Networking in the Shadow of the Law: Informal Access to Legal Expertise through Personal Network Ties

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12278
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Date: 01 September 2017

Networking in the Shadow of the Law: Informal

Access to Legal Expertise through Personal

Network Ties

Erin York Cornwell

Emily S. Taylor Poppe

Megan Doherty Bea

Civil legal problems are common in everyday life, but the costs of obtaining

legal representation create barriers to legal action and contribute to disparities

in access to justice. Some individuals, however, may have informal access to

legal assistance through personal network ties with lawyers, enhancing their

responses to justiciable problems. In this study, we draw from theories of

social capital and network formation to examine the distribution and mobili-

zation of network-based legal expertise. Using nationally representative sur-

vey data, we find that network-based access to lawyers is widespread, and

most people who have ties to lawyers expect to informally mobilize legal assis-

tance when facing a problem. But people who are most likely to afford formal

legal representation are also most likely to have informal access to lawyers.

Thus, while informal access to lawyers may shape responses to legal problems,

it may also exacerbate inequalities in experiences with civil justice events.

Social scientific research on law indicates that formal engage-

ment with the legal system represents only the tip of a massive

iceberg of justiciable problems in individuals’ everyday lives

(Felstiner et al. 1980). At any given time, it is estimated that more

than 44 million American households are experiencing a problem

that falls within the domain of civil law. This includes issues

related to family and intimate relationships, work, benefits, hous-

ing, debt, medical care, and consumer purchases, as well as prob-

lems with neighbors (Sandefur 2012; and see American Bar

Association [ABA] 1994; Curran 1977; Currie 2009; Genn et al.

1999; Hensler et al. 1991). Studies of how individuals respond to

these situations tend to focus on engagement with lawyers and

legal institutions (Sandefur 2008). However, survey research esti-

mates that less than a quarter of justiciable problems are taken to

a lawyer (Kritzer 2008; Sandefur 2012), and an even smaller pro-

portion reaches the courts (Felstiner et al. 1980).

Please direct all correspondence to Erin York Cornwell, Department of Sociology,

Cornell University, 364 Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853; email: eyc46@cornell.edu

Law & Society Review, Volume 51, Number 3 (2017)

V

C2017 Law and Society Association. All rights reserved.

635

One reason for the lack of formal legal action in the face of a

civil legal problem is that hiring a lawyer can involve significant

costs (Galanter 1974; Hadfield 2000). In addition to monetary

costs, individuals often face difficulties in identifying lawyers who

provide the type of assistance needed, and in convincing an

appropriate lawyer to take on the representation (Kritzer 1997;

Ladinsky 1976; Lochner 1975; Monsma and Lempert 1992).

These challenges are thought to put lawyers and legal action out-

of-reach for many individuals, particularly those who lack socio-

economic resources (Sandefur 2008).

However, a less explored possibility is that some people may

be able to access legal expertise and assistance through informal

channels—that is, through existing personal relationships—and

use this to interpret or address issues that arise in their everyday

lives. A friend or family member who is a lawyer might agree to

provide legal representation, perhaps for free or at a reduced

rate. Or, he or she might recommend another lawyer, provide

information about substantive legal issues, assist with administra-

tive procedures such as locating and completing forms, or even

offer guidance for individuals who are representing themselves in

court proceedings. In a more nuanced way, through informal dis-

cussions or interactions, a lawyer might shape an individual’s

legal consciousness (Ewick and Silbey 1998) or awareness of the

scope of the law, legal rights, and legal remedies. Familiarity with

these aspects of the law may, in turn, affect whether individuals

conceptualize their everyday problems as legal problems and how

they think about the options available for addressing them (San-

defur 2012).

Informal mobilization of legal expertise may therefore be an

unexplored mechanism through which individuals engage legal

actors or respond to legal problems. If network-based access to

legal expertise is widely available and frequently mobilized, prior

research may underestimate the role of lawyers in justiciable

problems. Moreover, network-based access to legal expertise

could reduce disparities in access to legal representation, particu-

larly in civil disputes (Sandefur 2008). However, previous

research has not examined the extent to which individuals’ per-

sonal networks contain lawyers—or the likelihood that individuals

will mobilize legal assistance through their network ties when

they face justiciable problems.

In this paper, we consider how network ties to lawyers are

distributed across socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups, and

the extent to which individuals are able to mobilize network-

based legal expertise when they face a legal problem. Patterns of

network exchange (Blau 1964; Homans 1958; Lin 2001), network

homophily (Laumann and Senter 1976; McPherson et al. 2001),

636 Networking in the Shadow of the Law

and residential segregation (e.g., Wilson 1987) may restrict

network-based access to legal experts among racial/ethnic minori-

ties and those with lower socioeconomic status. Building on this

work, we consider how network ties to lawyers are distributed

across socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups. We also examine

the likelihood that individuals who have network ties to lawyers

will ask for—and receive—legal assistance through those ties.

Recent work highlighting the distinction between access to and

mobilization of network-based resources suggests the potential

for socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequalities in individuals’

ability to utilize social capital (Smith 2010). Moreover, network

structural characteristics such as tie strength (Lin 1999a; Wellman

1992) may also influence individuals’ ability to mobilize network-

based legal expertise. We empirically explore these questions

using data from a nationally representative survey of American

adults, and then conclude by discussing the implications of our

findings for research on inequalities in access to justice and the

process of legal mobilization.

Social Capital and Legal Action

Theories of social capital emphasize that resources rooted in

social connections and interpersonal relationships can enhance

individual action (see, e.g., Coleman 1988; Lin 1999, 2000; Portes

1998). Social capital may inhere in structural features of one’s

social network (Burt 1992; Coleman 1988) and the presence of

specific types of network ties—such as strong ties (Bian 1997; Lin

2001), weak ties (Granovetter 1973), and kin ties (Kana’iaupuni

et al. 2005). Much of this research has emphasized the advan-

tages of social capital, in the form of network structure and tie

characteristics, for job seeking through informal channels (Fer-

nandez and Fernandez-Mateo 2006; Granovetter 1974; Lin and

Dumin 1986; Portes 1998; but see Mouw 2003).

Importantly, social capital may also be located in specific

resources possessed by a network alter, which may enhance

instrumental actions (Lin 1999b). Resources accessed through, or

borrowed from, an individual with whom one has a personal

relationship are termed “contact resources” (Lai et al. 1998).

Examples include money, power, information, material goods,

symbolic goods, and tertiary network connections. Expertise is a

contact resource that may be particularly beneficial for individual

actions that intersect with economic, social, legal, or political insti-

tutions (York Cornwell and Cornwell 2008). Expertise may take

the form of specialized skills, techniques, or knowledge that are

not commonly available, but gained through the completion of

YorkCornwell, Taylor Poppe, & Doherty Bea 637