Demonstrating_VVG utility_NN1 of_PRF a_AT0 shadow_NN1 method_NN1 
Below_AV0 ,_PUN we_PNP present_VVB the_AT0 results_NN2 from_PRP our_DPS pilot_NN1 study_NN1 ,_PUN separated_VVN by_PRP each_DT0 phase_NN1 (_PUL i.e._AV0 ,_PUN attorney_NN1 survey_NN1 ,_PUN shadowing_VVG ,_PUN and_CJC client_NN1 survey_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT As_CJS noted_VVN above_AV0 ,_PUN the_AT0 overall_AJ0 sample_NN1 is_VBZ too_AV0 low_AJ0 to_TO0 draw_VVI conclusions_NN2 from_PRP these_DT0 specific_AJ0 data_NN0 ,_PUN however_AV0 ,_PUN these_DT0 data_NN0 demonstrate_VVB how_AVQ this_DT0 type_NN1 of_PRF innovate_NN0 methodology_NN1 can_VM0 be_VBI used_VVN ,_PUN and_CJC beneficial_AJ0 for_PRP researchers_NN2 and_CJC practitioners_NN2 ._SENT 
Phase_VVB I_PNP :_PUN Attorney_NN1 questionnaire_NN1 
In_PRP total_NN1 ,_PUN 13_CRD of_PRF 24_CRD attorneys_NN2 completed_VVD the_AT0 survey_NN1 (_PUL 8_CRD women_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC 5_CRD men_NN2 )_PUR ,_PUN yielding_VVG a_AT0 response_NN1 rate_NN1 for_PRP the_AT0 firm_NN1 of_PRF 54_CRD %_NN0 ._SENT Among_PRP the_AT0 respondents_NN2 ,_PUN five_CRD were_VBD 45-year_AJ0 old_AJ0 or_CJC older_AJC ,_PUN 12_CRD identified_VVN as_PRP White_NP0 ,_PUN 10_CRD practiced_VVD some_DT0 type_NN1 of_PRF criminal_AJ0 law_NN1 prior_AJ0 to_PRP being_VBG public_AJ0 defender_NN1 ,_PUN seven_CRD started_VVD work_NN1 with_PRP this_DT0 agency_NN1 within_PRP last_ORD 10_CRD years_NN2 ,_PUN six_CRD characterize_VVB their_DPS caseload_NN1 as_CJS being_VBG at_PRP least_AV0 80_CRD %_NN0 misdemeanors_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC seven_CRD report_NN1 contacting_VVG their_DPS client_NN1 at_PRP least_AV0 once_CJS every_AT0 two_CRD weeks_NN2 on_PRP average_NN1 ._SENT 
When_CJS asked_VVN about_PRP their_DPS perceptions_NN2 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 ,_PUN 12_CRD attorneys_NN2 indicated_VVD that_CJT they_PNP believe_VVB communication_NN1 is_VBZ at_PRP least_AV0 somewhat_AV0 important_AJ0 to_PRP quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC 11_CRD believe_VVB it_PNP is_VBZ at_PRP least_AV0 somewhat_AV0 important_AJ0 for_PRP achieving_VVG positive_AJ0 outcomes_NN2 in_PRP the_AT0 case_NN1 ._SENT Similarly_AV0 ,_PUN 11_CRD respondents_NN2 believe_VVB that_CJT the_AT0 attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 relationship_NN1 is_VBZ at_PRP least_AV0 somewhat_AV0 important_AJ0 to_PRP quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ,_PUN while_CJS nine_CRD believe_VVB it_PNP is_VBZ at_PRP least_AV0 somewhat_AV0 important_AJ0 for_PRP achieving_VVG positive_AJ0 outcomes_NN2 ._SENT Lastly_AV0 ,_PUN eight_CRD attorneys_NN2 believe_VVB that_CJT the_AT0 case_NN1 outcome_NN1 is_VBZ important_AJ0 to_TO0 achieve_VVI client_NN1 satisfaction_NN1 with_PRP the_AT0 attorney_NN1 's_POS performance_NN1 ,_PUN while_CJS two_CRD noted_VVD it_PNP as_CJS not_XX0 important_AJ0 ._SENT Those_DT0 attorneys_NN2 who_PNQ responded_VVD that_CJT communication_NN1 and_CJC the_AT0 attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 relationship_NN1 are_VBB important_AJ0 also_AV0 tended_VVD to_TO0 perceive_VVI that_CJT their_DPS clients_NN2 are_VBB satisfied_AJ0 with_PRP their_DPS job_NN1 performance_NN1 ._SENT 
Beyond_PRP the_AT0 closed-ended_AJ0 questions_NN2 ,_PUN responding_VVG attorneys_NN2 were_VBD asked_VVN questions_NN2 that_CJT were_VBD designed_VVN to_TO0 explore_VVI how_AVQ attorneys_NN2 view_VVB quality_NN1 representation_NN1 and_CJC communication_NN1 ._SENT Specifically_AV0 ,_PUN we_PNP asked_VVD how_AVQ they_PNP would_VM0 define_VVI quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC what_DTQ the_AT0 critical_AJ0 components_NN2 might_VM0 be_VBI ._SENT After_PRP compiling_VVG the_AT0 responses_NN2 ,_PUN we_PNP constructed_VVD a_AT0 word_NN1 cloud_NN1 based_VVN on_PRP how_AVQ often_AV0 certain_AJ0 words_NN2 were_VBD used_VVN by_PRP attorneys_NN2 to_TO0 describe_VVI what_DTQ they_PNP believe_VVB is_VBZ quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ._SENT 
As_CJS can_VM0 be_VBI seen_VVN in_PRP this_DT0 figure_NN1 ,_PUN some_DT0 of_PRF the_AT0 most_AV0 prevalent_AJ0 words_NN2 used_VVN to_TO0 describe_VVI quality_NN1 representation_NN1 include_VVB terms_NN2 like_PRP "_PUQ client_NN1 ,_PUN "_PUQ "_PUQ understand_VVB ,_PUN "_PUQ and_CJC "_PUQ communicate_VVB ,_PUN "_PUQ which_DTQ largely_AV0 embody_VVB client-relational_AJ0 skills_NN2 as_CJS described_VVN in_PRP prior_AJ0 literature_NN1 ._SENT These_DT0 words_NN2 appear_VVB just_AV0 as_CJS often_AV0 ,_PUN if_CJS not_XX0 more_AV0 ,_PUN than_CJS words_NN2 that_CJT are_VBB most_AV0 associated_VVN with_PRP legal_AJ0 skills_NN2 such_DT0 as_PRP "_PUQ law_NN1 ,_PUN "_PUQ "_PUQ trial_NN1 ,_PUN "_PUQ and_CJC "_PUQ result_NN1 ._SENT "_PUQ These_DT0 results_NN2 suggest_VVB that_CJT attorneys_NN2 think_VVB of_PRF communication_NN1 as_PRP a_AT0 key_AJ0 consideration_NN1 of_PRF quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ._SENT Some_DT0 examples_NN2 of_PRF how_AVQ these_DT0 words_NN2 were_VBD used_VVN and_CJC relate_VVB to_PRP communication_NN1 ,_PUN include_VVB the_AT0 following_AJ0 (_PUL italics_NN2 added_VVN for_PRP emphasis_NN1 )_PUR :_PUN 
Establish_VVB the_AT0 trust_NN1 ,_PUN understand_VVB the_AT0 client_NN1 's_POS goals_NN2 ,_PUN communicate_VVB their_DPS options_NN2 to_PRP them_PNP so_CJS they_PNP understand_VVB ,_PUN get_VVB the_AT0 best_AJS results_NN2 possible_AJ0 in_PRP line_NN1 with_PRP those_DT0 goals_NN2 ._SENT 
Client_NN1 feels_VVZ represented_VVN and_CJC you_PNP know_VVB you_PNP did_VDD your_DPS best_AJS as_CJS to_PRP listening_VVG ,_PUN advising_VVG ,_PUN investigating_VVG ,_PUN and_CJC advocating_VVG ._SENT 
Advocacy_NN1 ,_PUN effective_AJ0 communication_NN1 of_PRF a_AT0 client_NN1 's_POS viewpoint_NN1 ,_PUN an_AT0 ability_NN1 to_TO0 understand_VVI and_CJC conder_VVI all_DT0 defenses_NN2 available_AJ0 and_CJC then_AV0 to_TO0 communicate_VVI them_PNP to_PRP client_NN1 in_PRP a_AT0 way_NN1 that_CJT allows_VVZ them_PNP to_TO0 make_VVI the_AT0 best_AJS decision_NN1 ._SENT Staying_VVG current_AJ0 on_PRP the_AT0 law_NN1 ._SENT 
Consideration_NN1 of_PRF client_NN1 's_POS needs_NN2 and_CJC wishes_NN2 ,_PUN full_AJ0 disclosure_NN1 to_PRP client_NN1 ,_PUN superior_AJ0 knowledge_NN1 of_PRF law_NN1 ,_PUN legal_AJ0 system_NN1 and_CJC unwritten_AJ0 county_NN1 rules_NN2 ,_PUN well_AV0 developed_VVN trial_NN1 skills_NN2 ._SENT 
Communication_NN1 both_AV0 with_PRP client_NN1 as_CJS well_AV0 as_CJS court_NN1 and_CJC state_NN1 ,_PUN knowledge_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 subject_AJ0 matter_NN1 ,_PUN knowledge_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 working_NN1 of_PRF "_PUQ the_AT0 system_NN1 ._SENT "_PUQ 
Participating_AJ0 attorneys_NN2 were_VBD also_AV0 asked_VVN to_TO0 conceptualize_VVI quality_NN1 communication_NN1 and_CJC its_DPS critical_AJ0 components_NN2 ._SENT From_PRP their_DPS responses_NN2 ,_PUN we_PNP again_AV0 made_VVD a_AT0 word_NN1 cloud_NN1 based_VVN on_PRP the_AT0 frequency_NN1 of_PRF word_NN1 occurrence_NN1 (_PUL see_VVB Figure_NN1 2_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Like_PRP the_AT0 definitions_NN2 provided_VVN for_PRP quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ,_PUN responses_NN2 largely_AV0 centered_VVN on_PRP "_PUQ client_NN1 ,_PUN "_PUQ "_PUQ listening_VVG ,_PUN "_PUQ "_PUQ explain_VVB ,_PUN "_PUQ and_CJC "_PUQ understanding_NN1 ._SENT "_PUQ These_DT0 terms_NN2 largely_AV0 coincide_VVB with_PRP the_AT0 importance_NN1 of_PRF client-centered_AJ0 aspects_NN2 of_PRF the_AT0 attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 relationship_NN1 found_VVN and_CJC used_VVN in_PRP prior_AJ0 research_NN1 ._SENT Example_NN1 responses_NN2 involving_VVG these_DT0 words_NN2 include_VVB the_AT0 following_AJ0 :_PUN 
Willingness_NN1 to_TO0 listen_VVI (_PUL both_AV0 attorney_NN1 and_CJC client_NN1 )_PUR ,_PUN taking_VVG the_AT0 time_NN1 to_TO0 explain_VVI and_CJC understand_VVI a_AT0 concept_NN1 or_CJC position_NN1 (_PUL again_AV0 both_DT0 attorney_NN1 and_CJC client_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT 
Listen_VVB ,_PUN reflect_VVB what_DTQ you_PNP hear_VVB ,_PUN advise_VVB ,_PUN empathize_VVB ._SENT 
Number_NN1 of_PRF contacts_NN2 with_PRP client_NN1 ,_PUN time_NN1 spent_VVN with_PRP client_NN1 ,_PUN feedback_NN1 from_PRP client_NN1 on_PRP whether_CJS they_PNP "_PUQ heard_VVD it_PNP ._SENT "_PUQ 
The_AT0 ability_NN1 to_TO0 understand_VVI another_DT0 person_NN1 's_POS viewpoint_NN1 and_CJC truly_AV0 consider_VVB it_PNP ._SENT To_TO0 listen_VVI and_CJC validate_VVI ._SENT 
Quantity_NN1 definitely_AV0 does_VDZ not_XX0 equal_VVI quality_NN1 ._SENT Trust_NN1 between_PRP attorney_NN1 and_CJC client_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC client_NN1 being_VBG honest_AJ0 and_CJC attorney_NN1 listening_VVG ._SENT 
Frequent_AJ0 contact_NN1 and_CJC availability_NN1 ,_PUN clear_AJ0 explanations_NN2 of_PRF law_NN1 and_CJC options_NN2 ._SENT 
Phase_NN1 II-Part_NN1 A_ZZ0 :_PUN Shadowing_NN1 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 interaction_NN1 
In_PRP looking_VVG at_PRP the_AT0 data_NN0 from_PRP shadowing_AJ0 attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 interactions_NN2 ,_PUN nine_CRD of_PRF the_AT0 eleven_CRD observed_AJ0 meetings_NN2 were_VBD the_AT0 first_ORD in-person_NN1 meeting_VVG the_AT0 attorney_NN1 had_VHD with_PRP the_AT0 client_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC none_PNI had_VHD been_VBN represented_VVN by_PRP the_AT0 attorney_NN1 prior_AJ0 to_PRP this_DT0 case_NN1 ._SENT The_AT0 other_AJ0 two_CRD indicated_VVD this_DT0 was_VBD the_AT0 second_ORD or_CJC third_ORD meeting_NN1 ._SENT Among_PRP the_AT0 observed_AJ0 meetings_NN2 ,_PUN the_AT0 cases_NN2 involved_VVD six_CRD felony_NN1 charges_NN2 ,_PUN four_CRD charges_NN2 for_PRP violent_AJ0 crimes_NN2 ,_PUN four_CRD for_PRP property_NN1 crimes_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC two_CRD for_PRP drug_NN1 charges_NN2 ._SENT Four_CRD were_VBD cases_NN2 in_PRP which_DTQ the_AT0 attorney_NN1 was_VBD planning_VVG to_TO0 consult_VVI with_PRP a_AT0 caseworker_NN1 for_PRP the_AT0 client_NN1 due_AJ0 to_PRP a_AT0 mental_AJ0 health_NN1 disorder_NN1 or_CJC chemical_AJ0 dependency_NN1 issue_NN1 ._SENT In_PRP all_DT0 ,_PUN the_AT0 aim_NN1 to_TO0 capture_VVI qualitative_AJ0 elements_NN2 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 was_VBD rather_AV0 successful_AJ0 ._SENT Some_DT0 variation_NN1 was_VBD observed_VVN regarding_PRP the_AT0 degree_NN1 to_PRP which_DTQ each_DT0 component_NN1 was_VBD present_AJ0 in_PRP the_AT0 discussions_NN2 ._SENT Overall_AV0 ,_PUN the_AT0 observed_AJ0 interactions_NN2 presented_VVD several_DT0 elements_NN2 deemed_VVN important_AJ0 by_PRP prior_AJ0 research_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN Moore_NP0 et_NP0 al._NN1 2020_CRD )_PUR ,_PUN such_DT0 as_PRP providing_VVG the_AT0 clients_NN2 with_PRP an_AT0 opportunity_NN1 to_TO0 voice_VVI their_DPS perspective_NN1 (_PUL i.e._AV0 ,_PUN allowing_VVG the_AT0 client_NN1 to_TO0 tell_VVI her_PNP /_PUN his_DPS side_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 incident_NN1 )_PUR ,_PUN and_CJC the_AT0 attorney_NN1 defining_VVG any_DT0 legal_AJ0 jargon_NN1 used_VVN ._SENT Observations_NN2 only_AV0 noted_VVD a_AT0 few_DT0 instances_NN2 where_AVQ a_AT0 component_NN1 was_VBD not_XX0 present_AJ0 at_PRP all_DT0 ._SENT Only_AV0 one_CRD component_NN1 was_VBD missing_VVG just_AV0 as_CJS often_AV0 as_CJS it_PNP was_VBD present_AJ0 –_PUN whether_CJS the_AT0 attorney_NN1 asked_VVD the_AT0 client_NN1 what_DTQ her_DPS /_PUN his_DPS short-term_AJ0 goals_NN2 were_VBD for_PRP the_AT0 case_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN out_AVP on_PRP bail_NN1 ,_PUN shortened_AJ0 detention_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT While_CJS our_DPS research_NN1 is_VBZ exploratory_AJ0 in_PRP nature_NN1 ,_PUN see_VVB Table_NN1 2_CRD for_PRP the_AT0 frequency_NN1 of_PRF each_DT0 item_NN1 within_PRP the_AT0 taxonomy_NN1 of_PRF quality_NN1 communication_NN1 factors_NN2 (_PUL Sandys_NP0 and_CJC Pruss_NP0 2017_CRD )_PUR and_CJC the_AT0 six_CRD themes_NN2 we_PNP divided_VVD from_PRP the_AT0 prior_AJ0 research_NN1 on_PRP attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN Campbell_NP0 et_NP0 al._NN1 2015_CRD )_PUR and_CJC the_AT0 medical_AJ0 bed-side_NN1 literature_NN1 (_PUL Makoul_NP0 2001_CRD ;_PUN Mazor_NP0 et_NP0 al._NN1 2005_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
Phase_NN1 II-Part_NN1 B_ZZ0 :_PUN Client_NN1 survey_NN1 
Two_CRD clients_NN2 refused_VVD to_TO0 participate_VVI in_PRP the_AT0 survey_NN1 ,_PUN resulting_VVG in_PRP nine_CRD surveys_NN2 ,_PUN of_PRF which_DTQ one_CRD was_VBD only_AV0 partially_AV0 completed_VVN ._SENT Clients_NN2 ranged_VVD in_PRP age_NN1 from_PRP 19-_NN1 to_PRP 62-year_AJ0 old_AJ0 ,_PUN five_CRD were_VBD male_AJ0 ,_PUN six_CRD identified_VVN as_PRP White_NP0 ,_PUN and_CJC all_DT0 but_CJC one_PNI had_VHD a_AT0 high_AJ0 school_NN1 education_NN1 or_CJC more_AV0 ._SENT Of_PRF the_AT0 seven_CRD who_PNQ answered_VVD the_AT0 question_NN1 regarding_PRP satisfaction_NN1 with_PRP their_DPS lawyer_NN1 ,_PUN all_DT0 seven_CRD indicated_VVD that_CJT they_PNP were_VBD very_AV0 satisfied_AJ0 ._SENT See_VVB Table_NN1 3_CRD for_PRP select_AJ0 components_NN2 from_PRP the_AT0 survey_NN1 ._SENT For_PRP the_AT0 purposes_NN2 of_PRF reporting_VVG here_AV0 ,_PUN we_PNP dichotomized_VVD the_AT0 response_NN1 options_NN2 into_PRP agree_VVB or_CJC disagree_VVB ._SENT Most_AV0 notable_AJ0 is_VBZ that_CJT clients_NN2 largely_AV0 felt_VVD as_CJS although_CJS they_PNP had_VHD a_AT0 good_AJ0 communication_NN1 with_PRP their_DPS attorney_NN1 ._SENT Only_AV0 a_AT0 few_DT0 components_NN2 did_VDD not_XX0 receive_VVI full_AJ0 or_CJC nearly_AV0 full_AJ0 support_NN1 ._SENT For_PRP instance_NN1 ,_PUN a_AT0 few_DT0 surveyed_AJ0 clients_NN2 indicated_VVD a_AT0 belief_NN1 that_CJT if_CJS they_PNP had_VHD the_AT0 ability_NN1 to_TO0 hire_VVI a_AT0 private_AJ0 attorney_NN1 ,_PUN they_PNP would_VM0 likely_AV0 receive_VVI better_AJC representation_NN1 and_CJC overall_AJ0 outcome_NN1 ._SENT Five_CRD of_PRF the_AT0 eight_CRD respondents_NN2 also_AV0 indicated_VVD that_CJT they_PNP did_VDD not_XX0 believe_VVI their_DPS lawyer_NN1 liked_VVD them_PNP as_PRP a_AT0 person_NN1 ,_PUN however_AV0 ,_PUN seven_CRD noted_VVD that_CJT they_PNP liked_VVD their_DPS attorney_NN1 ._SENT 
Discussion_NN1 and_CJC lessons_NN2 learned_VVN 
In_PRP 2004_CRD ,_PUN the_AT0 American_AJ0 Bar_NN1 Association_NN1 highlighted_VVD how_AVQ the_AT0 promises_NN2 of_PRF Gideon_NP0 were_VBD largely_AV0 unmet_AJ0 ,_PUN pointing_VVG to_PRP issues_NN2 in_PRP funding_NN1 ,_PUN caseload_NN1 pressures_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC lack_NN1 of_PRF training_NN1 and_CJC adequate_AJ0 pay_NN1 for_PRP attorneys_NN2 ._SENT The_AT0 American_AJ0 Bar_NN1 Association_NN1 called_VVN for_PRP more_DT0 research_NN1 on_PRP the_AT0 topic_NN1 of_PRF indigent_AJ0 defense_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC pointed_VVD to_PRP the_AT0 importance_NN1 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 in_PRP reforming_VVG the_AT0 indigent_AJ0 defense_NN1 system_NN1 (_PUL 2004_CRD ;_PUN Sandys_NP0 and_CJC Pruss_NP0 2017_CRD )_PUR ._SENT This_DT0 work_NN1 builds_VVZ on_PRP that_DT0 call_NN1 by_PRP examining_VVG attorney_NN1 communication_NN1 using_VVG an_AT0 innovative_AJ0 methodology_NN1 structure_NN1 –_PUN shadowing_VVG ._SENT Although_CJS the_AT0 sample_NN1 size_NN1 was_VBD too_AV0 small_AJ0 to_TO0 examine_VVI the_AT0 observations_NN2 in_PRP more_DT0 complex_AJ0 ways_NN2 ,_PUN the_AT0 study_NN1 yielded_VVD a_AT0 number_NN1 of_PRF other_AJ0 elements_NN2 that_CJT are_VBB important_AJ0 for_PRP the_AT0 goals_NN2 of_PRF this_DT0 project_NN1 ,_PUN future_AJ0 research_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC practitioners_NN2 /_PUN agencies_NN2 interested_AJ0 in_PRP improving_VVG their_DPS attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 relationships_NN2 ._SENT First_ORD ,_PUN the_AT0 goals_NN2 of_PRF the_AT0 study_NN1 aimed_VVN to_TO0 extend_VVI our_DPS knowledge_NN1 base_NN1 in_PRP the_AT0 area_NN1 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 by_PRP way_NN1 of_PRF conceptualizing_VVG and_CJC operationalizing_VVG client-centered_AJ0 communication_NN1 ._SENT Combined_AJ0 findings_NN2 from_PRP our_DPS attorney_NN1 and_CJC client_NN1 survey_NN1 ,_PUN as_CJS well_AV0 as_CJS findings_NN2 from_PRP the_AT0 literature_NN1 ,_PUN suggest_VVB that_CJT perhaps_AV0 a_AT0 way_NN1 to_TO0 conceptualize_VVI quality_NN1 communication_NN1 may_VM0 be_VBI the_AT0 following_AJ0 :_PUN 
Quality_NN1 attorney-client_NN1 communication_NN1 establishes_VVZ trust_NN1 ,_PUN through_PRP listening_VVG to_PRP and_CJC identifying_VVG the_AT0 client_NN1 's_POS needs_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC translating_VVG them_PNP into_PRP viable_AJ0 ,_PUN legal_AJ0 options_NN2 that_CJT involve_VVB potential_AJ0 outcomes_NN2 and_CJC are_VBB understandable_AJ0 for_PRP the_AT0 client_NN1 ._SENT Such_DT0 communication_NN1 involves_VVZ attentive_AJ0 and_CJC empathic_AJ0 listening_NN1 ,_PUN while_CJS also_AV0 providing_VVG realistic_AJ0 legal_AJ0 advice_NN1 and_CJC an_AT0 action_NN1 plan_NN1 for_PRP the_AT0 case_NN1 that_CJT involves_VVZ demonstratable_AJ0 objectives_NN2 for_PRP investigating_VVG and_CJC advocating_VVG for_PRP the_AT0 client_NN1 ._SENT The_AT0 communication_NN1 should_VM0 always_AV0 end_VVI with_PRP a_AT0 summary_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 plan_NN1 ,_PUN next_ORD steps_NN2 for_PRP the_AT0 court_NN1 's_POS process_NN1 ,_PUN when_CJS the_AT0 next_ORD meeting_NN1 will_VM0 be_VBI ,_PUN and_CJC how_AVQ to_TO0 contact_VVI one_PNI another_DT0 ._SENT 
In_PRP a_AT0 similar_AJ0 vein_NN1 ,_PUN responses_NN2 regarding_PRP overall_AJ0 quality_NN1 representation_NN1 reverberated_VVD common_AJ0 traits_NN2 found_VVN in_PRP the_AT0 literature_NN1 ._SENT Again_AV0 ,_PUN using_VVG our_DPS survey_NN1 findings_NN2 coupled_VVN with_PRP the_AT0 literature_NN1 ,_PUN our_DPS process_NN1 seemed_VVD to_TO0 suggest_VVI that_CJT a_AT0 way_NN1 to_TO0 conceptualize_VVI quality_NN1 representation_NN1 may_VM0 be_VBI the_AT0 following_AJ0 :_PUN 
Quality_NN1 representation_NN1 involves_VVZ the_AT0 ability_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 attorney_NN1 to_TO0 provide_VVI the_AT0 best_AJS legal_AJ0 advice_NN1 possible_AJ0 ,_PUN given_AJ0 (_PUL first_ORD )_PUR the_AT0 confines_NN2 of_PRF the_AT0 client_NN1 's_POS short-_AJ0 and_CJC long-term_AJ0 goals_NN2 and_CJC needs_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC (_PUL second_ORD )_PUR the_AT0 contextual_AJ0 aspects_NN2 of_PRF the_AT0 case_NN1 ,_PUN law_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC possible_AJ0 options_NN2 ._SENT Quality_NN1 representation_NN1 inherently_AV0 relies_VVZ on_PRP developing_AJ0 rapport_NN1 through_PRP trust_NN1 ,_PUN honesty_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC fostering_VVG adequate_AJ0 frequency_NN1 of_PRF quality_NN1 attorney-client_NN1 communication_NN1 ._SENT 
Together_AV0 ,_PUN effective_AJ0 ,_PUN quality_NN1 communication_NN1 provide_VVB the_AT0 basis_NN1 from_PRP which_DTQ we_PNP can_VM0 begin_VVI to_TO0 determine_VVI the_AT0 factors_NN2 that_CJT contribute_VVB to_PRP quality_NN1 representation_NN1 ._SENT The_AT0 factors_NN2 important_AJ0 to_PRP effective_AJ0 communication_NN1 are_VBB those_DT0 that_CJT foster_AJ0 attorneys_NN2 '_POS abilities_NN2 to_TO0 listen_VVI ,_PUN allow_VVB room_NN1 for_PRP client_NN1 participation_NN1 and_CJC voice_NN1 ,_PUN provide_VVB ample_AJ0 and_CJC contextual_AJ0 advice_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC empathize_VVB with_PRP client_NN1 positions_NN2 and_CJC perspectives_NN2 ._SENT This_DT0 research_NN1 is_VBZ supportive_AJ0 of_PRF other_AJ0 research_NN1 focusing_VVG on_PRP communication_NN1 and_CJC client_NN1 satisfaction_NN1 (_PUL Sandys_NP0 and_CJC Pruss_NP0 2017_CRD ;_PUN Moore_NP0 et_NP0 al._NN1 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT While_CJS attorneys_NN2 have_VHB unique_AJ0 communication_NN1 styles_NN2 ,_PUN appropriate_AJ0 resources_NN2 (_PUL time_NN1 and_CJC reasonable_AJ0 work_NN1 /_PUN caseloads_NN2 )_PUR and_CJC specialized_AJ0 training_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN in_PRP holistic_AJ0 defense_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC procedural_AJ0 and_CJC social_AJ0 justice_NN1 best_AV0 practices_NN2 )_PUR ,_PUN can_VM0 pave_VVI the_AT0 way_NN1 toward_PRP institutionalizing_VVG stronger_AJC attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 relationships_NN2 ._SENT 
Second_ORD ,_PUN this_DT0 project_NN1 aimed_VVN to_TO0 operationalize_VVI approaches_NN2 and_CJC devise_VVB a_AT0 method_NN1 to_PRP better_AJC capture_NN1 quality_NN1 communication_NN1 ._SENT Since_CJS Sudnow_NP0 's_POS 1965_CRD study_NN1 ,_PUN few_DT0 studies_NN2 have_VHB involved_VVN direct_AJ0 observation_NN1 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 interactions_NN2 (_PUL Goldsmith_NN1 1980_CRD ;_PUN Sarat_NP0 and_CJC Felstiner_NP0 1989_CRD ;_PUN Gonzalez_NP0 Van_NP0 Cleve_NP0 2017_CRD ;_PUN Clair_NP0 2020_CRD )_PUR ,_PUN and_CJC the_AT0 majority_NN1 involved_VVD civil_AJ0 cases_NN2 ,_PUN or_CJC made_VVD no_AT0 mention_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 ethics_NN0 involved_VVN in_PRP observational_AJ0 research_NN1 ._SENT Nonetheless_AV0 ,_PUN these_DT0 studies_NN2 reveal_VVB important_AJ0 details_NN2 about_PRP attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 that_CJT would_VM0 have_VHI been_VBN unknown_AJ0 without_PRP observational_AJ0 methodologies_NN2 (_PUL Moore_NP0 ,_PUN Yaroshefsky_NP0 ,_PUN and_CJC Davies_NP0 2018_CRD )_PUR ,_PUN underscoring_VVG the_AT0 need_NN1 for_PRP shadowing-type_AJ0 approaches_NN2 ._SENT For_PRP example_NN1 ,_PUN attorney_NN1 interruptions_NN2 shut_VVB down_AVP conversations_NN2 ,_PUN while_CJS open-ended_AJ0 questions_NN2 are_VBB more_AV0 effective_AJ0 (_PUL Goldsmith_NN1 1980_CRD as_CJS cited_VVN in_PRP Moore_NP0 ,_PUN Yaroshefsky_NP0 ,_PUN and_CJC Davies_NP0 2018_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Some_DT0 studies_NN2 have_VHB addressed_VVN the_AT0 concern_NN1 of_PRF third_ORD parties_NN2 and_CJC forced_AJ0 disclosure_NN1 (_PUL Neustadter_NP0 1986_CRD ;_PUN Cunningham_NP0 and_CJC McElhinny_NP0 1995_CRD )_PUR ,_PUN with_PRP the_AT0 best_AJS suggestion_NN1 being_VBG to_TO0 include_VVI the_AT0 researcher_NN1 as_PRP part_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 defense_NN1 team_NN1 ,_PUN which_DTQ maintains_VVZ confidentiality_NN1 and_CJC communication_NN1 privilege_NN1 ._SENT As_CJS such_DT0 ,_PUN this_DT0 method_NN1 was_VBD used_VVN in_PRP the_AT0 current_AJ0 study_NN1 ,_PUN to_TO0 allow_VVI for_PRP direct_AJ0 observation_NN1 between_PRP clients_NN2 and_CJC public_AJ0 defenders_NN2 ,_PUN in_PRP addition_NN1 to_PRP capturing_VVG their_DPS perspectives_NN2 through_PRP targeted_AJ0 surveys_NN2 ._SENT Work_NN1 involving_VVG direct_AJ0 observations_NN2 should_VM0 consider_VVI including_PRP the_AT0 researcher_NN1 as_PRP a_AT0 member_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 defense_NN1 team_NN1 (_PUL recommended_VVN by_PRP Cunningham_NP0 and_CJC McElhinny_NP0 1995_CRD )_PUR ,_PUN focus_NN1 on_PRP low-level_AJ0 cases_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC even_AV0 include_VVB a_AT0 signed_AJ0 agreement_NN1 from_PRP the_AT0 prosecution_NN1 that_CJT prohibits_VVZ access_NN1 to_PRP information_NN1 collected_VVN for_PRP the_AT0 purposes_NN2 of_PRF the_AT0 study_NN1 (_PUL recommended_VVN by_PRP Moore_NP0 ,_PUN Yaroshefsky_NP0 ,_PUN and_CJC Davies_NP0 2018_CRD )_PUR ._SENT This_DT0 also_AV0 places_VVZ a_AT0 responsibility_NN1 on_PRP the_AT0 judicial_AJ0 bench_NN1 to_TO0 protect_VVI and_CJC promote_VVI such_DT0 research_NN1 (_PUL Moore_NP0 ,_PUN Yaroshefsky_NP0 ,_PUN and_CJC Davies_NP0 2018_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
In_PRP this_DT0 article_NN1 ,_PUN we_PNP hope_VVB to_TO0 have_VHI provided_VVN researchers_NN2 and_CJC practitioners_NN2 with_PRP an_AT0 additional_AJ0 mechanism_NN1 of_PRF measuring_VVG the_AT0 effectiveness_NN1 of_PRF attorney_NN1 –_PUN client_NN1 communication_NN1 —_PUN shadowing_VVG meetings_NN2 using_VVG literature-driven_AJ0 ,_PUN systematic_AJ0 observation_NN1 ._SENT This_DT0 type_NN1 of_PRF observation_NN1 comes_VVZ with_PRP challenges_NN2 and_CJC concerns_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC should_VM0 be_VBI undertaken_VVN in_PRP conjunction_NN1 with_PRP necessary_AJ0 partners_NN2 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN university_NN1 ethics_NN0 office_NN1 ,_PUN university_NN1 lawyers_NN2 )_PUR ._SENT That_DT0 said_VVD ,_PUN this_DT0 type_NN1 of_PRF observation_NN1 allows_VVZ researchers_NN2 and_CJC perhaps_AV0 third-year_NN1 law_NN1 students_NN2 to_TO0 examine_VVI the_AT0 interaction_NN1 between_PRP client_NN1 and_CJC attorney_NN1 in_PRP a_AT0 more_AV0 objective_AJ0 manner_NN1 ,_PUN rather_AV0 than_CJS only_AV0 relying_VVG on_PRP attorney_NN1 or_CJC client_NN1 perspective_NN1 recall_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 interactions_NN2 ._SENT 
