on "best experiences." Here many members listed their involvement in the Mock Trial Program for high schools. CLE seminars (both teaching and attending), CLE publications, the Wisconsin Lawyer, and WisBar - the Bar's Web site - also drew compliments from respondents. The Ethics Hotline gained multiple mentions, with one respondent writing, "Keith Kaap alone is worth my Bar dues."

Several attorneys said their best experience was working in Bar sections or on committees, or simply being able to build relationships with colleagues. One attorney's most positive memory was described as "meeting a lawyer with 50-plus years of practice experience - a quiet, dignified man who made me proud to be in the profession." This, the respondent noted, helped offset the negative impact of the "ego displays" at Bar gatherings listed as the respondent's worst experience under the preceding question.

Looking ahead

The last open-ended question of the survey asked, "How can the State Bar help you prepare for practicing law in the 21st century?" Among resident respondents, 185 entered comments in this section, and nearly a third of those dealt with technology issues. (About one-fourth of the 74 nonresidents who wrote comments listed technology needs.) Members asked for more computer training, software reviews, technology updates, and continued improvements on the Bar's Web site. "Continue to help small/nonurban attorneys accept and adopt technology," wrote one lawyer. "It will improve the practice for all."

A few, however, warned against too much zeal for technology. Said one respondent, "Technology, though wonderful in many ways, has sped up the pace of society to the point where quality legal services are becoming threatened." Said another, "Continue to provide the technical help ... but not at the cost of our humanity."

Other requests ranged from lower fees and costs, to efforts to improve civility and collegiality among lawyers, to "keep providing quality CLE at convenient locations for a reasonable price." And one lawyer's philosophical response suggested that for the Bar to prepare its members for the future, it should "make the profession more fun ... more ethical ... [and] more worthwhile in terms of presenting opportunities to achieve positive change in the lives of those we touch."

Acting on the data

The data are in. The comments have been noted. But that's just the beginning. State Bar leaders and staff face the task of sifting through the information and advice, as contradictory as it sometimes may be. We asked the questions; now we will listen to the answers. This survey's results will help in reshaping existing programs and in designing new ones to meet members' needs.

As useful as a survey like this is, it's only one tool for monitoring members' attitudes toward the Bar. You don't need to wait to receive a survey to tell us what you're thinking. Write us a letter, send an email, call the 24-hour memberline at (800) 444-9404, ext. 6000, to leave a message, contact a staff member, or talk to one of the Bar's leaders ... because in reality surveying members is a never-ending process, not just a periodic ritual. The only way for us to know what the Bar is doing right or where we're missing the mark is for you, the members, to tell us.

Dianne Molvig operates Access Information Service, a Madison research, writing, and editing service. She is a frequent contributor to area publications.

Wisconsin Lawyer