Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the Cycle IV Department of Justice Canada Legal Services Client Feedback Survey (CFS), featuring data collected during the period from October 2020 to May 2022. Previous deployments of the CFS include Cycle I (2006-2009), Cycle II (2009-2012) and Cycle III (2016-2019). Cycle IV of the survey took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby legal services were administered under extraordinary conditions and service delivery was directly affected (e.g. disruption of in-person services and rapid/increased reliance on virtual communications). It is not possible at this time to determine the impact, if any, that the implementation of these new working conditions may have had on client satisfaction.
For Cycle IV, invitations to participate in the CFS were intended for employees at the EX-minus-1 level and above in the National Capital Region (NCR) and the EX-minus-2 level and above in the regions.Footnote 1 From across 43 client departments and agencies there were 4,598 service users who reported having received Justice Canada legal services in the 12 months prior to the survey.Footnote 2 Only service users were asked to provide feedback on the quality of legal services received.
Overall Quality of Legal Services
Clients were asked to rate their satisfaction of the overall quality of the legal services received from the Department. As indicated in the following table, overall quality ratings across all four service types were “strong”, suggesting that the users of Justice Canada legal services were satisfied with the services provided by the Department in the 12 months prior to the survey. In addition, the overall quality rating for Regulatory Drafting Services was found to have improved by a statistically significant difference from the previous CFS cycle rating.
| Cycle IV (2020-2022) |
Cycle III (2016-2019) |
Cycle II (2009-2012) |
Cycle I (2006-2009) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Advisory Services | 8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.2 (±0.0) (Positive) |
| Litigation Services | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
| Legislative Drafting Services | 8.6 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Regulatory Drafting ServicesFootnote † of Table | 8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
7.8 (±0.3) (Moderate) |
The CFS includes general questions that are not specific to the legal service type(s) selected, which are referred to as Overall Considerations. As depicted in the table below, satisfaction ratings were “strong” for all elements within this category despite the Department having had to adapt to new service protocols due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Satisfaction Ratings for Overall Considerations
| Cycle IV (2020-2022) |
|
|---|---|
| Official Languages: Overall level of satisfaction with the accessibility of legal services in the official language of your choice | 9.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Courteousness/Respectfulness: Overall level of satisfaction with the courteousness/respectfulness of legal service providers | 9.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Service Provider: Overall level of satisfaction with the ease with which the correct service provider to meet your needs was identified | 9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Satisfaction with access mode: Email | 9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Satisfaction with access mode: Telephone | 9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Satisfaction with access mode: In person | 8.9 (±0.1) (Strong) |
Client Satisfaction with Service Dimensions
The table below provides the composite ratings for each of the four service dimensions of client satisfaction. When broken down by legal service type, all composite ratings for each service dimension either met or exceeded the departmental target.
Composite Ratings by Service Dimension and Service Type
| Legal Advisory Services | Litigation Services | Legislative Drafting Services | Regulatory Drafting Services | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility/Responsiveness of Legal ServicesFootnote 3 | 8.1 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.1 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.4 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.3 (±0.2) (Positive) |
| Legal Risk Management | 8.7 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
| Timeliness of Legal Services | 8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
| Usefulness of Legal Services | 8.7 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
Annex B provides satisfaction ratings for individual elements by legal service type as well as service dimension.
Conclusion
Cycle IV survey results for the Department were largely favourable, featuring “strong” ratings for the overall quality of Legal Advisory Services, Litigation Services, Legislative Drafting Services and Regulatory Drafting Services provided. Furthermore, the Department exceeded the departmental target of 8.0 for satisfaction ratings across all elements for the first time since the inception of the CFS.
- Date modified: