Applying the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Lawyer Selection from Law Firms’ Perspective in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Factors Influencing Lawyer Selection
2.2. Backbone Leadership
2.3. Research Gap
3. Method
3.1. Delphi Method
3.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
3.3. Proposed Approach
3.3.1. The Survey Respondents for the Delphi and AHP
3.3.2. The Process of Delphi and AHP Method Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Empirical Analysis
4.1.1. Identification of Evaluation Factors by the Delphi Method
4.1.2. Applying AHP for Optimal Lawyer Selection
4.2. Discussion and Findings
4.2.1. Results of Delphi Method
4.2.2. Results of AHP Analysis
4.3. Implications of the Study
5. Conclusions and Further Research
5.1. Implications for Academia
5.2. Implications for Practitioners
5.3. Limitations and Suggestions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Furnham, A.; McClelland, A.; Swami, V. The influence of person traits on lawyer selection among British adults. Gen. Pharmacol. 2012, 139, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palihawadana, D.; Barnes, B.R. Client loyalty and defection in the corporate legal industry. Serv. Ind. J. 2004, 24, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuehl, P.G.; Ford, G.T. The Promotion of Medical and Legal Services: An Experimental Study; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977; pp. 39–44. [Google Scholar]
- Horlings, I.; Padt, F. Leadership for sustainable regional development in rural areas: Bridging personal and institutional aspects. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luu, T.T. Discretionary HR practices and employee well-being. Pers. Rev. 2019, 49, 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selin, S. Elaborating the role of backbone leadership organizations in sustainable tourism development: The Monongahela River valley coalition. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saaty, T.L. What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 1994, 24, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, C.C.; Xing, M.H. Key factors influencing digital content industry in Taiwan from the triple helix perspective. Technol. Anal. Strateg. 2016, 28, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koloseni, D.; Helldin, T.; Torra, V. AHP-Like Matrices and Structures—Absolute and Relative Preferences. Mathematics 2020, 8, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, T.Y.; Chen, Y.T. Applying fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method to identify key organizational capabilities. Mathematics 2020, 8, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, C.C.; Chen, Y.F. Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2018, 132, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dainty, A.R.J.; Cheng, M.-I.; Moore, D.R. Competency-based model for predicting construction project managers’ performance. J. Manag. Eng. 2005, 21, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrchota, J.; Švárová, M. Comparison of decision-making skills of students and managers. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2015, 63, 1073–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellis, N.; Watterson, C. Client perceptions of regional law firms and their implications for marketing management. Serv. Ind. J. 2001, 21, 100–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paik, A.; Heinz, J.P.; Southworth, A. Political lawyers: The structure of a national network. Law Soc. Inq. 2011, 36, 892–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, E.; Barksdale, H.C., Jr. How firms select professional services. Ind. Mark. Manag. 1992, 21, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, T. The market provision of management services, information asymmetries and service quality—some market solutions: An empirical example. Br. J. Manag. 1993, 4, 235–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maru File, K.; Cermak, D.S.; Alan Prince, R. Word-of-mouth effects in professional services buyer behaviour. Serv. Ind. J. 1994, 14, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galanter, M.; Palay, T. Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Gulati, R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 85–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strub, P.J.; Priest, T.B. Two patterns of establishing trust: The marijuana user. Sociol. Focus 1976, 9, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crane, F.G. Choice criteria and cue usage in selecting lawyers. J. Prof. Serv. Mark. 1989, 5, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rooks, W.A., Jr.; Shanklin, W.L. Congruence: Attorney-consumer perceptions of marketing mix elements. J. Prof. Serv. Mark. 1988, 3, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyers, M.S. The importance of the Internet in the selection of service providers. In Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Marketing Studies. Proceedings; Jordan Whitney Enterprises Inc.: North Carolina, NC, USA, 2005; Volume 10, pp. 29–32. [Google Scholar]
- Andrus, D.M. The advertising of legal services to small business executives. J. Prof. Serv. Mark. 1995, 12, 139–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadfield, G.K. The price of law: How the market for lawyers distorts the justice system. Mich. Law Rev. 2000, 98, 953–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Int. J. Public Adm. 1994, 17, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bono, J.E.; Judge, T.A. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S.; Merchant, K.; Kania, J.; Martin, E. Understanding the Value of Backbone Organizations in Collective Impact: Part 2. Available online: http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/understanding_the_value_of_backbone_organizations_in_collective_impact_2 (accessed on 8 August 2020).
- HanleyBrown, F.; Kania, J.; Kramer, M. Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work; Available online: http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work (accessed on 8 August 2020).
- Fleming, A.; Kishida, M.G.; Kimmel, C.B.; Keynes, R.J. Building the backbone: The development and evolution of vertebral patterning. Development 2015, 142, 1733–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kania, J.; Kramer, M. Collective impact. Innov. Rev. 2011, 9, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Heifetz, R.A.; Linsky, M. A survival guide for leaders. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
- Heifetz, R.; Grashow, A.; Linsky, M. Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2009, 87, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, R.A.; Nikolić, M.; Zahra, A. Personnel selection using group fuzzy AHP and SAW methods. J. Eng. Manag. Compet. 2017, 7, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goepel, K.D.; Performance, B. Comparison of judgment scales of the analytical hierarchy process—A new approach. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. 2019, 18, 445–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rowe, G.; Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15, 353–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.W.; Yeh, C.C. Understanding the critical factors for successful M-commerce adoption. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2018, 16, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.C.; Sandford, B.A. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. 2007, 12, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffield, C. The Delphi technique: A comparison of results obtained using two expert panels. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 1993, 30, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasson, F.; Keeney, S. Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2011, 78, 1695–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.W.; Yeh, C.C. Understanding the factors affecting the adoption of the Internet of Things. Technol. Anal. Strateg. 2017, 29, 1089–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shieh, L.F.; Yeh, C.C.; Lai, M.C. Critical success factors in digital publishing technology using an ANP approach. Technol. Econ. Dev. Ecol. 2016, 22, 670–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, H.P.; Chang, T.S.; Yeh, H.P.; Chen, Y.X. Analysis of factors influencing hospitals’ implementation of a green e-procurement system using a cloud model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Minor, M. Comparing the hispanic and non-hispanic markets: How different are they? J. Serv. Mark. 1992, 6, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crocker, K.E. The influence of the amount and type of information on individuals’ perception of legal services. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1986, 14, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filler, D.M. Lawyers in the yellow pages. Law Lit. 2002, 14, 169–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacLane, C.N.; Walmsley, P.T. Reducing counterproductive work behavior through employee selection. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fulero, S.M.; Penrod, S.D. The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works. Ohio NUL Rev. 1990, 17, 229–253. [Google Scholar]
- Braucher, J.; Cohen, D.; Lawless, R.M. Race, attorney influence, and bankruptcy chapter choice. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 2012, 9, 393–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, C.B. Online reputation management in attorney regulation. Georget. J. Leg. Ethics 2016, 29, 97. [Google Scholar]
- Meyers, M.S.; Maas, W.E. Influences in the selection of an attorney. Acad. Mark. Stud. J. 2004, 9, 41. [Google Scholar]
- Carson, D.; Gilmore, A. SME marketing management competencies. Int. Bus. Rev. 2000, 9, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gołembska, E.; Gołembski, M. A New Model of the Personnel Function Delivery in the Logistics of Polish Firms. Logistics 2020, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Value of ajk | Interpretation |
---|---|
1 | j and k are equally important |
3 | j is slightly more important than k |
5 | j is more important than k |
7 | j is strongly more important than k |
9 | j is absolutely more important than k |
n | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
RI | 0.525 | 0.882 | 1.115 | 1.252 | 1.341 | 1.404 | 1.452 | 1.484 | 1.513 | 1.535 | 1.555 | 1.570 | 1.583 | 1.595 |
No. | Sub-Criteria | Median | IQR | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | Service quality | 4.61 | 0.50 | Accepted |
P2 | Personal qualifications | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P3 | Typical cases | 3.61 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P4 | Stability | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P5 | Spirit of cooperation | 3.85 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P6 | Cooperation mechanism | 3.36 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P7 | Clear division and cooperation | 3.52 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P8 | Project management capability | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P9 | Professionalism | 3.15 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P10 | Payment of service value | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P11 | Team scaling | 3.39 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P12 | Team specialization | 3.70 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P13 | Team elite | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P14 | Team integration | 3.82 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P15 | Self-improvement ability | 3.64 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P16 | Productivization of legal services | 3.70 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P17 | Business professional segmentation | 3.64 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P18 | Service standard processing | 3.70 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P19 | Customer-oriented | 4.18 | 0.50 | Accepted |
P20 | Service area | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P21 | Division of cases and distribution system | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P22 | Quality control system | 3.79 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P23 | Training system | 3.55 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P24 | Management and synergy system | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P25 | Structural rationalization | 3.70 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P26 | Values | 3.76 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P27 | Professional category | 4.33 | 0.50 | Accepted |
P28 | Insist on taking facts as the core | 3.76 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P29 | Victory rate | 3.64 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P30 | Membership update mechanism | 3.55 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P31 | Branding of legal services | 3.55 | 0.50 | Rejected |
P32 | Total profit and per capita | 3.52 | 0.50 | Rejected |
No. | Sub-Criteria | Median | IQR | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
B1 | Performance | 3.55 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B2 | Visionary | 4.45 | 0.50 | Accepted |
B3 | To engage in legal affairs in this field | 3.64 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B4 | Interoperability with external networks | 3.91 | 0.00 | Rejected |
B5 | Comprehension and investigation | 3.97 | 0.00 | Rejected |
B6 | Influential communicator | 4.21 | 0.50 | Accepted |
B7 | Integration with company business | 3.45 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B8 | Speed of response to customer needs | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B9 | Credit to customers | 3.64 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B10 | Qualification | 3.82 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B11 | Transaction efficiency | 3.27 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B12 | Diligence and duty | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B13 | Professional ethics | 3.76 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B14 | Industry evaluation and word-of-mouth | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B15 | Balance ability | 3.64 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B16 | Practical experience outside the field | 3.61 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B17 | Professionalism | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B18 | Acting as legal adviser | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B19 | Follow-up services of agent termination | 3.70 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B20 | The level of legal theory | 3.70 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B21 | Foreign language level | 3.27 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B22 | Second degree | 3.18 | 0.00 | Rejected |
B23 | Human relationship | 3.88 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B24 | Records of rewards and punishments | 3.52 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B25 | Average cycle of case handling | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B26 | Re-judgment rate (litigation cases) | 3.79 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B27 | Return satisfaction | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B28 | Political competence | 3.33 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B29 | Background of law education | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B30 | Good at learning, research, and thinking | 3.85 | 0.50 | Rejected |
B31 | Results-oriented | 4.30 | 0.50 | Accepted |
No | Sub-Criteria | Median | IQR | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | Credit evaluation | 4.30 | 0.50 | Accepted |
F2 | Partner cooperation | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F3 | Reward and punishment mechanism | 3.76 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F4 | Client visibility | 4.24 | 0.50 | Accepted |
F5 | Cultural construction | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F6 | Hardware facilities | 3.55 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F7 | Qualified as a management agent | 3.85 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F8 | Size of law firm | 3.76 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F9 | Domestic and foreign exchange mechanisms | 3.58 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F10 | Training mechanism | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F11 | Communication skills with departments or institutions | 3.79 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F12 | Law firm rating | 3.82 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F13 | Records of rewards and punishments in the industry | 3.76 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F14 | Years of membership | 3.73 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F15 | Market access qualification | 3.45 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F16 | Profitability | 3.67 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F17 | Public relations | 4.61 | 0.50 | Accepted |
F18 | The service direction of law firms | 3.48 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F19 | Development prospects | 3.88 | 0.50 | Rejected |
F20 | Website construction | 3.39 | 0.50 | Rejected |
Criteria | Sub-Criteria | References |
---|---|---|
Professional level | Service quality | Minor [46], Crocker [47], Filler [48] |
Customer-oriented | MacLane and Walmsley [49], Crocker [47], Minor [46] | |
Professional category | Fulero and Penrod [50], MacLane and Walmsley, [49] | |
Backbone leadership | Visionary | Turner et al. [30], Hanleybrown et al. [31] |
Influential communicator | Turner et al. [30], Hanleybrown et al. [31] | |
Results-Oriented | Selin [6], Turner et al. [30], Hanleybrown et al. [31] | |
Practice experience | Client evaluation | Braucher et al. [51], Robertson [52] |
Client visibility | Crocker [47], Filler [48] | |
Public relations | Rooks and Shanklin [24], Meyers and Maas [53] |
Professional Level | Backbone Leadership | Practice Experience | |
---|---|---|---|
Professional level | 1 | 1.7470 | 1.999 |
Backbone leadership | 0.5724 | 1 | 1.747 |
Practice experience | 0.5003 | 0.5724 | 1 |
Note: (1) λmax = 3.0199; (2) CR = 0.0192 ≦ 0.1. |
Criteria | Weight of Criteria | Sub-Criteria | Weight of Sub-Criteria | Overall Weight of Sub-Criteria | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Professional level | 0.4777 (1) | Service quality | 0.3816 | 0.1823 | 1 |
Customer-oriented | 0.3004 | 0.1435 | 4 | ||
Professional category | 0.3180 | 0.1519 | 3 | ||
Backbone leadership | 0.3148 (2) | Visionary | 0.4990 | 0.1589 | 2 |
Influential Communicator | 0.1884 | 0.0600 | 8 | ||
Results-Oriented | 0.3125 | 0.0995 | 5 | ||
Practice experience | 0.2075 (3) | Client evaluation | 0.4088 | 0.0848 | 6 |
Client visibility | 0.3601 | 0.0747 | 7 | ||
Public relations | 0.2312 | 0.0480 | 9 |
Criteria | Sub-Criteria | Overall Weight of Sub-Criteria | A | B | C |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Professional level | Service quality | 0.1823 | 0.4465 | 0.2016 | 0.3519 |
Customer-oriented | 0.1435 | 0.7092 | 0.1501 | 0.1408 | |
Professional category | 0.1519 | 0.2024 | 0.6278 | 0.1699 | |
Backbone leadership | Visionary | 0.1589 | 0.1387 | 0.2834 | 0.5780 |
Influential Communicator | 0.0600 | 0.5441 | 0.2802 | 0.1757 | |
Results-Oriented | 0.0995 | 0.1570 | 0.6884 | 0.1546 | |
Practice experience | Client evaluation | 0.0848 | 0.2102 | 0.2247 | 0.5651 |
Client visibility | 0.0747 | 0.1366 | 0.6435 | 0.2200 | |
Public relations | 0.0480 | 0.5772 | 0.2356 | 0.1872 | |
Synthetic weight | 0.3391 | 0.3609 | 0.2999 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, C.-T.; Yeh, C.-C.; Ye, F. Applying the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Lawyer Selection from Law Firms’ Perspective in China. Mathematics 2020, 8, 1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8081370
Lin C-T, Yeh C-C, Ye F. Applying the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Lawyer Selection from Law Firms’ Perspective in China. Mathematics. 2020; 8(8):1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8081370
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Chin-Tsai, Ching-Chiang Yeh, and Fan Ye. 2020. "Applying the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Lawyer Selection from Law Firms’ Perspective in China" Mathematics 8, no. 8: 1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8081370