University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The quest for alternative criminal justice reform: a criminal defense attorney as the change agent

(USC Thesis Other)

The quest for alternative criminal justice reform: a criminal defense attorney as the change agent

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Quest for Alternative Criminal Justice Reform:
A Criminal Defense Attorney as the Change Agent

by

Steven S. Leskovich

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Steven S. Leskovich 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Steven S. Leskovich certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jennifer L. Phillips
Douglas E. Lynch
Kimberly A. Ferrario, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the client. In developing this philosophical
statement from the data contained within this study, this paper developed evidence-based
recommendations regarding how criminal defense attorneys can assist in the deterrence of
substance abuse for a client and eventually contribute to alternative criminal justice reform
through the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. In this semi-structured
qualitative analysis study, nine criminal defense attorneys, who are in good standing with The
Florida Bar and had at least 6 years of experience in the field of criminal law, were interviewed
to provide their perceptions regarding the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship, perceptions regarding their influence on a client’s microsystem as it relates to
substance abuse, and perceptions on how a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship can
advance alternative criminal justice reform. After analyzing the data, it was determined that
criminal defense attorneys had a limited understanding of what a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship entails and that attorneys need to engage in self-reflection that advances client-
centered initiatives. From this study’s findings, it is recommended that all criminal defense
attorneys engage in self-reflection to promote their professional identity formations to improve
their interpersonal skills, lawyering skills, and relationship skills; that all criminal defense
attorneys actively participate in the enhancement of alternative criminal justice reform; and that
all law students and experienced lawyers be required to take “Client Psychology and the Law”
related courses and/or continuing legal education credit hours towards understanding a client’s
ecological human developmental factors.

v
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ..................................................................................... 2
Overview of Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .......................................................................... 6
Importance of the Study ............................................................................................................... 6
Overview of Methodology ........................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................................ 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 12
The Criminal Defense Attorney ................................................................................................. 13
The Client and Theories of Criminality ..................................................................................... 18
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (BEM) and the Criminal Defense Attorney .................... 24
Summary .................................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 29
The Researcher .......................................................................................................................... 29
Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 31

vi
Overview of Design ................................................................................................................... 31
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 36
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Chapter Four: The Interview Findings .......................................................................................... 39
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 40
Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Research Question One .............................................................................................................. 42
Research Question Two ............................................................................................................. 49
Research Question Three ........................................................................................................... 58
Summarization of Findings........................................................................................................ 63
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 66
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 68
Discussion of Findings .............................................................................................................. 68
Recommendations for Practice .................................................................................................. 74
Recommendation One ............................................................................................................... 76
Recommendation Two ............................................................................................................... 80
Integrated Recommendations .................................................................................................... 83
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 89
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................................... 91
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................94

vii
References ..................................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix A: Economic Savings ................................................................................................. 112
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 114
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................ 121

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: The Participants’ Demographics (N=9) 41
Table 2: The Participants’ Lack of or Limited Knowledge Regarding the Purviews
of a “Meaningful” Attorney-Client Relationship
46
Table 3: The Participants’ Estimation of Clients Who Have a Substance Abuse
Problem
50
Table 4: The Participants’ Estimation of Clients Whose Arrest is Linked to
Substance Abuse
51
Table 5: The Participants’ Inability to Comprehend Alternative Criminal Justice
Reform
61
Table 6: The Need for Self-Reflection, Client-Centered Initiatives, and Training 65
Table 7: The Need to “Nudge” Participants 86

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Attorney-Client Relationship According to Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Model
26
Figure 2: An Attorney’s Ability to Positively Influence a Client’s Microsystem 70

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study is to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding how
criminal defense attorneys can assist in the deterrence of substance abuse for a client and
eventually contribute to alternative criminal justice reform through the development of a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship. A “meaningful” attorney-client relationship is a
relationship between an attorney and client that may empower a client psychologically,
educationally, economically, politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so, provides a client with
knowledge, resources, and skills that increase self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-worth
(Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). Alternative
criminal justice reform is a professional relationship-based strategy utilized by criminal defense
attorneys that potentially encourages a client to change their deviant behaviors in order to
become a productive law-abiding member of society and to refrain from future criminal behavior
(Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017).
To understand the problem, the United States has less than 5% of the world’s population
but houses nearly 25% of all inmates world-wide (Drug Policy Alliance, 2018; Leipold, 2019).
The burden of crime exceeds $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000) annually in the United States
(Anderson, 1999) with nearly 12 million people arrested every year, and with almost 2.5 million
people currently incarcerated (Lurigio, 2016). According to Carson (2020), 46% of all federal
inmates by year end 2019 were incarcerated for a drug-related crime (99% of those for drug
trafficking), and according to Bronson and Stroop (2017), nearly 60% of state inmates were
incarcerated for a drug-related crime, and nearly 80% of all crimes committed lead to
incarceration (Skywood Recovery, 2020). These statistics and percentages elevate the
importance for alternative criminal justice reform to potentially alleviate the burdens that high

2
incarceration rates put on society. Thus, criminal defense attorneys may have a rare advantage:
the ability to both curtail the problem in the short-term by developing a “meaningful” attorney-
client relationship and to potentially reform the criminal justice system in the long-term by
empowering a client to refrain from future criminal behavior (Daicoff, 1997).
Context and Background of the Problem
Since Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act in
1970, commonly known as the Controlled Substances Act, many organizations have attempted to
prevent and deter substance abuse and advocate against substance abuse injustices
(Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 1970; Lurigio, 2014). For nearly 50
years, organizations have made efforts to deter individuals from engaging in drugs, gangs, and
violence (Drug Policy Alliance, 2018; Leipold, 2019). However, the empowerment lessons and
skills provided to drug users in these programs appear to not have made a long-lasting impact on
suppressing substance abuse (Clayton et al., 1999). Citing Clayton et al. (1999), Anderson (2005)
wrote that,
[R]esearchers report that organizations are ineffective both in terms of reducing actual
drug use and impacting attitudes toward drug use, concluding that, “...there appear to be
no reliable short-term, long-term, early adolescent, or young adult positive outcomes
associated with receiving intervention.” (p. 4)
An organization’s lack of efficacy in the actual prevention or suppression of drug use is nominal
in the short-term, and the long-term effects are even worse (Aniskiewicz et al., 1994; Clayton et
al., 1999; Dukes et al., 1996; Ennett et al., 1994).
One such organization of interest that may be able to assist in the professional
development of criminal defense attorneys is the Florida Association of Criminal Defense

3
Lawyers (FACDL). It consists of over 1,000 criminal defense attorney members and is the
largest criminal defense advocacy organization in the State of Florida for criminal law,
procedure, and strategy. This organization seeks to present a unified voice for an inclusive
criminal defense community, promoting excellence in the practice of criminal law, improving the
criminal justice system at the judicial, legislative, and executive levels, ensuring the integrity and
independence of a criminal defense lawyer, and promoting the protection of the rights of
individuals (FACDL, 2021). The founding principles of FACDL are to promote and research
criminal laws, to educate the public about criminal laws, to promote the proper administration of
justice, and to educate its members regarding unfair and unequal treatment in the criminal justice
system (FACDL, 2021).
According to Wadman (2018), the National Institutes of Health has postulated that
society normally encounters an individual engaged in substance abuse after the fact, when the
effects of substance abuse are long-lasting. To prevent these effects, more may need to be done
by criminal defense lawyers before a client engages in continued or future substance use
(Anderson, 2005). Notwithstanding, organizations have failed to provide follow-up intervention,
deterrence, and preventative measures with actions that ensure a long-term impact towards
resisting drug use. If criminal defense attorneys made greater efforts to assist a client with a
substance abuse problem, they could potentially impart long-term impact and highlight an
avenue for alternative criminal justice reform (Clayton et al., 1999). Improving the criminal
justice system by advocating for equality in the courtroom is one thing, but a criminal defense
attorney should also attempt to advocate for a “meaningful” relationship with a client outside of
the courtroom; that is, a criminal defense attorney can seek to improve outcomes by working

4
within a client’s personal life and psychological well-being, as defined by their ecological human
development system (Birckhead, 2017; Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Overview of Conceptual Framework
Urie Bronfenbrenner, a Russian born American psychologist, developed the ecological
model theory of human development in 1979 to explain how human development is influenced
by different environmental systems. Bronfenbrenner (1979; 2005) theorized that human
development evolves over time; thus, there are interactions between the individual and the
ecological systems surrounding them that may influence their beliefs, behavior, morals, and
values. Individual human development evolves throughout a person’s lifetime and may be
impacted by environmental processes; these processes may adversely affect an individual’s
socialization, learned behavior, choices, and/or associations (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1994).
This qualitative research study will utilize the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model Theory
(BEM) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2005). Applying the BEM to a criminal defense attorney’s role in
deterring a client’s substance abuse—and therefore deterring future engagement in criminal
behavior—one can examine effective criminal justice reform and a criminal defense attorney’s
role in implementing it. The BEM states that a person’s psychological development may be
affected by relationships within their community and their society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This
would include a client’s relationship with their attorney. A criminal defense attorney may have a
positive impact on a client’s life, deterring their substance abuse by influencing their immediate
environment, indirect environment, network of connections, socialization, and cultural systems,
all of which may contribute to a client’s criminality (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 2005). This theory is
the appropriate lens to examine the interconnected problems of crime and substance abuse, as
well as the long-term failures of criminal justice reform initiatives, because it provides a solid

5
foundation for understanding how a criminal defense attorney developing a “meaningful”
relationship with a client can affect that client’s ecological human developmental system in a
positive way. Thus, by doing so, a criminal defense attorney can leverage their relationship with
a client to deter crime use and prevent future criminality, successfully implementing an
alternative form of criminal justice reform. For the purposes of this study, research will be
primarily focused on the BEM’s microsystem model and the relationship between a client’s
microsystem components, specifically, the role of a criminal defense attorney. The goal is to
establish a way to promote change in society's macrosystem via alternative criminal justice
reform.
According to Bronfenbrenner (1992), an individual’s microsystem is comprised of factors
of
[A]ctivities, social roles and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person
in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social, and symbolic features that
invite, permit, or inhibit engagement in sustained, progressively more complex
interactions with, and activity in, the immediate environment. (p. 3)
The microsystem environment is the most closely intertwined and influential system of human
development and includes a person’s family, friends, school, employment, religion, and even
their attorney (Bronfenbrenner 1979; 1992; 2005). The macrosystem “consists of the overarching
pattern of the ecological systems of a given culture or subculture, with particular reference to
belief systems, bodies of knowledge, material resources, customs, life-styles, opportunity
structures, hazards, and life course options of all the systems” (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p. 40).
The macrosystem relates to the culture of our society, including, but not limited to, the criminal
justice system and criminal justice reform.

6
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study explored how criminal defense attorneys interact with clients to build
“meaningful” relationships and what influence they may have on a client’s microsystem, in
particular regarding substance abuse, and the implications of how a “meaningful” relationship
can advance alternative criminal justice reform. In following the recommendations of this study,
criminal defense attorneys may be able to provide the necessary empowerment skills to deter a
client from future criminal activity caused by substance abuse. To achieve these goals, the
following research questions guide this study:
1. How do criminal defense attorneys establish what they perceive to be a “meaningful”
relationship with a client?
2. How do criminal defense attorneys perceive their influence on a client’s microsystem as
it relates to substance abuse?
3. What role, if any, do criminal defense attorneys believe a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship plays in advancing criminal justice reform?
Importance of the Study
Substance abuse substantially contributes to mass incarceration in the United States,
necessitating the need for criminal justice reform (Drug Policy Alliance, 2018). The United
States spends nearly $750 billion annually combating substance abuse, over $600 billion dollars
annually combating substance abuse as it relates to criminal behavior, nearly $50 billion dollars
annually housing state sentenced inmates, and nearly $10 billion dollars annually housing
federally sentenced inmates (Anderson, 2005; Carson, 2020; Mai & Subramanian, 2018;
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2016). According to the United States Federal Register (2019),
the Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons spends nearly $38,000 per year housing a single

7
federal inmate, equating to nearly $103 per day. The Florida Department of Corrections (2020)
spent approximately $24,500 in fiscal year 2020 housing a single inmate in a state-prison,
equating to nearly $67 per day. There are currently 122 federal correctional facilities housing
nearly 156,000 inmates, and the Florida Department of Corrections maintains 57 correctional
facilities and houses approximately 87,000 inmates; however, these figures do not take into
account defendants placed on community supervision (probation/parole) (Florida Department of
Corrections; 2021; U.S. Department of Justice, 2021).
Evidence from Simon (2016) highlights that, since the war on drugs movement in the
1970s, the United States has been incarcerating individuals at an overwhelmingly increased rate;
thus, in the last four decades, the incarceration rate has increased by nearly 500% (Fuller &
Zamani-Gallagher, 2016). Additional evidence from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2019) has
determined that between 1978 and 2017, incarceration rates due to substance abuse have
increased from nearly 200 inmates per 10,000 U.S. residents to nearly 500 inmates per 10,000
U.S. residents (Carson, 2020). This is an increase of 250%. According to the U.S. Department of
Justice (1994), an individual will test positive for a drug up to 85% of the time within 24 hours of
being arrested, despite the war on drugs initiative, potentially demonstrating that substance use
impacts criminal behavior. Furthermore, nearly 65% of individuals sentenced to a term of
imprisonment following conviction met the criteria for substance abuse or having a chemical
dependence (Berzofsky et al., 2017). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2015)
states that a mean average of 255 million people world-wide engage in illicit drug use. In 2018,
the United States reported an estimated 164.8 million people aged 12 or older had used some
form of substance in the past 30 days (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 2019). Additionally, 21.2 million people in the United States, aged 12 or older,

8
received some form of substance abuse treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 2019).
The United States spends billions of dollars annually treating a problem but spends
considerably less attempting to suppress the problem (Wadman, 2018). It has been well
documented that delaying an individual’s initiation into substance use may reduce behavioral
problems for them later in life (Bucholz et al., 2003; Dawson & Grant, 1998; Thaler, 2015). One
such behavioral problem is the direct relationship between substance abuse and criminal
behavior (Lowenstein, 2001). By falling victim to substance abuse, an individual may have a
greater propensity to engage in criminal behavior; when compounded by sustained substance
use, an individual’s willingness to engage in criminality increases exponentially (Becker, 1968;
Garoupa, 2003; Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2013; Thaler, 2015).
Individuals may be at risk for substance abuse because of socialization to group norms,
peer pressure, or choice decisions (Hendrie & Miller, 2008). An individual’s desire to adapt to
social norms or yield to peer pressures may contribute to their substance abuse; thus, this
adaptation may lead to irrational or socially unacceptable behavior (Becker, 1968; Lowenstein,
2001; Thaler., 2015). This potentially unacceptable behavior compounded by substance abuse
may increase an individual’s likely engagement in criminal behavior and incarceration
(Hakansson & Jesionowska, 2018). With a clear link between substance abuse and criminal
behavior, curbing criminal activity caused by substance abuse is of the utmost importance in
implementing effective criminal justice reform and combatting mass incarceration. Therefore,
given the direct relationship an attorney can build with a client, an in-depth analysis of this
problem and the role of a criminal defense attorney is necessary.

9
Overview of Methodology
To answer the research questions guiding this study, semi-structured qualitative
interviews between the participants and me engaging in a conversation focused on topics related
to the research study will be utilized (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This research facilitated the
process of gathering data regarding a participant's (a) background and demographics, (b)
behaviors or experiences, (c) opinions or values, (d) feelings or emotions, (e) knowledge, and (f)
sensory perceptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data-collection process initially asked
participants protocol questions and utilized probing questions when necessary, depending on the
answers provided by a participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Definition of Terms
Throughout this paper, certain phrases or terms will be used. To assist the reader in
understanding the use and meanings of these terms, the following definitions were gathered from
field experts and literature related to the problem:
● Alternative criminal justice reform is a relationship-based strategy utilized by criminal
defense attorneys that potentially encourages a client to change their deviant behaviors,
become a productive law-abiding member of society, and refrain from future criminal
behavior (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017).
● Behavioral economics is a theory in which individuals make decisions based on bounded
rationality and emotions (Ellickson, 1989).
● Client-centered initiatives is a tactic utilized by attorneys on how to communicate with a
client regarding a client’s emotional state, whether socially, psychologically, or
economically, utilizing self-reflective measures of influence and persuasion (Heavin &
Keet, 2021).

10
● Criminality is a behavior that is contrary to or forbidden by criminal laws or statutes
(Beccaria et al., 2020).
● Criminal behavior refers to an individual’s course of conduct that leads to or incorporates
the commission of a criminal act (Becker, 1968).
● “Meaningful” attorney-client relationship refers to a professional relationship between
an attorney and their client that may empower a client psychologically, educationally,
economically, politically, and/or socially, and by doing so, provides a client with
knowledge, resources, or skills that increase self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-
worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015).
● Qualitative research is a method in which a researcher interviews a participant to gather
information related to a research topic, reviews data, and analyzes documents for further
investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
● Rational choice is a theory in which individuals make choices and decisions based on a
cost-benefit analysis (Becker, 1968).
● Socialization to group norms refers to a process in which individuals adapt or adopt
certain norms, morals, beliefs, or attitudes belonging to a specific group (Brauer et al.,
2017).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into four components. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) will
summarize and discuss the existing literature regarding the topics and theoretical frameworks of
this paper, including an in-depth analysis of the current attorney-client relationship based on a
fiduciary duty, an analysis of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship (or lack thereof), and an
analysis of how a criminal defense attorney can impact a client pursuant to the Bronfenbrenner

11
Ecological Human Development Model. Chapter 3 (Methodology) will provide an overview of
the semi-structured qualitative research process, the participants, data collection procedures,
credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and the limitations and delimitations associated with the
research project. Chapter 4 (Results and Findings) will provide a detailed analysis of the findings
of the study as developed through the interview process, focusing on results related to a criminal
defense attorney’s fiduciary duty and a “meaningful” client relationship, how substance abuse
impacts criminal behavior, how the microsystem impacts socialization of group norms and
rational choice behaviors, and the relevance to criminal justice reform. Finally, Chapter 5
(Recommendations) discusses suggestions for change and integration that may be implemented
based on the qualitative interview process, data, and evidence.

12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The societal impact from five decades of fighting a failed war on drugs has caused
unsettling market conditions, a public health crisis, and mass incarceration (Paul-Emile, 2010).
For decades, legislation, rules, and administrative orders have attempted to propagate criminal
justice reform by implementing sentencing reform and specialty courts (i.e., drug courts, mental-
health courts); far too often, these initiatives have failed (Bibas, 2017; Lurigio, 2014). These
failed initiatives may have thwarted effective criminal justice reform foundationally based on
preventing substance abuse (Birckhead, 2017; Paul-Emilie, 2010). Additionally, they have also
disregarded the role of the criminal defense attorney and the overall positive impact an attorney
may have on their client’s moral compass, as well as how that can lead towards alternative
criminal justice reform (Bibas, 2017; Daicoff, 1997, 2014). According to Appendix A, if a
criminal defense attorney is able to effectively promote alternative criminal justice reform by the
establishment of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, there is the possibility that the State
of Florida could save approximately $68,000 per inmate over a 55-month period (the average
prison sentence in Florida is 55 months in the Florida Department of Corrections) and nearly
$158,000 over a ten-year period (Florida Department of Corrections, 2021).

In order to fully understand how a criminal defense attorney could be able to effectively
promote alternative criminal justice reform, this literature review first focuses on the fiduciary
and ethical role of the criminal defense attorney in representing a criminal defendant. This is
followed by a pivot to “meaningful” attorney-client relationships, or a lack thereof. Although this
study focuses on the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model for Human Development, this review
then discusses theories of criminality that concern the link between substance abuse and criminal
behavior, a client’s socialization to group norms, the rational choice theory, and behavioral

13
economics. Thus, this section pertaining to a client is critical for having an informed discussion
on how criminal defense attorneys can potentially understand a client’s ecological human
development. Finally, the last component of this review addresses how a criminal defense
attorney’s role molds into the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model of Human Development and the
impact they may have on their client’s microsystem and macrosystem.
The Criminal Defense Attorney
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that all criminal defendants are
entitled to legal counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and In Re: Gault, 387 U.S.
1 (1967) guarantee the right to counsel in all criminal-related cases, regardless of whether a
criminal defendant can afford an attorney or not, and regardless of whether the defendant is an
adult or a juvenile. Just because a criminal defendant has a guaranteed right to legal counsel in
criminal cases does not always mean a defendant has the right to the best legal counsel
(Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)). Not until 1984 was a criminal defendant
afforded the right to effective counsel (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)). The
Court in Strickland stated that the purpose of effective assistance of counsel is to have competent
counsel and a fair trial. The requirements outlined in Strickland only pertain to criminal litigation
and trials and have nothing to do with an overall effective and “meaningful” representation. In
order to effectively evaluate the attorney-client relationship, a review of the legal representation
is necessary.
A Fiduciary Attorney-Client Relationship
Rule 1.1. of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rules of Professional
Conduct states that, “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably

14
necessary for the representation” (ABA, 2021). Additionally, ABA Rule 1.2(b) states that, “A
lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute
an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities” (ABA,
2021). According to The Florida Bar Association Preamble, a lawyer’s responsibilities consist of
various functions, including, but not limited to an adviser, an advocate, a negotiator, and an
evaluator; however, the preamble does not enumerate the roles of mentor, leader, educator, or
promoter. Lord Brougham (1820) dictated one of the most famous portrayals to the role of a
criminal defense attorney:
An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that
office, but one person in the world, THAT CLIENT AND NONE OTHER. To save that
client by all expedient means—to protect that client at all hazards and costs to all others,
and among others to himself—is the highest and most unquestioned of his duties; and he
must not regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the destruction, which he may bring
upon any other. Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate,
and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if
his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client's
protection! (p. 311)
For over two centuries, Lord Brougham’s pronouncement of a criminal defense attorney’s role
has appeared to coincide with the ABA’s Rule 1.1 and 1.2 for legal representation and The
Florida Bar Association’s Preamble. According to Birckhead (2017), a criminal defense attorney
is to provide sound, zealous advocacy on behalf of the client without regard or limitations as to
the potential societal impact, community harm, or repercussions towards individual morality.
Notwithstanding, a defense attorney’s responsibility is solely to a client, and to a client alone

15
(Birckhead, 2017). This attorney-client relationship is bound by the purviews of “investigation,
confidentiality, communication and consultation, learning, consideration, and zealous advocacy”
(Henderson, 2019, p. 12). Criminal defense lawyers may have become accustomed to merely
providing strategic and tactical decisions for a client as it relates to criminal law and procedure
where feasible and applicable (Aprile, 2018). This type of advocacy is the foundation of the
fiduciary duty owed to clients and their confidences (Luban & Wendall, 2017). However, by
solely focusing on the adversarial components, criminal defense attorneys have neglected,
intentionally or not, an obligation for a “meaningful” relationship with a client (Boccaccino &
Brodsky, 2001).
A “Meaningful” Attorney-Client Relationship
Although the Sixth Amendment to The Constitution guarantees the right to an attorney,
criminal defendants are not entitled to a “meaningful” relationship with their lawyer (Boccaccino
& Brodsky, 2001). A “meaningful” attorney-client relationship is a relationship between an
attorney and client that may empower a client psychologically, educationally, economically,
politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so, provides a client with knowledge, resources, and
skills that increase self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014;
Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). In Morris v. Slappy, 103 S.Ct. 1610 (1983), the
U.S. Supreme Court opined that criminal defendants are not entitled to a “‘meaningful’
relationship” with their counsel. Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall concurred with the
majority opinion regarding the merits of the case but wrote a dissenting opinion regarding what a
“meaningful” relationship should be, considering uninhibited communication and collaborative
decision-making with trust and confidence. In a review of empirical research, Daicoff (1997)
found that attorneys are generally less interested in people, have less interest in emotions, and

16
have less interest in personal relationships; rather, they are more concerned with debate,
negotiation or persuasion. Daicoff (1997) also found that attorneys are more prone to be
judgmental of others and lack the people skills necessary to have a “meaningful” relationship
with a client. In Daicoff’s (1997) empirical review, clients generally believe that their criminal
defense attorney lacks compassion, feelings, empathy, or concern, and would desire for their
attorney to merely pay more attention to their overall personal well-being.
Aligning with Daicoff’s (1997) empirical review, Boccaccino and Brodsky (2001)
conducted their own empirical review and qualitative study of 257 prison inmates regarding their
perceptions of attorneys, what perceptions attorneys have about clients, and attorney personality
traits. According to Boccaccino and Brodsky (2001), defendants are generally not satisfied with
the representation they received from their attorney; people felt that their attorney did not
effectively communicate with them about their case, did not demonstrate a personal concern for
their well-being, lacked compassion, and lacked people skills, and the vast majority felt that they
did not have an effective relationship with their attorney. Additionally, Boccaccino and
Brodsky’s (2001) study found that attorneys had a misguided perception that clients trusted them
merely because they were an attorney, that the attorney’s trust did not have to be earned from the
client, and that clients would concede to the lawyer’s recommendations rather than the client
being involved in the decision-making process. In a separate qualitative study of 307 prison
inmates, Boccaccino and Brodsky (2002) found that clients believed that their criminal defense
lawyer lacked trust in their client and was more concerned about the client’s future punitive
sanctions and sentencing; thus, this perceived lack of trust from the attorney caused a strained
attorney-client relationship, client resentment, lack of overall satisfaction, trust problems, and
other negative relationship determinants. Like Daicoff (1997), Boccaccino and Brodsky (2001,

17
2002) found that attorneys generally lack positive personality characteristics, which may lead to
problematic relationships with clients as opposed to developing a “meaningful” relationship with
them. The qualitative study conducted by Boccaccino and Brodsky (2001) found that clients felt
they could have had a “meaningful” relationship with their lawyer if the criminal defense lawyer
exhibited better loyalty, better lawyering skills, and better interpersonal relationship skills. If a
criminal defense attorney can strengthen those three characteristics, perhaps the relationship with
their client may impact American jurisprudence that propagates criminal justice reform.
However, criminal defense lawyers would have to change the way they practice law and strive to
become a “change agent” (Wexler, 2005, p. 747).
The Criminal Defense Attorney as a “Change Agent”
When representing a criminal defendant, a criminal defense attorney has an ability to be a
“change agent” for their client, their profession, or for the larger criminal justice system (Wexler,
2005, p. 747). These potential change agents may want to be cognizant of their client’s substance
abuse problem, socialization to group norms, or cost/benefit analysis to criminal behavior when
fully representing a client. However, previous literature has essentially ignored the fundamental
purview of fostering a productive and “meaningful” attorney-client relationship (Boccaccino &
Brodsky, 2002). Clark (2001) posited that the lion’s share of change will come from clients
themselves, but change can be effectuated by the criminal defense attorney as an agent who
nourishes internal and social support components for their client. According to both Wexler
(2005) and Clark (2001), the major change in client’s behavior derives from positively reinforced
attributes from the change agent by instilling empathy, acceptance, encouragement, and
empowerment.

18
To be an effective change agent for clients, the criminal defense lawyer may have to learn
new skills of listening, communication, and giving the client a “voice” for reason. They must be
cognizant of emotional intelligence and cultural differences (Clark, 2001; Silver, 2002; Wexler,
2005). In addition, criminal defense lawyers may have to be not only a fiduciary agent to a client,
but also an advocate rooted in behavioral and virtue ethics (Luban & Wendel, 2017). A lawyer’s
behavioral ethics towards a client may encompass an understanding of the client’s decision-
making processes, determinism, motivation, responsibility, character, and references to the
client’s psychological components, whereas a lawyer’s virtue ethics towards a client assists
socially acceptable behavior in the client’s decision-making process (Luban & Wendall, 2017).
Some criminal defense lawyers may want to only be a fiduciary agent to a client but being a true
change agent requires attorneys to be more attentive, more sensitive, more realistic, more
motivational, more compassionate, and more determinant (Boccaccino and Brodsky, 2001,
2002). If a criminal defense lawyer can establish better people skills or better client relations
skills, the attorney-client relationship may be more “meaningful” (Daicoff, 1997). With the
establishment of this “meaningful” relationship, clients may be motivated with a sense for
personal change, and thus, the criminal defense attorney could be an agent catalyzing change and
criminal justice reform (Luban & Wendall, 2017; Wexler, 2005).
The Client and Theories of Criminality
The war on drugs initiatives have caused significant economic, social, and personal loss,
ranging from hundreds of billions of dollars towards drug treatment to massive costs for
incarceration, adding up to an overwhelming cost for society (Anderson, 2005; Mai &
Subramanian, 2018; U.S. Department of Justice, 2019). Far too often, criminal defense attorneys
may not understand the overall positive impact they can have on a client’s moral compass

19
(Bibas, 2017). To understand how a criminal defense attorney may have this positive impact on
their client’s moral compass, the attorney needs an awareness of the link between substance
abuse and criminal behavior, the client’s socialization to group norms, and the client’s decision-
making capabilities. Without understanding theories of criminalities, criminal defense attorneys
may be inhibited from developing a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship (Anderson, 2005;
Daicoff, 1997, 2014; Wexler, 2005).
A Client’s Substance Abuse and Criminal Behavior
There is a relationship between substance abuse and criminal behavior (Beccaria et al.,
2020). Beccaria et al.’s (2020) analysis of 198 individuals between the ages of 15–25 suggests
there is a direct relationship between substance abuse and criminal behavior (Beccaria et al.,
2020). Carrillo-De-La-Pena et al. (1994) gathered data from 2,022 male students between the
ages of 14–18 and concluded that a person’s microsystem (i.e., attorney, family, friends, religion,
school) may materially influence and/or alter a person’s behavior, beliefs, morals, or values.
According to Bozza (2002) and O’Hanlon (2009), an individual's environment consisting of
family, friends, attorneys, culture, economics, and social structure is the most significant
component influencing a person's microsystem and behavioral choices. Additionally, in a
separate study of 41 drug-offenders, data revealed that substance abuse can cause crime or that
crime can lead to substance abuse; either way, there is a corresponding relationship between the
two components (Bennett & Holloway, 2009).
The above-referenced studies found that there are three distinct environmental
mechanisms that may contribute to the linkage between substance abuse and criminal behavior:
lifestyle interactions, learned behaviors, and economic choices. Lifestyle mechanisms relate to an
individual’s inner circle, suggesting that socialization into a particular lifestyle affects behavior,

20
learned behavior mechanisms relate to the pharmacological and psychological training that a
person experiences and develops over time, and economic choices relate to a person’s ability to
make rational and/or informed decisions, all considering outside influences that affect behavior
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Taking into consideration lifestyle interactions, learned behaviors, and
economic choices, criminal defense attorneys may need to be cognizant of their client’s
socialization to group norms and their choice behaviors.
A Client’s Socialization to Group Norms

Socialization to group norms is a process in which individuals congregate with similar
like-minded individuals with similar behaviors, or with similar attitudinal parallels (Brauer et al.,
2017). Utilizing BEM’s corresponding microsystem, a client’s first socialization to group norms
comes from family, friends, schools, and the people they love and trust the most
(Bronfenbrenner, 1992). Individuals generally gravitate towards peers with similar interests and
family members whom they are seeking attachment to and acceptance from (Bezin et al., 2017).
Early socialization begins with the family and subsequently moves on to peers (Schram &
Tibbets, 2018). These types of attachments and peer acknowledgements lead to outside
influences and microsystem transgressions that can contribute to substance abuse and/or learned
behaviors (Bandura, 1986, 2005; Schram & Tibbetts, 2018).
Notwithstanding learned behaviors, the most influential groups for deviant behavior are
friends and family (Call et al., 2015). Individuals who associate with others that are engaged in
substance use or criminal behavior have an increased likelihood to engage in the same type of
behavior (Rebellon, 2012). A National Youth Survey of 2,360 American adolescents found that
substance abuse was strongly influenced by personal behavior, perceived peer behavior, and
perceived peer attitudes (Rebellon, 2012). This survey study also found that individuals have an

21
increased likelihood to engage in behavior as an imitation; thus, if peers are smoking marijuana
at a party, a person would be more likely to follow the same behavior and smoke marijuana
(Rebellon, 2012). When individuals are more willing to imitate the group and develop learned
behaviors, they may be less likely to exhibit rationalized behavior (Rebellon, 2012). Because
socialization is rooted in desires of acceptance, an individual may eventually increase otherwise
deviant behaviors in order to conform to the group (Lowenstein, 2001).
By conforming to group norms, an individual may increase drug use to feel good, to feel
better, to do better, or for social pleasure (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2020). Oftentimes, a
person that has become dependent upon the group for acceptance may then have a challenging
time removing themselves from the group because of shame or embarrassment, or because they
have developed potentially uncontrollable behaviors (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2020).
The inability to leave the group can cause a person to lose self-control, become seriously
impaired, have irrational thoughts, or engage in behavior that otherwise may not have occurred
(Ranes, 2015). Once an individual is trapped by the group, the propensity for deviant behavior
continues, leading to irrational thought or disregard for the cost-benefit analysis of behavior
(Becker, 1968).
A Client’s Rational Choice Approach to Crime

Analyzing the economic theory of criminal behavior and how substance abuse
contributes to the engagement in criminality provides perspective on why individuals rationalize
a cost-benefit analysis to their learned behavior (Becker, 1968). The economic theory on
criminal behavior states that people will make rational choices and that their behavior impacts
both the short-term and long-term; however, drug users generally encompass a short-term utility
gain without considering the long-term consequences (Becker, 1968; Jacob, 2011). According to

22
Becker (1968), a person’s utility gain measurement establishes the rational-choice theory on
decision-making because an individual will act rationally in decision-making (Becker, 1968).
Reviewing this problem via a rational-choice approach provides insight into how substance
abuse contributes to the engagement into criminal activity (Becker, 1968). People who engage in
criminal behavior receive a utility value from criminality: the expectation is that they are better
off committing the crime than not (Haga, 1987).
Because an individual may receive a greater utility value for committing the crime than

not committing the crime, substance abusers believe they are acting rationally (Bandura, 2005;
Becker, 1968). This criminal rationality causes drug addicts to commit more crime in order to
fuel their short-term utility; thus, an abuser may feel the need to steal in order to sell the stolen
goods for money with a short-term goal of buying a drug and rewarding their addicted brain
(National Center on Drug Abuse, 2020). Drug addicts may not consider the long-term
consequences of their actions; however, they are satisfying their short-term utility to continue the
brain’s reward system (Giovazolias & Themeli, 2014). Because drug addicts believe they are
acting rationally, the rational-choice theory may be applicable to a drug-user with limited
cognitive capabilities; thus, this theory is predicated upon a premise that people will choose
rational thought over irrational behavior (Becker, 1968; Miles 2005). According to Miles (2005),
the gain from committing the crime may increase a person’s utility value; however, potential
consequences of punishment for committing the crime normally cause a person to act rationally
and not commit the crime.
Notwithstanding, rational choice does not consider the caveats of socialization and
learned behavior. When these caveats are implicit for the realized gain of maintaining drug
utility, then rational thought for a drug user is justified and deficiencies in judgment, decision-

23
making, learning, memory, or behavior control may be discounted (National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 2016). If an individual’s choice to act rationally when presented with an incentive
outweighs the costs of being caught, then the crime will be committed (Bair, 2018). Therefore,
acting rationally to a drug user and acting rationally to a non-drug user may realize two vastly
diverse types of gain for maximizing utility: one person commits a crime, and one person does
not (Bair, 2018). While understanding that a person’s choices determine how they interact with
criminality as a rational actor, it is also necessary to examine how socialization and cognition
play roles in this decision-making process (Ellickson, 1989).
A Client’s Behavioral Economics Approach to Crime

Applying behavioral economics to the relationship between substance abuse and in
criminality provides perspective on how socialization and cognition, in addition to rational
actors, affect criminal behavior (Ellickson, 1989). Behavioral economics takes the position that
an individual’s cognitive bias, emotions, and social influences all contribute to their decision-
making process (Jolls et al., 1997). According to Bair (2018) and Jolls et al. (1997), individuals
cannot perfectly process information to make a rational decision; rather, individuals have a
limited rationality coupled with deficient cognitive capabilities, that is, individuals selectively
process information, lack sensory-memory abilities, and develop a personal bias when required
to make a decision. This predictable error encompasses psychological realism, such as
socialization, cognition, and association, and may be what separates a drug-user from a non-drug
user (Thaler, 2018). These principles create a foundation for bounded rationality, bounded
willpower, and bounded self-interest (Jolls et al., 1997).
Applying behavioral economics to substance abuse surmises that individuals will make a
predictable and bounded decision, albeit, in error (Thaler, 2018). Under rational-choice theory,

24
drug-users and non-drug users both make perfect decisions maximizing their utility gain;
however, under bounded rationality, drug users and non-drug users are separated by cognitive
abilities and societal realism (Thaler, 2018). In a survey conducted in 89 large metropolitan cities
in the United States, Cooper et al. (2006) found that drug abusers are less concerned with
criminal punishment or consequences as they are about getting that “quick fix” or “high.”
Because drug-users may be more likely to commit crime to fix their anxiety levels or to fix their
cravings, behavior is an important consideration towards decision-making (Thaler, 2018).
Bounded willpower states that a person makes decisions that they know are in direct conflict
with their long-term plan, but otherwise make the decision because of the short-term gain (Jolls
et al., 1997). This short-term gain causes a substance abuser to succumb to the prevailing benefit
for immediate rewards and to satisfy the brain’s cravings (Jolls et al., 1997; Ranes, 2015).
Bounded self-interest states that individuals care, or at least act like they care, for others in their
group or microsystem (Jolls et al., 2018). This socialized movement may cause substance
abusers to have the inability to break free from the cycle of bounded behavior and potentially
keep the revolving door moving towards continued substance abuse. Analyzing behavior as a
major contributing factor to decision-making may permit a client to be nudged or influenced by
their criminal defense attorney into better decisions without compromising short-term gain or
long-term consequences (Murakami & Tsubakuro, 2017; Sunstein & Thaler, 2021).
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (BEM) and the Criminal Defense Attorney
Applying the BEM to the relationship between the criminal defense attorney and clients
that struggle with substance abuse may provide a foundation to understanding how the client’s
microsystem could be positively influenced towards change through the development of a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Wexler, 2005).

25
Notwithstanding the above, the attorney’s relationship with the client may provide insight into
how a client’s learned behavior may impact later-in-life decision-making. Depending on a
client’s learned behavior and past experiences, coupled with their present environment, a client
may be at substantial risk towards substance abuse and the engagement in criminal behavior
(Villa, 2020). However, the individual’s criminal defense attorney may be a powerful, effective,
and influential advocate within the client’s microsystem to promote change and be a change
agent for the client (Wexler, 2005). Figure 1 helps to visually depict Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Theory on Human Development as it relates to the attorney-client relationship.

26
Figure 1
The Attorney-Client Relationship According to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model

_____________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design, by U. Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Harvard University Press. Copyright 2003 by Harvard
University Press.

Examining the role of a criminal defense attorney within the microsystem of a client
through Figure 1 may provide an insight into how substance abuse can be effectively

27
discouraged. Criminal defense attorneys, on a routine basis, encounter a voluminous number of
clients that have a substance abuse problem. However, and far too often, defense attorneys are
more consumed with and more concerned about Constitutional protections and Due Process
safeguards, as opposed to the overall well-being of the client (Aprile, 2018; Bibas, 2017; Lyon
2012). Within the microsystem, a criminal defense attorney may have an overwhelmingly
positive influence over their client and not even realize it; thus, the attorney may be blind to the
client’s microsystem adversities and true calls for help, guidance, and assistance
(Bronfenbrenner 1979). The role of the criminal defense attorney in criminal matters is a vital
societal guarantee, but attorneys may be failing the client by not engaging in a “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship (Daicoff, 1997).
Oftentimes, clients who feel cared about, listened to, heard out, or viewed as a special
person of concern may develop a profound sense of trust, loyalty, idolization, and admiration
towards a role model in their attorney (Daicoff, 1997). Perhaps, if a criminal defense attorney is
more trusting, more engaging, or even more willing to accept constructive criticism and provide
a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, they may be capable of being an intervening agent
for change in a client’s criminal behavior and substance abuse, or may even encourage growth in
personal goals, ethics, morals, values, and virtues (Clark, 2001; Silver, 2002; Wexler, 2005). The
criminal defense attorney’s role and potential positive influence on the client within the
microsystem may be as powerful of a component as there can be within the criminal justice
system, all in efforts to deter substance abuse and criminal behavior and to promote overall
criminal justice reform (Boccaccino & Brodsky, 2001, 2002). A “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship may develop a sense of being, trust, self-worth, and self-esteem. Hence, if a client

28
becomes more confident in their choices or decision, they may be deterred from criminality;
thus, leading to criminal justice reform (Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015).
Summary
Utilizing an adaptation of the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Theory on Human
Development (Figure 1) provides an opportunity to evaluate how a criminal defense attorney
may positively influence a client’s microsystem and, thus, discourage them from engaging in
further criminal behavior caused by substance abuse (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Additionally, the
conceptual framework can provide a basis for understanding how a criminal defense attorney can
establish a “meaningful” relationship with a client in addition to providing legal representation
(Bandura, 1986; Brauer et al., 2017). The attorney and client interaction within the microsystem
may demonstrate just how impactful personal interactions can be in assisting a client in making
better decisions (Becker, 1968; Ellickson, 1989; Sutherland, 1947). If a criminal defense attorney
can have a “meaningful” relationship with a client, perhaps a client’s future criminal behavior
caused by substance abuse may be deterred, and the possibility may exist to reduce the long-term
effects of addiction, substance abuse, and mass-incarceration. Further, the possibility may exist
to implement alternative criminal justice reform (Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015).

29
Chapter Three: Methodology
This section provides the foundation for the qualitative research design of this study.
According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative research methodology encompasses
overall research design: the researcher, the research setting, and the data collection sources,
describing the credibility and trustworthiness, ethical components, and the
limitations/delimitations of the study. The study will use qualitative methods for data collection
and analysis to explore how a criminal defense attorney may develop a “meaningful”
relationship with a client that may have a substance abuse problem, potentially leading to
alternative criminal justice reform.
The Researcher
With nearly 22 years as a criminal defense attorney, I am admitted to practice law in all
state courts throughout the State of Florida, the State of Ohio, the District of Columbia, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit. I have represented thousands of clients accused of crimes, ranging
from homicide and manslaughter to drug trafficking and drug offenses; from sex crimes and
cyber-crimes to robbery and assault & battery; from grand theft and petit theft to all White-
Collar crimes; DUI, domestic violence, violations of probation, traffic-related offenses: all in
state and federal criminal courts. I have been counsel on over 100 criminal jury trials, lead
counsel on over 250 non-jury trials, and lead counsel on countless hearings in and out of the
courtroom.
I grew up in a predominately White neighborhood, part of a blue-collar, middle-class
family with married parents who were educators. I was heavily supported by my parents, my two
brothers, my friends, and my community. I was not exposed to individuals with a substance

30
abuse problem until I attended college, and I had very little interaction with marginalized
individuals until college. I had little to no knowledge of the struggles that individuals may endure
from parental separation, childhood trauma, substance abuse disorders, mental health related
concerns, or non-prescribed self-medication problems. Although I received a childhood filled
with love, compassion, and devotion, these positionalities disenfranchised me when I became a
licensed attorney, especially, a criminal defense attorney. As a young attorney, I could not
understand why a client succumbed to substance abuse, and I could not understand why a client
could not break the habit of substance use. I initially had very little compassion for a client that
made bad choices, at least what I thought were bad choices. Although I have never had a
substance abuse problem and I have not had a family member with a substance abuse problem, I
have had a voluminous number of clients over the years who did have a substance abuse
problem. Notwithstanding the above, and not until around my 15th year of legal practice, did I
truly understand the potential role of a criminal defense attorney and the impact I may have on
the lives of those I represent.
In 2015, a client of mine began telling me about her troubled past, her traumatic
childhood, her dysfunctional family, and her reasons for self-medicating with controlled
substances. At first, I was in disbelief with what I was hearing, thinking that the client’s history
had nothing to do with the criminal case at hand; however, little did I know that this particular
client would forever change my practice of law. Because of this one particular client, I now try to
fully understand the root of the problem that led a client to me via the criminal justice system,
and I attempt to use my education, knowledge, and experiences to my advantage in hopes that I
can be a mentor, a counselor, a teacher, or a role model to a client and positively alter their
microsystem. I now have fewer clients and more “meaningful” relationships with these clients,

31
and I continue to educate myself on self-reflection, client-centered initiatives, and client
psychology.
Research Questions
In this study, the following three research questions were analyzed:
1. How do criminal defense attorneys establish what they perceive to be a “meaningful”
relationship with a client?
2. How do criminal defense attorneys perceive their influence on a client’s microsystem as
it relates to substance abuse?
3. What role, if any, do criminal defense attorneys believe a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship plays in advancing criminal justice reform?
Overview of Design
For the purpose of this study, a semi-structured qualitative interview research design was
utilized (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative interview research is a process in which the
participants and the researcher engage in a conversation focused on questions and answers
related to research topics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Semi-
structured interviews are a data-collection method in which I initially asked questions and may
have had follow-up questions for the participants for a more in-depth analysis to the initial
question presented and answers provided (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, this semi-
structured interview process was utilized for flexible questions, which initially entailed the
gathering of information from all interviewees; the interviews were guided by predetermined
questions, but there was no predetermined format for the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Finally, this qualitative research facilitated the process of gathering data regarding a participant's
(a) background and demographics, (b) behaviors or experiences, (c) opinions or values, (d)

32
feelings or emotions, (e) knowledge, and (f) sensory perceptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Pattan, 2002).
Research Setting
The participants interviewed included criminal defense attorneys, whether they were a
privately retained attorney, public defender, or court-appointed attorney. These participants are
all licensed in good standing to practice law in the State of Florida and have at least six years of
criminal law experience. The Florida Bar has nearly 75,000 members and the Florida
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (FACDL) currently has over 1,000 criminal defense
attorney members. FACDL is the largest criminal defense advocacy organization in the State of
Florida for criminal law, procedure, and strategy. This organization seeks to present a unified
voice for an inclusive criminal defense community, promote excellence in the practice of
criminal law, improve the criminal justice system at the judicial, legislative, and executive levels,
ensure the integrity and independence of a criminal defense lawyer, and promote the protection
of the rights of individuals (FACDL, 2021).
Participant Recruitment
Criminal defense attorneys were contacted as a representative sample from the legal
community (The Florida Bar and FACDL) because they may have had first-hand knowledge of
the attorney-client relationship, first-hand knowledge of clients with a substance abuse problem,
first-hand knowledge of the criminal justice system, or first-hand knowledge of the impact that
criminal behavior might have on society. No demographic characteristics, such as age, race,
ethnicity, gender preference, sex, religion, or any other enumerated protected class were used as
a selection criterion. An email communication was sent to every member of FACDL in a
geographic location of the State of Florida seeking voluntary participants. Because all

33
participants and I are members in good standing with The Florida Bar and FACDL, direct access
to the participants was readily available for an email generated solicitation; thus, both the Florida
Bar and FACDL have generated email and/or social media databases that permit bulk
communication to its members. As members of FACDL replied with a willingness to participate,
the first nine participants that met the minimum requirements (members of the Florida Bar in
good standing with at least 6 years of criminal law and procedure experience) were contacted a
second time seeking further voluntary participation. Each participant maintained their
voluntariness to participate and were subsequently forwarded an Information Sheet for Exempt
Research, as outlined in Appendix C. After final verification for complete voluntariness to
participate in the study, each participant was assigned a pseudonym according to the Greek
alphabet (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Epsilon, Eta, Gamma, Kappa, Theta, Zeta).
Participating Stakeholders
The criminal defense attorneys interviewed had experience of no fewer than 6 years in
criminal law, experience with a client and their substance abuse challenges, and extensive
knowledge regarding the advancement of criminal justice reform. Additionally, the attorneys
interviewed were all licensed in the State of Florida, in good standing with the Florida Bar
Association, and without disciplinary proceedings levied against them. The sample size was nine
criminal defense attorneys either privately retained, a public defender, or conflict-free regional
counsel. The first nine criminal defense attorneys that responded with their willingness to
participate were vetted via the Florida Bar Attorney profile system to ensure their qualification
for the project (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Of the nine participants, one was female and eight
were male; their years of experience as a criminal defense attorney ranged from six years to 40
years; six were former prosecutors and now privately retained criminal defense attorneys, and

34
three have been public defenders. As later depicted in Chapter 4, Table 1 illustrates that all
participants interviewed were criminal defense attorneys licensed in the State of Florida and in
good standing with the Florida Bar Association.
Interviews
All of the participant’s interviews were coordinated by email. No participant had an
interview conducted that may have interfered with another participant’s interview. All interviews
were conducted via Zoom video conferencing in which the participants were in a private and
secure location at their choosing without interruption or distraction. Each participant elected to
be in their respective law office for the interview. Upon commencing the interview, each
participant was asked if they would consent to video and audio recording; each participant
voluntarily consented to the recordings. In order to protect and maintain the participants’
confidentiality and anonymity, no personal identifying information was ever discussed or
recorded during the interview. Each interview lasted approximately one hour.
Instrumentation
To collect data, this research study implemented an interview protocol. Detailed in
Appendix B, this interview protocol assisted in gathering data on the research questions
presented. As outlined in Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), data
was collected utilizing field notes during the interview, and written probing questions were
ascertained during the interviews. Additionally, each participant consented to both audio and
video recording of their interview. Following each interview, I listened to each audio recording
separately and independently from the video recording. Following the audio reflection, the video
recording was reviewed to further ascertain any physiological distinctions exhibited by the
participants in their responses. After the first interview was completed, a Code Book was

35
initiated. As each interview was completed and a complete reflection was performed, research
codes were formulated pursuant to a Code Book. Following the completion of an interview, the
audio recording was forwarded to a Certified Court Reporter for transcription. No personal
identifying information regarding the participant was provided; the Court Reporter only knew the
Code Name provided to the participant (i.e., Alpha). At the conclusion of the written
transcriptions, all interview databases of the recordings were destroyed.
Data Collection Procedures
This project utilized target purposeful sampling to entice participants to share their
knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, opinions, backgrounds, and perceptions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Through targeted purposeful sampling, email communications were forwarded to
members of the criminal defense bar for their participation. No data was collected until after the
Institutional Review Boards granted authority to begin the data collection process. Each
interview lasted approximately one hour, utilizing both the interview protocol (Appendix B) and
probing questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All interviews were conducted at a location that
was convenient for the participant regarding the date, time, and location. In order to protect a
participant’s identity, they were provided a Greek alphabet letter for identification (Alpha, Beta,
Delta, Epsilon, Eta, Gamma, Kappa, Theta, Zeta). No personal identifying information was
gathered during the interview process. All these safeguards were implemented to assist in the
confidentiality and anonymity of participants and to strengthen the validity and reliability of
results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Analysis
Research was analyzed by reviewing field notes, listening to transcribed audio recordings
of the interviews, reviewing video recordings, conducting follow-up communication(s) with

36
participants for accuracy and clarifications, and comparing all the above-referenced data for
completeness. Upon receipt of the written transcripts formulated from the audio-recorded
interviews, each transcript was thoroughly read, analyzed, and reviewed. All participants were
provided an opportunity to review their transcript for accuracy and completeness; thus, not one
participant requested that the interview transcript be amended. Following this third reflection of
the interviews, each transcript was uploaded into ATLAS.ti.9 Qualitative Research Software
Database for complete coding and the establishment of a Code Book. Pursuant to the Code Book,
three distinct components became evident: Attorney, Client, and Criminal Justice Reform. Under
the heading of Attorney, five codes were determined: (a) client perceptions, (b) communication,
(c) empowerment skills, (d) fiduciary duty, and (e) “meaningful” relationships. Under the
heading of Client, five codes were determined: (a) criminal behavior, (b) engagement in
criminality, (c) rational behavior, (d) socialization, and (e) substance abuse. Under the heading of
Criminal Justice Reform, two codes were determined: (a) perceptions of reform, and (b)
professional development.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To determine if this study is trustworthy, this qualitative research analyzed the credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability of results (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). According
to Korstjens and Moser (2018), credibility relates to the truthfulness of the research findings and
the confidences therein, in that the research findings are plausible according to the participants’
original data and the correctness of the participants’ interpretations. Transferability relates to
whether this research study can be transferred to other research settings and contexts for
evaluation. Dependability relates to whether participants from this current study ascertain
stability over time, while confirmability relates to whether this research study can be confirmed

37
by other researchers. To increase the trustworthiness of this research, multiple levels of
assurance were implemented.
This study utilized rich data, probing questions, post-interview follow-up, data saturation,
triangulation, interview transcript review, and reflexivity (Bowen, 2009; Korstjens & Moser,
2018). I collected rich data for purposes of formulating a theory inductively (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Additionally, the data gathering process was enhanced by asking probing questions of the
participants during the interview, or follow-up questions after the interview (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Furthermore, this study gathered data up to the point of saturation, when data became
cumulative, repetitive, and adequate for a robust and valid understanding of the research
phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Moreover, data was
gathered utilizing methodological triangulation and data triangulation (Korstjens & Moser,
2018). Methodological triangulation was used to gather data from in-depth interviews, follow-up
questions, and field notes; data triangulation was used with regards to raw data, concepts, and
theoretical models (Bowen, 2009; Korstjens & Moser, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally,
this research study relied upon multiple levels of transcript review: (a) the audio recording, (b)
the video recording, (c) the written transcript, and (d) the code book. Field notes were also
reviewed with the participant to make sure what was written in shorthand was properly recorded,
and participants were given the opportunity to add, amend, correct, or modify any answer they
provided. I reviewed all transcribed interviews and permitted each interviewee to review their
interview transcript for correctness, amendments, and clarifications.
Notwithstanding the above, I was cognizant of neutrality and personal reflexivity
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and maintained a neutral and unbiased demeanor as an interviewer so
the participant did not gain any personal belief belonging to the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell,

38
2016). Had any participant received or perceived information of my personal worldviews or
positionalities, they may have given answers contrary to what they would provide on their own
(Patton, 2015). Because this is a sanctioned study for the requirements of a Doctor of Education
degree through the University of Southern California, it is hereby classified as an exempt study;
thus, an Information Sheet for Exempt Research was utilized (Appendix C).
Ethics
According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), there are three principles for ethical research: (a)
respecting participants, (b) voluntary participation, and (c) a participant’s safe harbor. When
these principles are utilized, credible research does not serve as an extension of the morals,
values, virtues, and ethics of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). During this
research study, each participant was provided with an informed-consent form (Appendix C) that
enabled them to read and understand that their participation was entirely voluntary (Tracy,
2013). Notwithstanding the voluntariness of participation, each interviewee was informed that
they may terminate participation at any time. All participants’ demographic information was held
in the strictest of confidences and remained anonymous: information like names, ages, race,
gender, sex, and all other enumerated protected classes were not retained, maintained, or
disclosed. Additionally, no parts of any interview were disclosed to other participants. Finally,
no data was collected until after the Institutional Review Board provided approval for the
commencement of data collection.

39
Chapter Four: The Interview Findings
The goal of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations from the findings
and analysis to potentially encourage criminal defense attorneys to assist in the deterrence of
substance abuse for a client that may eventually contribute to alternative criminal justice reform.
This qualitative study examined how criminal defense attorneys can potentially assist a client in
the deterrence of substance abuse through the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship and eventually contribute to alternative criminal justice reform. A “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship is a relationship between an attorney and client that empowers a
client psychologically, educationally, economically, politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so,
provides a client with knowledge, resources, and skills that increase self-awareness, self-
confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt &
Sternlight, 2015). Alternative criminal justice reform is a professional, relationship-based
strategy utilized by criminal defense attorneys that potentially encourages a client to change their
deviant behaviors to become a productive law-abiding member of society, refraining from future
criminal behavior (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017). In this study, the following three research
questions were analyzed:
1. How do criminal defense attorneys establish what they perceive to be a “meaningful”
relationship with a client?
2. How do criminal defense attorneys perceive their influence on a client’s microsystem as
it relates to substance abuse?
3. What role, if any, do criminal defense attorneys believe a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship plays in advancing criminal justice reform?

40
This chapter is divided into four components: the participants and their demographic
information; research findings with emergent themes corresponding with the above-referenced
research questions; a summary of findings; and a conclusion. If applicable, tables are utilized to
assist the reader in visually understanding the data analysis. Before each table, a brief
introduction explains the contents of the table, and following each table, I provide a more in-
depth analysis of the participants’ interviews and my own summations of the data as ascertained
directly from the participants.
Participants
All criminal defense attorneys interviewed are licensed to practice law in the State of
Florida and are in good standing with The Florida Bar. The participants had no fewer than 6
years of law practice dedicated to criminal law and criminal procedure, and all the participants
had experiences with criminal justice reform initiatives. As depicted in Table 1, each
participant’s criminal law practice ranged from 6 years of experience up to 40 years of
experience. All participants currently practice criminal defense; however, five participants are
former prosecutors, three participants are former or current public defenders, and one participant
was previously a prosecutor and a public defender. Three participants are admitted to practice
law in another state. All participants self-identified as White, with eight participants self-
identifying as male and one participant self-identifying as female; and all participants have had
significant experiences with clients who have a substance abuse problem. The participant’s
demographics are representative of the geographic population that corresponds to the sample size
correlating to the geographic region. Table 1 represents the participant’s demographics as they
relate to this research study.

41
Table 1
The Participants’ Demographics (N = 9)

Alpha Beta Delta Epsilon Eta Gamma Kappa Theta Zeta
Florida attorney X X X X X X X X X
Years of
experience
11–15 26–30 31–35 16–20 21–25 11–15 36–40 21–25 6–10
Former prosecutor X X X X X X
Former/current
public defender
X X X X
Race White White White White White White White White White
Gender Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male
Licensed in
another state
X X X

Note. All demographic information verified through The Florida Bar and the participants.
An “X” symbolizes a unique demographic relating to the participants' experience.

Findings
This section outlines relevant findings and evidence ascertained through the interview
collection process and categorized according to the three research questions and underlying
themes. Research Question One relates to the establishment of a “meaningful” attorney client-
relationship; thus, two themes emerged: the participants’ perceptions regarding the importance of
attorney-client communication and the participants’ lack of understanding the purviews of a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship. Research Question Two relates to the participants’

42
influence over a client’s microsystem as it relates to substance abuse; thus, one theme emerged:
the participants’ lack of training on how lawyering can positively influence a client’s
microsystem curtailing substance abuse. Finally, Research Question Three relates to the
participants’ understanding of how a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship may be able to
advance criminal justice reform; thus, one theme emerged: the participants’ lack of
understanding the importance for advancing alternative criminal justice reform.
Research Question One: How Do Criminal Defense Attorneys Establish What They
Perceive to be a “Meaningful” Relationship with a Client?
There is a difference between a fiduciary attorney-client relationship and a “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship (Morris v. Slappy, 1983). A “meaningful” attorney-client relationship
is a relationship between an attorney and a client that could empower a client psychologically,
educationally, economically, politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so, provides a client with
knowledge, resources, and skills that increase self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-worth
(Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). These
“meaningful” relationships and subsequent benefits may help a client better control their life
choices, both in the present and in the future (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016;
Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). According to The Florida Bar (2021), Florida lawyers are only
required to uphold a fiduciary relationship with their client, but they are not required to establish
a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship.
All nine participants had a full understanding of the fiduciary requirements of the
attorney-client relationship as required by The Florida Bar (2021) entailing advocacy,
communication, confidentiality, honesty, loyalty, and trust. Because all participants understood
what encompasses a fiduciary attorney-client relationship, these fiduciary components will not

43
be focused on; the primary focus will be on the participants’ understanding, or lack thereof, of
what a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship entails. However, before the participants’
understanding of the confines of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship can be expounded
on, the participants’ perceptions of the importance of attorney-client communications will be
addressed. Although client communications are a fiduciary component to the attorney-client
relationship, it is important to ascertain the participants’ perceptions on whether or not
communication can hinder or promote a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship.
Theme One: The Participants’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of Attorney-Client
Communication
All of the participants said that client communication is vital to the development of a
good-working attorney-client relationship. Data revealed that all participants believed effective
communication is vital to developing a successful attorney-client relationship. For Example, Zeta
compared the attorney-client relationship to a marriage, in that, “Communication with a client is
like a marriage: it is the foundation to a relationship.” However, a lack of effective
communication with a client can be the root of destruction; thus, according to Epsilon,
[I] have seen experienced attorneys and clients get into a death struggle with one another
where nobody's listening to anybody anymore. It's over and that relationship is dead; it’s
just, they're not talking, or if they are, they’re really just sort of talking at each other
rather than to each other.
Regardless of good or bad communication with a client, Kappa indicated that, “Communication
is always hard because what a client perceives to be effective communication is not always
effective communication.” To assist in the communication gap, Eta stated that having “empathy,
compassion, and humility promotes effective communication with a client,” in that, he

44
“engage[s] in a therapeutic communication-based relationship with a client.” Additionally,
Gamma believed that, “Clients oftentimes just need someone to talk to, almost like a friendship
conversation, that a client just needs to know that someone cares and is listening, and because it
is the right thing to do.” Likewise, Eta indicated that it is an “essential part of the job to
communicate with a client outside of the legal parameters of the fiduciary relationship.”
Three participants discussed the way attorneys can demonstrate value for their client
through the way they communicate. According to one participant, sometimes attorneys just need
to be there for a client in times of need. For example, Delta indicated that he often communicates
to a client to stay away from people that tend to get into trouble by encouraging a client who,
[I]f you want to stay away from trouble, you stay away from those people. Don't have
anything to do with those folks, because they are promoting bad behavior on your part,
and if you keep it up, you're going to get in trouble again. So yes, I certainly do try to
promote pro social interactions through meaningful communication.
However, Alpha indicated that, “Clients often feel that they are not being treated like an
individual, that nobody cares about them, their case, or as a person.” Kappa provided some
reasons why a client might not feel valued by their criminal defense attorney:
You cannot always communicate with a client in times of their need; there may be
retainer fee issues outstanding, time constraints, or the attorney may not have the desire
to speak to the client, or that the attorney is not trained to handle difficult communication
situations.
Two participants discussed the need for attorneys to have better training in communication skills.
To help minimize the communication gap between the attorney and the client, Beta indicated that
attorneys “are educated folks; we have to be aware that we are supposed to be trained in how to

45
communicate by having the skills to be persuasive.” Corresponding with Beta, Epsilon states
that, “Lawyers need to communicate better and need more training in how to do it; we are
supposed to be trained professionals. Effective communication starts with the attorney.” If Beta
and Epsilon are correct that criminal defense attorneys need more training in communication
skills, perhaps the participants’ understanding of the importance of effective communication may
hinder the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship; thus, the second emergent
theme established from the data pertains to the participants’ lack of understanding regarding the
importance of communication relating to the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship.
Theme Two: The Participants’ Lack of Understanding the Purviews of a “Meaningful”
Attorney-Client Relationship
All nine participants understood what entails a fiduciary attorney-client relationship, but
seven participants (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma, Kappa, Theta) had little to no
knowledge of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. A “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship is a relationship between an attorney and client that could empower a client
psychologically, educationally, economically, politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so,
provides a client with knowledge, resources, and skills that increase self-awareness, self-
confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt &
Sternlight, 2015). Only two participants (Eta and Zeta) had a more in-depth understanding of the
“meaningful” concept. Because seven participants did not know what a “meaningful” attorney-
client relationship entails or had a limited understanding thereof, only what these seven
participants referenced regarding the protocol question of “Do you know what a “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship is, and if so, what is it?” will be discussed. Table 2 cites what these

46
seven participants stated regarding their lack of understanding on the purviews of a “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship.

Table 2
The Participants’ Lack of or Limited Knowledge Regarding the Purviews of a “Meaningful”
Attorney-Client Relationship
Participants’
understanding
Quotation
No understanding
(Gamma)
A meaningful attorney-client relationship is one where the attorney
helps the client, and the client pays his bill. The clients don't really
listen to you and they just want to vent. Frankly, listening to them a
lot of times has nothing to do with the case and it does not matter.
No understanding
(Kappa)
I think a meaningful attorney-client relationship is one in which the
attorney and client communicate with each other about the case at
hand. You know, sometimes the attorney’s version of good
communication is not the client’s perception of good
communication.
No understanding
(Theta)
I don’t think any lawyer could have a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship with a client. No lawyer can change a client’s
behavior. That’s especially when it comes to substance abuse; that
requires far more of a personal relationship or a therapeutic
relationship that I don’t—attorneys can’t provide, nor do I think
they should provide it.
Limited
understanding
(Alpha)
I would think it would be a relationship wherein the client feels
comfortable to share information that they would otherwise not
share; the client feels confident knowing their information will be
held confidential, or a relationship in which the client refers other
individuals to you that they may know may have legal needs.

47
Participants’
understanding
Quotation
Limited
understanding
(Beta)
To me it's—it is a cooperative, honest, partner-type relationship. In
other words, you're both working for the same goal, and you're
being honest and truthful with one another.
Limited
understanding
(Delta)
Well, I guess an attorney-client relationship would include any kind
of an interaction between an attorney and a client. To make that
meaningful, the attorney ought to have some understanding of
what's going on. So, I would think an attorney—a meaningful
attorney-client relationship would involve gathering much more
information than simply an attorney-client relationship.
Limited
understanding
(Epsilon)
Well, I think it's where you have enough communication between the
parties, where the attorney and client—where you can sort of attain
the objectives that you set for yourself, whether that's in a criminal
case to negotiate the best possible settlement to the case to prepare
for trial to obtain an acquittal.

Three participants failed to understand what entails a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship. Analyzing the three participants (Gamma, Kappa, Theta) who had no understanding
of the concept of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, Gamma believed that the attorney
was in control and the relationship can be affected by the client’s financial obligations
outstanding to the attorney; Kappa indicated that the attorney and client may perceive
communication differently and it depends on the client’s ability to be forthright with the
attorney; and Theta believes that an attorney is not capable of providing a “meaningful”
relationship to a client, nor should the attorney do so. Theta’s statement that criminal defense
attorneys are not capable and should not provide a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship is
the most troubling, in that it surmises that he is either not trained on the importance of this kind

48
of relationship with a client, does not believe that relationship building can be a positive
influencing factor on a client, or even that the attorney is not concerned about the overall well-
being of a client (Daicoff, 2014; Heavin & Keet, 2021).
Turning to the four attorney participants who had a limited understanding of a
“meaningful” relationship (Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Epsilon), they perceive that a collaborative or
cooperative approach to lawyering within the realms of the fiduciary relationship can possibly
lead to a “meaningful” relationship. Despite all the years of experience that these participating
attorneys have in representing criminal defendants and their belief that communication is the
mechanism to a successful attorney-client relationship, they did not have a strong understanding
or knowledge of what a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship embraces. This lack of
understanding may indicate that criminal defense attorneys need to self-reflect on why they are a
criminal defense attorney, and it corresponds with what Eta stated, that having “empathy,
compassion, and humility promotes effective communication with a client.” The need for more
empathy, compassion, and humility may require the attorney to self-reflect on their practice of
law received by effective training, and on how the attorney can positively influence a client’s
microsystem.
Although the participants were not directly asked a protocol question regarding the
necessities for more training, it became apparent that training became an important issue to
address. Despite seven participants having little to no knowledge of the concept of a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship, the deficiency in understanding this kind of
relationship may be caused by the lack of training or education in client relations. Because seven
of the nine participants failed to grasp the purviews of a “meaningful” relationship, it became
apparent that criminal defense attorneys cannot establish what they do not know may exist. In

49
analyzing the data, criminal defense attorneys may first need to learn about and be trained on the
purviews of the importance of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. Considering that
seven out of nine participants did not understand the importance of developing a “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship, and despite the fact that these same seven participants believed that
communication is vital to a successful attorney-client relationship, criminal defense attorneys
may need more training on understanding client communication and client relations.
Research Question Two: How Do Criminal Defense Attorneys Perceive Their Influence
on a Client’s Microsystem as it Relates to Substance Abuse?
As referenced in the literature review of Chapter Two, substance abuse may cause crime,
or crime may cause substance abuse; either way, there is a corresponding relationship between
the two components (Beccaria et al., 2020). All the participants concurred with Beccaria et al.
(2020) that substance abuse is a major contributing factor linked to criminal behavior. In order to
understand if criminal defense attorneys perceive their potential influence on a client’s
microsystem as it relates to substance abuse, the percentage of clients the participants believe
have a substance abuse problem or are arrested because of substance abuse must be examined.
Table 3 depicts the participants’ perceived percentage of clients who have a substance abuse
problem. When the participants were asked the protocol question, “[W]hat percentage of clients,
if any, do you believe have a substance abuse problem?” their responses ranged from between
50% to 90% of clients having a substance abuse problem, with a mean reported average of 69%
of clients having a substance abuse problem.

50
Table 3
The Participants’ Estimation of Clients Who Have a Substance Abuse Problem (N = 9)
_____________________________________________________________________________

Participant
______________________________________________________________________________

Likewise, Table 4 depicts the participants’ perceived percentage of clients whose
underlying arrest is linked to substance abuse. When the participants were asked the protocol
question, “[W]hat percentage of clients, if any, who have been arrested, do you believe their
arrest is linked to substance abuse?” their responses ranged from between 50% to 90% of
arrested clients having a corresponding link to substance abuse, with a mean reported average of
71%.

51
Table 4
The Participants’ Estimation of Clients Whose Arrest is Linked to Substance Abuse (N = 9)
_____________________________________________________________________________

Participant
_____________________________________________________________________________

Four of the nine participants believed that they could positively influence the client’s
microsystem. Notwithstanding, all participants agreed that substance abuse is a major
contributing factor to criminal behavior, and all participants agreed that most criminal activity is
somehow drug related. All of the participants also identified that substance abuse is a serious
societal problem and that substance abuse fuels criminal behavior and overwhelms the criminal
justice system. For example, Gamma stated,

52
I think that clients only think about the next 30 seconds instead of the next 30 days. I
mean, not to be too disrespectful, but, you know, when people are hooked on drugs, that's
all they think about because, in their brain, getting that drug is like me getting water if I'm
dying of thirst. I think that they think that they just need to get high and the problem will
eventually go away, and they'll worry about whatever happens in the future.
Alpha stated that more needs to be done by criminal defense attorneys to assist their client in
order to have a positive impact on a client’s future behavior. When asked the protocol question,
“[W]hy, if at all, is it important for you to understand why a client has a substance abuse
problem?” Alpha indicated that, in order to have a positive influence over a client, the attorney
needs to understand the client’s social background:
If somebody has been at it [substance abuse] for a very long time, if that is what they
grew up around, that is what they believe to be normal. They have kind of become
desensitized to it; they probably do not have a very high opinion of themselves. Perhaps
they do not know how to get out of it. They obviously do not have support at home if
they were to go into recovery, so I definitely think that it is important to find out what the
family dynamic is, what kind of friends this person has, and whether they would be
conducive to recovery.
Likewise, Gamma indicated that, “There is always one person in the family that enables them to
be a drug addict, and that, regardless of what socio-economic status a client enjoys, there is
usually someone that has always taken care of the problem for them.” Similarly, Theta stated
that, “Many of the issues that we deal with in criminal law have to do with family issues: where
they are being tugged at by responsibilities to both children, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends,
fathers, and mothers.” Additionally, Beta believed that he can positively impact a client’s future

53
behavior “if I am able to find out the root of the problem, but that entails effective
communication.” It appears the above referenced participants have a perception that fixing the
problem is vital in assisting a client to modify their behavior; however, Gamma, Kappa, and Zeta
all indicated that criminal defense attorneys are supposed to “solve the problem, not fix the
problem.” Either way, it appears that, in order to have a positive influence on a client, criminal
defense attorneys need to have better communication and develop a clear understanding on
furthering client-centered initiatives.
Theme Three: The Participants’ Lack of Training on How Lawyering Can Positively
Influence a Client’s Microsystem to Curtail Substance Abuse
The participants believed that there is a lack of client-centered initiative training. Client-
centered initiatives require attorneys to communicate, hear, listen, and understand the “unspoken
dialogue” of a client’s emotional state, whether socially, psychologically, or economically
(Heavin & Keet, 2021, p. 202). According to Heavin and Keet (2021), the high level of
intelligence needed to understand a client’s mental state relates to a lawyer’s ability to have the
competencies of “persuading, influencing, and communicating” (p. 202). However, as referenced
above under Research Question One, some participants believe that more training is needed on
how to communicate with clients, and because of the deficient training on client relations,
positively influencing a client’s microsystem may be a challenge. According to Heavin and Keet
(2021), if a criminal defense attorney is able to master the skills of advancing client-centered
initiatives, the attorney may have superior capabilities over their colleagues in client relations.
From analyzing the data, criminal defense attorneys need to be cognizant that substance-
abusing clients may be in need of help, not because they have legal complications, but because of
the emotional impacts of anger, confusion, frustration, loneliness, or sadness caused by substance

54
abuse; such that, the attorney needs to be aware of these emotional and triggering influencers
adversely affecting the client’s ability to perceive reality (Heavin & Keet, 2021). According to
Eta, “I sometimes consider myself a hard-times psychologist; I have to understand the client’s
psychological state.” When Eta was asked the question, “What would you do, if anything, to
improve your relationship with a client?” he responded,
Why aren't we thinking outside the box to figure out what we can do to stop the jail to
prison pipeline? Why aren't we thinking of ways to heal our people and make sure they
come out of school with an education and not a criminal record? Make sure the people
who are in crisis don't sit in a jail cell; they go get real treatment and become a productive
member of society.
Understanding a client’s psychological identities may be important for criminal defense
attorneys to understand. Theta indicated that understanding a client’s emotional state is important
to know because, “Substance-abusing clients generally have very low self-esteem and they need
to feel empowered. Criminal defense attorneys can be that positive influence if only we all know
how to do it.” Corresponding with Theta, Epsilon provided an example of a client that he
emotionally attached himself to because the client was needing desperate help:
I had a kid, he was a guy in his 20s. I guess this was years ago, and when we were still
visiting people in jail, I used to go over there in the evening and talk to him, and he had
all kinds of tattoos, you know, and he was very smart. About 2 years later, he came into
the office with his mother, and he was in the process of having these tattoos on his hands
removed; he had gone to school, and the two of them wanted me to see that he had made
a lot of progress. I think I had gotten to him emotionally. But at any rate, he was turning

55
things around; it was a very gratifying moment that made me feel good, like I had made a
little bit of a difference to help this kid to get his life on track.
Unbeknownst, Delta expounded upon Epsilon’s example by stating that criminal defense
attorneys should be taking their role more seriously:
It’s our role as lawyers. I mean, that’s part of your role; it isn’t just to work on the
mechanics of, you know, being up to date on the rules of evidence of the criminal
procedure. And all that's important. You need to be able to do that, but you also need to
give people the benefit of your counsel. I mean, if you’re a person who’s been around a
little bit or you have some experience that’s valuable to share with somebody that would
help them, you should do that. That’s—I don’t think you should do it. I think you’re
almost required to do it. I’m surprised that some people don't take it as seriously as they
should.
The data revealed that Delta, Epsilon, Eta, and Theta believe the importance of understanding a
client’s psychological state is vital to learning about a client’s emotional attributes; however,
other participants did not have the same perception. Kappa indicated that, “Your relationship
with a client, depending on the case, can be very short-lived, and because of this, attorneys are
inhibited from fully engaging with a client.” Gamma, a less experienced attorney than Delta,
Epsilon, Eta, and Theta stated that he has not been equipped with the mechanics on how to deal
with clients:
The Florida Bar needs to have some CLEs [Continuing Legal Education] based on the
psychology of the group, I think, and of criminality and of addicts. The more you
understand the people you deal with, the better you'll be at dealing with them.
Furthering Gamma’s above statement, he also stated:

56
We have seen experienced attorneys and clients get into a death struggle with one another
where nobody's listening to anybody anymore. It's over and that relationship is dead; it’s
just, they're not talking, or if they are, they’re really just sort of talking at each other
rather than to each other. Lawyers need the training on how to develop effective
communication skills that can influence and empower a client.
Necessitating the need for more training, Beta indicated that, “Clients make irrational decisions
in a highly emotional state of mind” and because of a client’s decision-making process, criminal
defense attorneys need to understand the client’s emotional stages:
It's a question that I think I struggle with, and my whole office struggles with just about
every day. You know, I think there's a lack of education; I think there's a lack of IQ; I
think there's mental illness; I think there's substance abuse; I think there's paranoia and
distrust. And I think all those factors, and anger, they all work in mysterious ways,
sometimes in combination. I don't think people think about going to prison when they're
in the throes of illness or abuse or anger or stupidity. I honestly don't think they think
about the consequences. But we as a profession need to do more to help our clients; we
need to learn how to help them in these dire needs.
The need for adequate client-centered initiative training may be institutional to empowering a
client. For example, Epsilon indicated that, “Most criminal defense attorneys don’t take their
client relationship seriously or lack the interpersonal skills necessary to be effective and need to
be more aware of how their client’s well-being is affected.” When asked the question on how to
improve client relations, Delta indicated that, “I don't think I've ever seen an organization
addressing client-centered relationships. Well, that's certainly something that can be trained, but
I've certainly never seen any effort made by The Florida Bar in giving that type of training.” It

57
appears from analyzing the data that the participants agree that more training is needed to assist
them in advancing a client’s microsystem, all in effort of promoting a client’s psychological
well-being. However, Gamma indicated that, “Considering that some criminal defense attorneys
don’t know how to be a positive role model to a client, or because adequate training has not been
provided, attorneys may be failing the profession.” Corresponding with Gamma, Eta stated:
Criminal defense attorneys have the capability of assisting these clients, and far too often
we fail as a profession. We fail because we don’t have the proper training, knowledge,
skills, or compassion to really want to make a difference. We fail because we wait for the
change to happen. Instead, we should be the ones who are the influencers to make the
change happen.
Criminal defense attorneys are capable of developing a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship. Corresponding with Eta and Gamma, Epsilon provided an example of one client
who had been sitting in the county jail for quite some time. During this incarceration period,
Epsilon would routinely visit this client and have discussions completely unrelated to the legal
representation. After being released from the county jail and after being released from prison,
nearly 10 years later, the client visited Epsilon and explained how his life had changed. The
client told Epsilon that their efforts, their genuine concern for the client and his well-being, their
humanizing the attorney's role, and their being there for him in tough times made Epsilon a role
model that the client aspired to be. Although the client never went on to be an attorney, he
became substance free, got married, had children, and was now a multi-millionaire. The client
explained to Epsilon that, because of the efforts Epsilon made and the relationship that was
developed, the client became a productive member of society and “thanked him.” It is this type
of commitment, as demonstrated by Epsilon, that criminal defense attorneys have the capabilities

58
of positively influencing a client’s microsystem as it relates to substance abuse. Coinciding with
Epsilon, Delta stated that, “We are educated professionals; we should be utilizing our
knowledge, skills, and personal experiences as influencing factors to pass on to a disadvantaged
client, but first, we have to figure out who we are as a profession.” In analyzing the data, a
potential recommendation that has formulated is the need for criminal defense attorneys to self-
reflect on their practice of law, and that proper training be established that assists an attorney on
how to be a positive role model for a client that may end up influencing a client’s microsystem.
Research Question Three: What Role, if Any, Do Criminal Defense Attorneys Believe a
“Meaningful” Attorney-Client Relationship Plays in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform?
Research presented in Chapter 2 indicated that for decades, legislation, rules, or
administrative orders have attempted to propagate criminal justice reform by implementing
sentencing reform and specialty courts (i.e., drug courts, mental-health courts), but far too often,
these initiatives have failed. Alternative criminal justice reform is a professional relationship-
based strategy utilized by criminal defense attorneys that potentially encourages a client to
change their deviant behaviors to become a productive, law-abiding member of society and
refrain from future criminal behavior (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017). Notwithstanding that
thousands of dollars can potentially be saved annually through the imposition of prison reform
(Florida Department of Corrections, 2021), the participants all understood that there is a need for
systemic change in the criminal justice system that goes far beyond punitive transformation.
However, all of the participants perceive that criminal justice reform initiatives have failed to
overhaul the criminal justice system because too many legislators, bureaucracies, governmental
agencies, or societal perceptions have stood in the way. According to all of the participants,
criminal justice reform isn’t always about sentencing, punitive measures, and incarceration;

59
rather, it is also about deterrence, prevention, and personal reform. Literature from Chapter Two
has revealed that, when representing a criminal defendant, a criminal defense attorney has an
opportunity to be a “change agent” for their client and their profession (Wexler, 2005, p. 747);
thus, potentially opening the door for alternative criminal justice reform.
Theme Four: The Participants’ Lack of Understanding the Importance for Advancing
Alternative Criminal Justice Reform
Alternative criminal justice reform is a professional development strategy utilized by
criminal defense attorneys that empowers a client psychologically, educationally, economically,
politically, or socially by encouraging a client to change their deviant behaviors and become a
productive, law-abiding member of society, refraining from future criminal behavior (Westfahl
& Wilkins, 2017). Of the nine participants, only two believed that they can assist the criminal
justice system with alternative criminal justice reform. These two participants have demonstrated
the ability to assist clients in times of need and appear to understand the importance of advancing
alternative criminal reform.
Eta and Zeta recognized that they have the ability to provide alternative criminal justice
reform. For example, Eta indicated:
We see people in the most-dire straits. We see people who are on the edge of mental
illness and alcoholism and substance abuse and all sorts of problems. And if I can—if I
can have a relationship where I prop them up and congratulate them for a certain number
of days sober, or I can tell that they're more fit and eyes are wider because they're off
drugs when I see them, or they've been working a job for a few years and they've moved
up to manager. If I can prop them up and tell them, great, good for you; you're doing

60
well, doesn't that make them a better person and citizen and more able to deal with the
criminal justice system and possibly entail alternative forms of change.
Likewise, Zeta indicated that alternative criminal justice reform entails compassion and empathy:
You are humanized. I certainly give clients different advice based on their life stations
and it's not legal advice, it’s more geared upon where they are in life and what they do.
I'm always happy and frequently do share my own experiences with those types of clients
to sort of steer them in a course of action. I encourage them outside of, you know, their
legal problems. A lot of times, I'm trying to teach them how they can go apply for
community college, or how to go talk to a recruiter to go into the military. I’ll talk to
them about my experiences with college, or with law school, and different experiences. I
kind of relay my own experiences and how it can help them.
Notwithstanding what Eta and Zeta stated regarding alternative criminal justice reform, the
remaining seven participants believe criminal justice reform has taken on several interpretations,
but the participants believe that the system is not ready for the needed change, or that there is an
inability to do so. When asked the interview protocol question of, “[W]hat does criminal justice
reform mean to you?” and the interview protocol question, “[W]hat do you currently do, if
anything, to assist the criminal justice system with reform initiatives?” the remaining seven
participants relayed the following responses in Table 5.

61
Table 5
The Participants’ Inability to Comprehend Alternative Criminal Justice Reform
Participant Quotation
Alpha Unfortunately, in the current criminal justice system, people are being
warehoused more than they're being helped, and the prison systems
are out of control. Punishment is essentially destroying their well-
being, their mental health, whatever the case may be. It certainly
doesn’t assist clients with a substance abuse problem. The system is
not set up to help people; it is only set up to strip them down. There
has to be a way to help these folks, a real change, but I don’t know
how to fix the problem.

Beta The first thing that criminal justice reform needs to do is create more
fairness amongst charges. The second thing that I think criminal
justice reform should do is eliminate or vastly reduce minimum
mandatory penalties because the tool is abused constantly by
prosecutors; and lastly, I think criminal justice reform should
address the unique problem that we have with substance abuse and
mental health. The law does not address those issues well, but how
we do it is the magic question.

Delta The most important thing we can do is point out the injustices. We
have an opportunity to exploit inequalities, but there is not much
that a criminal defense attorney can do except for bringing it out to
the public’s attention.
Epsilon I do not think you should ever give up the hope that you can make
change and I don't think you should ever give up on people. I am
certainly trying to get people out of the system, I just do not know
how to do it.
Gamma Society does not want to be soft on crime. Any reform in the criminal
justice system is very expensive, and society does not want to spend
the extra money helping criminals. Any reform initiatives will take
societal approval.
Kappa

If I knew how to fix the problem, I would try. But I do not know how,
or have suggestions on how, so I do not attempt it.

62

Participant Quotation

Theta Reforming a client is outside the professional scope of a criminal
defense attorney. We are not here to fix their life problems. No
relationship with a client can change their behavior.

The above responses from five of the seven participants reveal that criminal defense
attorneys are waiting for the change to happen instead of being the change agent to alleviate
harmful and inequitable injustices. It is unclear whether these criminal defense attorneys refuse
to acknowledge that they can contribute to reform or just do not know how to go about
advancing reform; however, it may be a combination of both factors.
Three participants were skeptical that criminal justice reform can work; at least at the
organizational, legislative, or bureaucratic level. Kappa indicated that, “Our judicial system has
been more tailored towards incarceration instead of rehabilitation.” Kappa went on to state:
Although efforts are being made to advance criminal justice reform, we are failing at
criminal justice reform. I think this is a societal problem and a legislative problem and a
governmental problem. And it all comes down to common sense. You know, the drug
problem is pervasive here, and it’s pervasive because the policies don't make sense.
Punishment is not working for people that have substance abuse issues. The Florida Bar
needs to do more.
Kappa went on to state that, “Our current system doesn’t seem to be working as efficiently as it
should. We need to make change, treat people the way they need to be treated, and hope that our
system will get better, but the magic question is how to do it.” However, Delta was even more

63
skeptical than Kappa, saying that, “Criminal justice reform probably won’t work, but bringing it
to the public’s attention is vital.” Agreeing with Delta and Kappa, Gamma stated,:
Criminal justice reform is a nice talking point that people talk about, but it never
really has any meaning to it. I mean, I find that the Florida Bar is only worried about their
own reputation rather than the reality of what is really going on. They spend all their time
just trying to make everything look nicer than actually fixing issues. The Bar is not
helping the profession in fixing the problem; they are not helping us fix the problem.
Although state and federal bureaucracies may enact criminal justice reform initiatives to ease
carceral punishments for substance abuse, crime remains a rampant societal problem and
financial strain on society (Henderson, 2019, Office of the National Drug Control Policy, 2013).
Due to the failures of legislatively mandated criminal justice reform relating to substance abuse,
alternative criminal justice reform must be evaluated (Henderson, 2019; Office of National Drug
Control Policy, 2013). By concentrating on only the long-term effects of substance abuse
suppression, an organization misses an opportunity to positively impact criminal behavior caused
by substance abuse in the short-term. Thus, due to the immediacy of their involvement, criminal
defense attorneys may have a rare advantage: the ability to both curtail the problem in the short-
term and potentially reform the criminal justice system in the long-term (Daicoff, 1997). As a
result, a criminal defense attorney may be able to systemically advance alternative criminal
justice reform by merely establishing a “meaningful” relationship with a client (Daicoff, 1997).
Summarization of Findings
As referenced in Chapter Two, research from Boccaccino and Brodsky (2001) found that
clients felt they could have had a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship with their criminal
defense attorney if their lawyer exhibited better lawyering and communication skills and better

64
interpersonal relationship skills. Even though we are two decades removed from the Boccaccino
and Brodsky (2001) research, the problem still exists; thus, if a criminal defense attorney can
strengthen their lawyering skills, their communication skills, and their relationship skills, perhaps
the relationship with their client may impact American jurisprudence that propagates alternative
criminal justice reform. However, criminal defense lawyers would have to change the way they
practice law and become a “change agent” (Wexler, 2005, p. 747). In order to become a “change
agent” (Wexler, 2005, p. 747) and develop a “meaningful” relationship with a client that lends
support for alternative criminal justice reform, a criminal defense attorney needs to be aware of
what entails a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, how they can influence a client’s
behavior, and how they can actively participate in reform. Table 6 supports the necessity for
addressing these problems by summarizing the participant’s statements.

65
Table 6
The Need for Self-Reflection, Client-Centered Initiatives, and Training

Component Key Quote (Theme)
Self-reflection “Empathy, compassion, and humility promotes effective
communication with a client. We need to be humanized.” Eta
(Theme 1)

Self-reflection “If I knew how to fix the problem, I would try. But I do not know
how, or have suggestions on how, so I do not attempt it.” Beta
(Theme 2)

Client-centered
initiatives

“We fail because we wait for the change to happen; instead, we should
be the ones who are the influencers to make the change happen for
a client and the criminal justice system.” Eta (Theme 3)
Client-centered
initiatives
“No criminal defense attorney can change a client’s behavior. Their
problem is their problem; it is not my problem. We are here to solve
the problem for a client, not fix the problem for them.” Theta
(Theme 2)

Training “We fail at advising clients because we don’t have the proper training,
knowledge, skills, or compassion to really want to make a
difference.” Eta (Theme 3)
Training “It all comes down to common sense. We need more training on client
relationship building and client development.” Gamma (Theme 3)
All three
components
“The profession is failing clients and the criminal justice system. More
needs to be done, but the ability to do so is lacking because of
inadequate training.” Epsilon (Theme 3)
All three
components
“The Florida Bar does not assist the criminal defense attorney in
developing better lawyer skills, communication skills, or people
skills.” Delta (Theme 3)

66
Data analysis from this study is reminiscent of the 1991 Gatorade “Be Like Mike”
advertising campaign. Referencing Michael Jordan, Gatorade makes the premise in 1991 that
Michael Jordan was arguably the greatest basketball player of all time. In this particular
commercial for Gatorade, fans were encouraged that, “[s]ometimes, I dream that he is me.
You’ve got to see that’s how I dream to be. I dream I move, I dream I groove, like Mike. If I
could be like Mike.” If only criminal defense attorneys worked as hard as Michael Jordan and
realized that hard work, dedication, and training can lead to successful alternative criminal
justice reform, then perhaps the perceptions from the participants in this study could be different.
Conclusion
Crime is a behavioral, economic, and social problem (Leipold, 2019). The United States
has less than 5% of the world’s population but houses nearly 25% of all inmates world-wide
(Drug Policy Alliance, 2018; Leipold, 2019). The burden of crime exceeds $1 trillion
($1,000,000,000) annually in the United States (Anderson, 1999) and nearly 12 million people
are arrested every year, with almost 2.5 million people currently incarcerated (Lurigio, 2016).
According to Carson (2020), 46% of all federal inmates by year end in 2019 were incarcerated
for a drug-related crime (99% of those for drug trafficking); and according to Bronson and
Stroop (2017), nearly 60% of state inmates were incarcerated for a drug-related crime, and nearly
80% of all crimes committed lead to incarceration (Skywood Recovery, 2020). According to
Appendix A, if a criminal defense attorney is able to effectively promote alternative criminal
justice reform by the establishment of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, there is the
possibility that the State of Florida could save approximately $68,000 per inmate over a 55-
month period and nearly $158,000 per inmate over a 10-year period. All of the above referenced
statistics and percentages elevate the importance for alternative criminal justice reform to

67
potentially alleviate the burdens high incarceration rates put on a client and on society. If
legislative or bureaucratic initiatives have not been able to curtail the systemic problem, then
perhaps the criminal defense attorney could become a leading innovator and “change agent” for
alternative criminal justice reform.

68
Chapter Five: Recommendations
This last section summarizes the findings as outlined in Chapter Four, the
Recommendations for Practice containing four recommendations for change, an Integrated
Recommendation, the Limitations and Delimitations, Recommendations for Future Research,
and a Conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
Throughout the process of collecting data and evaluating evidence, themes emerged that
in ways were consistent with literature from Chapter Two and in other ways were inconsistent.
When representing a criminal defendant, a criminal defense attorney has an ability to be a
“change agent” for their client, their profession, or for the criminal justice system (Wexler, 2005,
p. 747). These potential change agents may want to be cognizant of their client’s substance abuse
problem, socialization to group norms, and/or cost-benefit analysis of criminal behavior when
fully representing a client. However, previous literature has essentially ignored the fundamental
purview of fostering a productive and “meaningful” attorney-client relationship (Boccaccino &
Brodsky, 2002). A “meaningful” attorney-client relationship is a relationship between an
attorney and client that could empower a client psychologically, educationally, economically,
politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so, provides a client with knowledge, resources, and
skills that increase self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014;
Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). Clark (2001) posited that the lion’s share of
change will come from clients themselves, but change can be effectuated by the criminal defense
attorney who acts as an agent that nourishes a client’s internal confidences and social support
components for their client.

69
According to both Wexler (2005) and Clark (2001), major changes in a client’s behavior
derive from attributes that are positively reinforced by the “change agent” (Wexler, 2005, p. 747)
instilling empathy, acceptance, encouragement, and empowerment of the client’s ecological
human development system. In order to advance a client’s ecological human development, this
study evaluated the connection between the criminal defense attorney’s role within the confines
of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Human Development Model (BEM) and a substance-abusing
client. As previously displayed in Chapter Two, Figure 1 captures the relationship of the criminal
defense attorney and the client within the BEM, in that, the criminal defense attorney can be an
influential factor within the client’s microsystem. Once data analysis was completed, Figure 1
was able to be expanded to provide more in-depth analysis of the client’s microsystem and
macrosystem. The expansion of Figure 1 may be able to demonstrate how a criminal defense
attorney can influence a client’s human development via a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship; thus, the creation of Figure 2 was adapted.

70
Figure 2
An Attorney’s Ability to Positively Influence a Client’s Microsystem
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from “Lawyer, Form Thyself: Professional Identity Formation Strategies in Legal
Education Through Soft Skills Training, Ethics, and Experiential Courses,” by S. Daicoff, 2014,
Regent University Law Review, 27(2), 3 and “Professional Identity Formation, Leadership and
Exploration of Self,” by M. Fitzpatrick & R. Queenan, 2021, UMKC Law Review, 89(3), 539–
558.

71

Participants revealed that communication is vital to the promulgation of an effective
attorney-client relationship. For example, Eta indicated that a criminal defense attorney’s ability
to have “empathy, compassion, and humility” can lead to effective communication and
potentially a “meaningful” relationship. Likewise, Zeta indicated that criminal defense attorneys
need to “become humanized.” Aligning with Boccaccino and Brodsky’s (2001) study and
Daicoff’s (1997) empirical review, as more detailed in Chapter Two, criminal defense attorneys
need to break the stigma that they lack people skills, morals, and values. The statements made by
Eta and Zeta indicate that at least some criminal defense attorneys understand the need to have
empathy, compassion, and humility, and to certainly humanize themselves for the betterment of
the client; thus, these components relate to the attorney’s ability to engage in self-reflection and
awareness. Additionally, criminal defense attorneys’ intrapersonal-management competencies
within Figure 2 relate to their ability to stay focused on client-centered initiatives (Daicoff, 2014;
Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021). For example, Beta stated that, “We as a profession need to do
more to help our clients; we need to learn how to help them in these dire needs.” Likewise, Theta
indicated that understanding a client’s emotional state is important to know because, “Substance-
abusing clients generally have very low self-esteem, and they need to feel empowered. Criminal
defense attorneys can be that positive influence, if only we all know how to do it.” Both Beta and
Theta understand that client-centered counseling is vital to positively influencing a client’s
microsystem. If a criminal defense attorney can positively influence a client’s microsystem, then
perhaps the impact can lead to alternative criminal justice reform contained within the
macrosystem.

72
Alternative criminal justice reform is a professional development strategy utilized by
criminal defense attorneys that empowers a client psychologically, educationally, economically,
politically, or socially by encouraging a client to change their deviant behaviors and become a
productive, law-abiding member of society, refraining from future criminal behavior (Westfahl
& Wilkins, 2017). Referencing interpersonal awareness of human behavior contained within
Figure 2, and as previously discussed in Chapter Two, criminal defense attorneys need to be
cognizant of their client’s socialization to group norms and behavioral choices (Daicoff, 2014;
Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021). For example, Alpha indicated that in order to have a positive
influence over a client’s behavior, the attorney needs to understand the client’s social
background:
If somebody has been at it [substance abuse] for a very long time, if that is what they
grew up around, that is what they believe to be normal. They have kind of become
desensitized to it; they probably do not have a very high opinion of themselves. Perhaps
they do not know how to get out of it. They obviously do not have support at home if
they were to go into recovery, so I definitely think that it is important to find out what the
family dynamic is, what kind of friends this person has, and whether they would be
conducive to recovery.
Likewise, Gamma indicated that, “There's always one person in the family that enables them to
be a drug addict, and that, regardless of what socio-economic status a client enjoys, there is
usually someone that has always taken care of the problem for them.” Similarly, Theta stated
that, “Many of the issues that we deal with in criminal law have to do with family issues.”
Additionally, Beta believed that he can positively impact a client’s future behavior, “If I am able
to find out the root of the problem.” However, It appears the above referenced participants have a

73
perception that fixing the problem is vital in assisting a client to modify their behavior; however,
Gamma, Kappa, and Zeta all indicated that criminal defense attorneys are supposed to “solve the
problem, not fix the problem.” If a criminal defense attorney is unable to comprehend how to fix
a problem, then perhaps their competencies regarding alternative solutions are impaired.
Referencing Figure 2 and the interpersonal management competencies relates to a
criminal defense attorney’s ability to have effective long-term relationship skills and mentoring
skills (Daicoff, 2014; Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021). If a criminal defense attorney is able to
establish a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship and become a mentor to a client, then
perhaps alternative criminal justice reform can be perfected. However, proper training may need
to be implemented for success; thus, Kappa stated that “The Florida Bar needs to do more to
assist us with proper training.” Similarly, Gamma mentioned that,
The Florida Bar is only worried about their own reputation rather than the reality of what
is really going on. They spend all their time just trying to make everything look nicer
than actually fixing issues. The Bar is not helping the profession in fixing the problem;
they are not helping us fix the problem.
When asked the question on how to improve client relations, Delta indicated that, “I don't think
I've ever seen an organization addressing client-centered relationships. Well, that's certainly
something that can be trained, but I've certainly never seen any effort made by The Florida Bar in
giving that type of training.” It appears from analyzing the data that the participants agree that
more training is needed to assist them in advancing a client’s overall well-being. However,
Gamma indicated that, “Considering that some criminal defense attorneys do not know how to
be a positive role model to a client, or because adequate training has not been provided, attorneys
may be failing the profession.” Corresponding with Delta, Gamma, and Kappa, Eta indicated

74
that, “[c]riminal defense attorneys have the capability, but far too often we fail as a profession.
We fail because we don’t have the proper training, knowledge, skills, or compassion to really
want to make a difference.” To help minimize the relationship gap between a criminal defense
attorney and their client, Beta indicated that, “Attorneys are educated folks; we have to be aware
that we are supposed to be trained in how to communicate by having the skills to be persuasive.”
Epsilon perhaps stated it best by indicating that, “[l]awyers need more training. We are supposed
to be trained professionals.”
Data analysis revealed that criminal defense attorneys believe that communication is vital
to the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. However, seven of the nine
participants (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma, Kappa, Theta) did not understand or had very
limited knowledge of the purviews regarding a “meaningful” relationship with a client. Because
seven participants failed to understand what entails a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, it
became clear that the lack of understanding this component was prohibiting their ability to
positively influence a client’s microsystem within the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Human
Development Model displayed in Chapter Two as Figure 1. Because seven participants were
unable to understand how their positive influence over a client’s behavior can transform their
microsystem, the ability to become a “change agent” (Wexler, 2005, p. 747) for alternative
criminal justice is inhibited. Notwithstanding the above, data analysis contributed to the
recommendations as contained below.
Recommendations for Practice
This section provides recommendations based on research contained within Chapter Two
and the data analysis contained within Chapter Four. The purpose of this study was to develop
evidence-based recommendations regarding how criminal defense attorneys can assist in the

75
deterrence of substance abuse for a client and eventually contribute to alternative criminal justice
reform through the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. A “meaningful”
attorney-client relationship is a relationship between an attorney and client that may empower a
client psychologically, educationally, economically, politically, and/or socially, and, by doing so,
provides a client with knowledge, resources, and skills that increase self-awareness, self-
confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016; Robbennolt &
Sternlight, 2015). Alternative criminal justice reform is a professional, relationship-based
strategy utilized by criminal defense attorneys that potentially encourages a client to change their
deviant behaviors to become a productive, law-abiding member of society, refraining from future
criminal behavior (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017).
However, literature from Chapter Two and data analysis from Chapter Four indicates that
criminal defense attorneys may be failing the profession and failing the client in aspects of
reform. For example, criminal defense attorneys have generally been characterized as being less
interested in people, having less interest in emotions, and having less interest in personal
relationships (Boccaccino & Brodsky, 2001); rather, they are perceived as being more concerned
with debate, negotiation, or persuasion and more prone to be judgmental of others, lacking the
intrapersonal relationship skills necessary to the development of “meaningful” relationships with
a client (Daicoff, 1997; 2014). Likewise, data analysis from the participants revealed that
criminal defense attorneys “need to be doing more,” “are failing the profession,” “need more
training,” and “need to think about the client more.” Based on the literature review within
Chapter Two and data analysis within Chapter Four, this study was able to develop
recommendations for future practice.

76
This study’s recommendations may provide a foundation to overhauling the general
perception of criminal defense attorneys and lead to more lawyers developing a sense of
empathy, compassion, and humility, ultimately leading to alternative criminal justice reform
through the establishment of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. If accomplished, these
recommendations could create the foundation for better people skills, better lawyering skills, the
development of “meaningful” attorney-client relationships, and/or potentially lead to alternative
criminal justice reform. There are two recommendations that emerged from this study:
1. Criminal defense attorneys need to engage in self-reflection on the way they practice law
and interact with a client.
2. Criminal defense attorneys need adequate training on the importance of developing a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship.
Recommendation One: Criminal Defense Attorneys Need to Engage in Self-Reflection on
the Way They Practice Law and Interact with a Client
Until recently, there has been nominal literature regarding self-reflection among lawyers.
Most recently, the premise of self-reflection has emerged through “Relationship-Centered
Lawyering” (Brooks, 2018, p. 414) and appears to be transforming initiatives attempting to foster
better relationships between lawyers and their clients (Brooks, 2018). According to Brooks
(2018), this “Relationship-Centered Lawyering” is focused on a law student’s or attorney’s
ability to create a “professional identity” (p. 414). This identity formation enables lawyers to
strengthen intrapersonal and people skills and lawyering tools towards a social change movement
that transforms the practice of law, but to be effective, law students and lawyers must have a
willingness to engage in a self-reflection process transforming their professional relationships
with clients (Brooks, 2018; Daicoff, 2014; Sullivan, 2015). According to Dewey (1933),

77
reflection is as an “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and further conclusions to which it tends”
(p. 9). The self-reflection process requires attorneys and law students to reflect “on how one’s
authentic self-intersects with organizational culture” (Hamilton & Monson, 2011, p. 160).
According to Figure 2, Daicoff (2014) theorizes that attorneys can engage in self-reflection
through professional identity formation. This reflection and identity formation process may
enable an attorney to transform their lawyering tactics and develop a more “meaningful”
relationship with a client that can positively influence a client’s human development.
Throughout this qualitative research process, it became apparent that criminal defense
attorneys are failing the legal profession and failing their client. For example, when asked the
research protocol question, “Do you think that if you had a “meaningful” relationship with a
client, that the client may be persuaded to reduce their substance use or criminal behavior? If so,
why; if not, why not?” Eta revealed:
Criminal defense attorneys have the capability of assisting these clients, and far too often
we fail as a profession. We fail because we don’t have the proper training, knowledge,
skills, or compassion to really want to make a difference. We fail because we wait for the
change to happen. Instead, we should be the ones who are the influencers to make the
change happen. We fail because we don’t understand how to improve ourselves that
ultimately can improve others. We fail because we don’t self-reflect on who we are as a
profession and how our profession can help others.
Similarly, when Delta was asked the same research protocol question, he indicated:
It’s our role as lawyers. I mean, that’s part of your role; it isn’t just to work on the
mechanics of, you know, being up to date on the rules of evidence of the criminal

78
procedure. And all that's important. You need to be able to do that, but you also need to
give people the benefit of your counsel. I think you’re almost required to do it. I’m
surprised that some people don't take it as seriously as they should.
Finally, Eta and Zeta indicated that, “Criminal defense attorneys need to have empathy,
compassion, and humility, and to certainly humanize themselves for the betterment of the client.”
Corresponding to Eta’s comment above, Beta indicated that, “We as a profession need to do
more to help our clients; we need to learn how to help them in these dire needs.” Although three
participants indicated that criminal defense attorneys need to do more, only Eta indicated that the
way to get more done as a profession was through self-reflection. The remaining six participants
were content with the status quo regarding lawyering. However, the status quo may be
contributing to the inability to formulate a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. Thus, as a
result of the data analysis, the first recommendation revealed that criminal defense attorneys
need to engage in self-reflection, make efforts to change the way they practice law, and begin
focusing on client-centered initiatives.
Although literature may be transforming how attorneys and law students should be
trained on the importance of client-centered relationships, the problem is transforming change
for the existing criminal defense attorney that has not be trained on the morals, values, virtues,
and ethics of client initiatives stemming from proper self-reflection (Cody, 2020). Expanding
upon Dewey’s (1933) reflection component, Schön (1983) indicated that there are two types of
self-reflection; reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Schön (1983) described reflection-
in-action as a process that occurs in real-time and during an action, whereas reflection-on-action
occurs after an event. Furthering Schön’s (1983) work, Grushka et al. (2005) and Killion and
Todnem (1991) formulated reflection-for-action, whereby this reflection process is thinking

79
about future behavior with the intention of improving or changing a practice. It is this reflection-
for-action that is of importance to change the attorney-client relationship to a more client-
centered “meaningful” relationship that is recommended.
This training in reflection-for-action of experienced lawyers encompasses the life-long
commitment to advancing the legal profession via thinking, feeling, and acting upon one’s self-
consciousness where the ends justify the means that can advance criminal justice reform
(Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021; Grushka et al., 2005; Killion & Todnem, 1991). If the social
movement trends towards a self-reflective process for law students, and if law students receive
the proper training on client-centered relationships, then experienced attorneys need to also be
nudged into the transformation of cultural change of the legal profession (Baker, 2018; Sunstein
& Thaler, 2008, 2021; Thaler, 2015, 2018). These experienced criminal defense attorneys are the
front-line advocates who are supposed to be advancing equality against systemic inequities
permeated from the criminal justice system; however, they are also the same advocates that
haven’t been trained and haven’t developed the necessary interpersonal skills and lawyering
techniques to be truly effective regarding client-centered relationships (Westfahl & Wilkins,
2018). It may be a long while before current law students who have received some form of
training on client-centered relationship building are able to bring about real change; thus, this
time lapse could potentially cause irreparable harm to an already broken system (Cody, 2020;
Howard, 2020). This recommendation is premised on the aspect that experienced criminal
defense attorneys need to transform the way they practice law. As a result, it is recommended
that all criminal defense attorneys self-reflect on the way they practice law and tailor their
lawyering approach towards a more client-centered initiative base.

80
Recommendation Two: Criminal Defense Attorneys Need Adequate Training on the
Importance of Developing a “Meaningful” Attorney-Client Relationship
A “meaningful” attorney-client relationship is a relationship between an attorney and
client that may empower a client psychologically, educationally, economically, politically,
and/or socially, and, by doing so, provides a client with knowledge, resources, and skills that
increase self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson,
2016; Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). Data analysis revealed that seven of the nine participants
had limited to no knowledge of what entails a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. For
example, Table 2 from Chapter Four revealed that Theta believed:
I don’t think any lawyer could have a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship with a
client. No lawyer can change a client’s behavior. That’s especially when it comes to
substance abuse; that requires far more of a personal relationship or a therapeutic
relationship that I don’t—attorneys can’t provide nor do I think they should provide it.
Because Theta was one of the seven participants that had limited to no knowledge of a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship, other participants believed that part of the problem is a
lack of training on the importance of developing such a relationship for a client; for example,
Epsilon stated that, “Lawyers need to communicate better and need more training in how to do it;
we are supposed to be trained professionals. Effective communication starts with the attorney.”
The need for training may be institutional to empowering a client; thus, Epsilon indicated that,
“Most criminal defense attorneys don’t take their client relationship seriously or lack the
interpersonal skills necessary to be effective and need to be more aware of how their client’s
well-being is affected.” Likewise, Delta indicated that, “I don't think I've ever seen an
organization addressing client-centered relationships. Well, that's certainly something that can be

81
trained, but I've certainly never seen any effort made by The Florida Bar in giving that type of
training.” Additionally, Theta stated that he has not been equipped with the mechanics on how to
deal with clients, thus:
The Florida Bar needs to have some CLEs [Continuing Legal Education] based on the
psychology of the group, I think, and of criminality and of addicts. The more you
understand the people you deal with, the better you'll be at dealing with them.
Furthermore, Gamma provided that, “Lawyers need the training on how to develop effective
communication skills that can influence and empower a client.” Necessitating the need for more
training, Beta indicated that, “Clients make irrational decisions in a highly emotional state of
mind” and because of a client’s decision-making process, criminal defense attorneys need to
understand the client’s emotional stages, in that, “We as a profession need to do more to help our
clients; we need to learn how to help them in these dire needs.” The participants agree that more
training is needed to assist them in advancing client-centered initiatives, all in efforts of
promoting a client’s psychological well-being. However, Gamma indicated that, “Considering
that some criminal defense attorneys don’t know how to be a positive role model to a client, or
because adequate training has not been provided, attorneys may be failing the profession.”
Finally, Eta indicated that, “We fail because we don’t have the proper training, knowledge,
skills, or compassion to really want to make a difference.” The participants have indicated that
they need training on client relations and intrapersonal lawyering skills.
Prior literature has opined that lawyers need professional development in three stages:
learning how to think like a lawyer, how to act like a lawyer, and how to have a strong
professional identity (Baker, 2018). These skills can be developed through proper education and
training (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017). However, “Legal education related training and legal

82
culture historically have not been conducive to positive and value-driven lawyering” (Brooks,
2018, p. 417). Additionally, attorneys need to understand that there is an opportunity for success
that evolves around technical skills and expertise, professional skills, and networking (Westfahl
& Wilkins, 2017). Prior research has opined that proper training and education can assist an
attorney in understanding a lawyer’s role and values, developing necessary skills for
communication and judgment, and gaining intrapersonal awareness (Daicoff, 2017). The
willingness to engage in the learning process from education in client relations and client
psychology will require lawyers to assess their current self-consciousness of thinking, acting, and
learning like a lawyer (Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021). Thus, according to Westfahl and Wilkins
(2017), there need to be professional organizations (i.e. The Florida Bar or the Florida
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) to drive innovation and adapt to the changing times
of lawyering.
All Florida lawyers are required to take continuing legal education requirements every 3
years; therefore, it is important that attorneys take continuing legal education related courses on
client relationships and development. Currently, there are no mandated requirements that
attorneys take client-centered initiative training; thus, no curriculum exists for this type of
training (The Florida Bar, 2021). According to Brooks (2018), this “Relationship-Centered
Lawyering” is focused on a law student’s or attorney’s ability to create a “professional identity”
(p. 414). This identity formation enables lawyers to strengthen intrapersonal and people skills
and lawyering tools towards a social change movement that transforms the practice of law, but to
be effective, law students and lawyers must have a willingness to engage in a self-reflection
process transforming their professional relationships with clients (Brooks, 2018; Daicoff, 2014;
Sullivan, 2015).

83
Every 3 years, Florida attorneys are required to take at least 33 credit hours in continuing
legal education courses (The Florida Bar, 2021). Of these 33 mandated hours, three hours must
be taken in technology-related topics, five hours must be tailored towards professional
responsibilities, and the remaining 25 hours can be of the members’ choosing. The practicality of
this recommendation stems from the Florida Bar’s willingness to require lawyers to focus on
specific aspects of legal professional development, leaving open the possibility that the Florida
Bar would be willing to mandate classes on advancing attorney-client relationships, client-
centered relationships, inter-personal development skills, and effective client-communication
techniques. Notwithstanding the above, criminal defense attorneys will need to forgo their
current lawyering skills in exchange for a more client-centered focus and to eliminate the
possibility of a dysfunctional attorney-client relationship (Clark et al., 2019). More needs to be
done to protect the disadvantaged client, in that, there needs to be more understanding of cultural
sociology and relationship theories among criminal defense attorneys (Clair, 2020; Ulmer, 2019).
As a result, it is recommended that The Florida Bar and/or the Florida Association of Criminal
Defense Attorneys provide the necessary training on client psychology, client relationships, and
client development.
Integrated Recommendations
Criminal defense attorneys and clients need to develop a “meaningful” relationship
fostered by communication, trust, mentoring, and psychological cultivation (Clair, 2020). A
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship is a relationship between an attorney and client that
may empower a client psychologically, educationally, economically, politically, and/or socially,
and, by doing so, provides a client with knowledge, resources, and skills that increase self-
awareness, self-confidence, and self-worth (Brandt, 2019; Daicoff, 2014; Knudson, 2016;

84
Robbennolt & Sternlight, 2015). This type of “meaningful” relationship can promote a client’s
self-efficacy merely by the attorney understanding their client’s sociological microsystem as it
relates to their psychological well-being, education, economic situation, and political and social
environments (Bjorkman, 2017; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Criminal defense attorneys should want
to advance their client’s overall personal well-being, personal development, and personal self-
evaluation, not just by being an advocate in the courtroom or in litigation (Baker, 2018).
Additionally, criminal defense attorneys need to be aware of and be motivated by the fact that
their personal and professional influence can gravely impact a client, the client’s microsystem,
substance abuse, and future goals (Howard, 2020).
Advancing a “meaningful” relationship with a client should be of the utmost importance
for attorneys. This “meaningful” attorney-client relationship may assist the criminal defense
attorney in advocating, counseling, and litigating for a client, but may also motivate a client to
make necessary changes in their life (Daicoff, 2014). If a client can amend their behavior, their
relational or rational choices, or their systemic environment, alternative criminal justice reform
may be advanced (Clair, 2020). Alternative criminal justice reform is a professional relationship-
based strategy utilized by criminal defense attorneys that potentially encourages a client to
change their deviant behaviors to become a productive, law-abiding member of society,
refraining from future criminal behavior (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017). However, some criminal
defense attorneys may have a belief that they cannot advance criminal justice reform because of
governmental bureaucracies; encouraging attorneys with this belief to focus their attention on
client-centered initiatives could promote alternative criminal justice reform, reduce mass-
incarceration, reduce incarceration expenses, and potentially increase economic growth (Baker,
2018; Howard, 2020). In order to encourage alternative criminal justice reform via the

85
development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, criminal defense attorneys can be
nudged into being the needed “change agent” (Wexler, 2005, p. 747) for a client.
If a criminal defense attorney is to be successful in becoming a “change agent,” the
attorney will need to be nudged into the change (Murakami & Tsubakuro 2017; Sunstein &
Thaler, 2021). The nudge theory states that there needs to be positive reinforcement and indirect
suggestions to induce an individual to want to make change in their behavior (Sunstein & Thaler,
2021). Table 7 reflects the need for criminal defense attorneys to be nudged into transformative
change, and column heading constructs within Table 7 are sub-themes that emerged through data
interpretation via the code book and the participants directly. Reviewing Table 7, the heading of
“Nudge” relates to a stage of persuasion mechanism as outlined by Sunstein and Thaler (2008,
2021); the heading of purpose corresponds to each respective “nudge” stage, and the heading of
barrier(s) relates to a summation on how prior literature and the participants’ perceived change
are both difficult to overcome.

86
Table 7
The Need to “Nudge” Participants
_____________________________________________________________________________
The “nudge”
mechanism

Purpose Barrier(s)

Accumulate
knowledge

To provide law students and
licensed attorneys the
necessary education and
knowledge to establish a
“meaningful” attorney-client
relationship through self-
reflection and professional
identity formation.
An experienced criminal defense
attorney recognizes that client-
centered relationships are vital to
system change, as is the
willingness of law schools and
state bar associations to cooperate
in the formulation of education
and training.
Clarify the purpose
and outcomes for
better
communication

To provide the foundation for
people skills and professional
development.
The overall design of a “Psychology
and the Law” course and
continuing education hours that
provide for effective learning and
comprehension.
Willingness to
change
To catalyze an understanding of
the importance of a
“meaningful” attorney-client
relationship among law
students and licensed
attorneys.

Law students and licensed attorneys
understand the client’s overall
human developmental needs and
ecological systems.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from “Designing Positive Psychology Course for Lawyers,” by R. L. Baker, 2018,
Suffolk University Law Review, 51(2), 207–288; “Phantom Thread: Restoring Live-Client
Interactions to the First-Year Educational Continuum in This Age of Information and Beyond,”
by D. Howard, 2020, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 81(3), 597–656; “Evaluating Risk
Communication After the Fukushima Disaster Based on the Nudge Theory,” by M. Murakami &
M. Tsubakura, 2017, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 193–200; “Nudge: Improving

87
Decisions About Health,” by C. R. & Sunstein & R. H. Thaler, 2008, Wealth and Happiness, 6,
14–38; “Nudge: The Final Edition,” by C. R. & Sunstein & R. H. Thaler, 2021, Penguin Books.

According to Table 7, for this nudge to assist criminal defense lawyers to make changes
in the way they practice law and develop a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, the change
process needs to be simplified, socialized, and available. Thus, this can all be done through self-
reflection, proper training, and proper professional development. According to Baker (2018) and
Howard (2020), the nudge of criminal defense attorneys will stimulate a different kind of
lawyering and potentially provide for a better legal practice, less lawyering stress, and overall
personal well-being.
Although Recommendation One and Recommendation Two, as referenced above, may be
more easily achieved through the nudging process, it is believed that, as the cultural change
shifts towards a more client-centered relationship initiative, that law schools, The Florida Bar,
and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers will also follow and require the
necessary training, skills, and education required to make a permanent change in the law in
fulfillment to satisfy the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. For these
changes to occur, the following sequence of events are encouraged:
1. Criminal defense attorneys can immediately begin the self-reflection process and make
all known efforts to develop a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship; however, this
requires the attorney’s willingness to engage in self-reflection to ascertain how they
currently practice law and how they want to practice law. As described earlier in
Recommendation One, Schön (1983) described reflection-in-action and reflection-on-
action; however, furthering Schön’s (1983) work, Grushka et al., (2005), and Killion and

88
Todnem (1991) formulated reflection-for-action, whereby this reflection process is
thinking about future behavior with the intention of improving or changing a practice. As
defense attorneys meet good people at troubled times and bad people at tough times,
there is no reason why criminal defense attorneys cannot have the empathy, humility, and
compassion to assist a client in need. As a profession, criminal defense attorneys should
want to do good for their client, their community, their society, and their profession.
2. The Florida Bar’s Continuing Legal Education Department needs to require all Florida
attorneys to complete a minimum of six credit hours in client relationship and
development. The Florida Bar should, at a minimum, develop and provide access to the
courses for training, and then require this to be a mandatory component of continuing
legal education requirements. The practicality of this recommendation stems from the
Florida Bar’s willingness to require lawyers to focus on specific aspects of legal
professional development, leaving open the possibility that the Florida Bar would be
willing to mandate classes on advancing attorney-client relationships, client-centered
relationships, inter-personal development skills, and effective client-communication
techniques. It should take about one year to provide the elective version of the credit
hours and about 3 years to implement the requirement as a mandatory component.
3. Law schools need to begin teaching law students about client-centered initiatives.
Although law schools teach analytical and critical thinking skills, they fail to teach
students how to interact with clients, how to communicate effectively, and how to
develop “meaningful” relationships (Baker, 2018; Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021; Howard,
2020). To help combat the negative perceptions of the legal profession, law students
should be acquainted with the people skills needed to emerge as an effective lawyer that

89
can sufficiently meet the client’s needs in times of crisis (Adegbite & Uzomo, 2019);
thus, law schools need to be transforming the legal profession by focusing on client-
centered relationships, not just educating students on the foundations of critical thinking
and the law (Smith, 2017). According to Baker (2018), law schools have failed to
advance lawyering by not teaching the psychological purviews of the law focused on
resilience, character strengths, positive values, and enhanced relationships with other
people. Law schools should be advancing a student’s self-efficacy in the pursuit of the
legal profession by fostering an environment of values, morals, empathy, humanity, and
self-evaluation (Howard, 2020). The curriculum needs to include client psychology and
training in self-reflection. This process may take upwards of 3 years to implement, but it
starts with the American Bar Association (ABA). If all ABA accredited law schools offer
a curriculum in “Client Psychology and the Law,” then perhaps as the class succeeds, law
schools will make it a mandatory requirement for graduation.
Limitations and Delimitations
This research study focused on attorney-client interactions pertaining to the microsystem
and macrosystem within the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Human Development Model (BEM)
(1992). Being that criminal justice reform has been a societal problem and paramount legal
concern, understanding the role of the attorney-client relationship within the BEM was the
appropriate lens for evaluation of data regarding a client’s personal reform capabilities. This
study considered limitations and delimitations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Limitations relate to purviews that I cannot control, including, but not limited to the age,
race, ethnicity, gender identification, or sexual orientation of participants. Other limitations
included the socio-cultural demographics of participants, the socio-cognitive demographics of

90
participants, the socio-economic demographics of participants, the law school participants
attended, how many criminal defense attorneys actually wanted to volunteer in the process, the
truthfulness of the answers provided by participants, the filtering of answers from participants,
the lack of direct observation(s) between an attorney and their client interactions in a natural
setting, the participant’s perceived biases or familiarity with me, or participant’s articulation
regarding research questions. Additionally, all participants were White, which is greater than the
national average of 86% of all lawyers being White (American Bar Association, 2020); thus,
having no participants of color may have had an adverse impact on socio-cognitive perceptions,
socio-cultural perceptions, or socio-economic perceptions.
Delimitations relate to the decisions that I made that may have introduced limitations in
the study, including, but not limited to the number of years and experience of criminal law
practice and procedure, the protocol questions asked to participants, the probing questions asked
of the participants, how solicitation of participants came from a particular criminal defense
attorney membership database, the research setting, the interview location, or the length of the
interview. Some participants practiced law in a large county and some practiced law in a small
county; thus, perceptions could have been different based on the demographics of their clients.
Additionally, the interviews were conducted via Zoom video conferencing, and each interview
was audio and video recorded. Although blocked amounts of time were arranged in advance,
some participants had client matters to tend to that required a momentary stoppage of the
interview; thus, some participants had a loss of thought regarding the questions being asked,
some questions had to be repeated, and some participants needed a summarization of their
previous answers to refresh their memory or train of thought. Additionally, this research study
had a premise that criminal defense attorneys were actively engaged in empowering a client to

91
make changes within their life outside of the criminal justice system and that the participants had
the necessary skills and training needed to positively advance a client’s microsystem component
within the BEM. These delimitations became evident through the interview and data collection
process.
Recommendations for Future Research
This research was tailored by the perceptions of criminal defense attorneys and not the
perspective of clients, law schools, The Florida Bar, or the Florida Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers (FACDL). However, this research project concluded with the imposition that
more needs to be done to advance alternative criminal justice reform, and more needs to be done
to train lawyers on the actual practice of the law, how to develop more effective client
relationships, and how to develop better intrapersonal/people skills. Therefore, future research
should be conducted from the perspective of the client, as well as from the perspective of law
school professors, The Florida Bar, and/or FACDL. Further research from these organizations
may provide more perspectives on the foundational problems facing the legal profession and the
development of a more “meaningful” attorney-client relationship.
Future research from the client may assist criminal defense attorneys in developing a
more “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. As outlined in Chapter Two, future research
from the client’s perspective may either negate or coincide with Boccaccino and Brodsky’s
(2001) research that criminal defendants are generally not satisfied with the representation they
received from their criminal defense attorney because their attorney did not effectively
communicate with them about their case, did not demonstrate a personal concern for their well-
being, or lacked compassion and intrapersonal skills, or that the majority of clients feel that they
do not have an effective relationship with their attorney. Considering that Boccaccino and

92
Brodsky’s (2001) research was conducted two decades ago, this future research could provide an
updated census of the status of the attorney-client relationship from the client’s perspective.
Additionally, future research should entail what training and education criminal defense
attorneys are receiving in law schools that can assist in either negating or coinciding with
Boccaccino and Brodsky’s (2001) research.
Future research from law schools could assist the legal profession in ascertaining what
parameters of law school need to be improved to help develop a “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship. To assist this future research from law school professors, and according to Baker
(2018), law schools have failed to advance true lawyering by not teaching the psychological
purviews of the law focused on resilience, character strengths, positive values, and enhanced
relationships with other people. Law schools should be advancing a student’s self-efficacy in the
pursuit of the legal profession by fostering an environment of values, morals, empathy,
humanity, and self-evaluation (Howard, 2020). Future research from law school professors may
help determine what, if anything, law schools are currently doing to combat the negative
perceptions of the legal profession, and why, if at all, law students should be acquainted with
education and training regarding intrapersonal skills needed to emerge as an effective lawyer that
can sufficiently meet the client’s needs in times of crisis (Adegbite & Uzomo, 2019). This future
research could also assist in the implementation of transforming the legal profession by focusing
on client-centered relationships, not just educating students on the foundations of critical
thinking and the law (Smith, 2017). Finally, coinciding with law school research initiatives,
future research should be tailored towards The Florida Bar and/or FACDL.
Future research from The Florida Bar, and/or FACDL may assist the legal community,
especially criminal defense attorneys, in developing a more “meaningful” attorney-client

93
relationship. Prior literature has opined that lawyers need professional development in three
stages: learning how to think like a lawyer, how to act like a lawyer, and how to have a strong
professional identity formation (Baker, 2018). These skills can be developed through proper
education and training (Westfahl & Wilkins, 2017). According to Westfahl and Wilkins (2017),
there need to be professional organizations (i.e. The Florida Bar and/or FACDL) to drive
innovation and adapt to the changing times of lawyering. However, “Legal education related
training and legal culture historically have not been conducive to positive and value-driven
lawyering” (Brooks, 2018, p. 417). Furthermore, prior research has opined that proper training
and education can help an attorney understand a lawyer’s role and values, develop necessary
skills for communication and judgment, and gain intrapersonal awareness (Daicoff, 2017). The
willingness to engage in the learning process from education in client relations and client
psychology will require lawyers to assess their current self-consciousness of thinking, acting, and
learning like a lawyer (Fitzpatrick & Queenan, 2021). The practicality of this future research
may assist The Florida Bar or FACDL in requiring lawyers to focus on specific aspects of
professional relationship development and may leave open the possibility that The Florida Bar
would be willing to mandate classes on attorney-client relationships, advancing client-centered
relationships, developing intrapersonal development skills, and gaining effective client-
communication techniques. Future research from these two organizations may also negate the
current perceptions of a dysfunctional attorney-client relationship (Clark et al., 2019).
Additionally, future research may assist to protect the disadvantaged client, with the foundation
of understanding cultural sociology and human psychology (Clair, 2020; Ulmer, 2019).

94
Conclusion
Criminal defense attorneys have the ability and the capability to be a “change agent” for
the legal profession and for alternative criminal justice reform, merely by establishing a
“meaningful” attorney-client relationship. In order to establish a “meaningful” relationship with
a client, and in particular with a client that has a substance abuse problem, criminal defense
attorneys will need to develop better people skills and communication skills, engage in self-
reflection, and formulate a professional identity beyond litigation; thus, they must have the desire
to change the way they practice law. This will require them to be nudged into the change
process. After being nudged into the change process, and after self-reflecting and changing the
way a criminal defense attorney practices law, the lawyer may be able to become more actively
engaged in a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. This “meaningful” attorney-client
relationship can potentially lead to alternative criminal justice reform. Change can occur, but
there needs to be a consensus that the current system is broken and in need of systemic change. If
this change is implemented, the institution of lawyering will advance socio-cultural attributes of
the practice of law, change organizational culture, and lead to alternative criminal justice reform.

95
References
Adgebite, K. N., & Uzomo, V. I. (2019). Employable skills that legal education should impart
in a 21st century attorney. International Review of Law and Jurisprudence, 1(2), 83–91.
https://nigerianjournalsonline.com/index.php/IRLJ/article/viewFile/263/256
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and
deviance. Northeastern University Press.
American Bar Association. (2020). ABA profile of the legal profession: 2020.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2020/07/potlp2020.
pdf
American Bar Association. (2021). Model rules of professional conduct.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rul
es_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/
Anderson, D. A. (1999). The aggregate burden of crime. The Journal of Law and Economics,
42(2), 611–642. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1086/467436
Anderson, R. C. (2005, November 12). Wrong strategy, wrong war, wretched results. Drug
Policy Alliance Conference, Long Beach, CA.
Aniskiewicz, R., Wright, D., & Wysong, E. (1994). Truth and DARE: Tracking drug education
to graduation and as symbolic politics. Social Problems, 41(3), 448–472.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/socprob41&i=458
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–570, H.R. 5484.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5484
Aprile, J. (2018). The nontraditional rules of a criminal defense attorney. Criminal Justice.
32(4), 45–46. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cjust32&i=235

96
Bair, S. P. (2018). Malleable rationality. Ohio State Law Journal. 79(1), 17–72.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ohslj79&i=23
Baker, R. L. (2018). Designing positive psychology course for lawyers. Suffolk University Law
Review, 51(2), 207–288. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sufflr51&i=227
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K.G. Smith & M.A. Hitt
(Eds.) Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University.
Beccaria, F., Duke, K., Frank, V. A., Graf, N., Kahlert, R., Pisarska, A., & Rolando, S. (2020).
‘I like money, I like many things.’ The relationship between drugs and crime from the
perspective of young people in contact with criminal justice systems. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 28(1), 7–16.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09687637.2020.1754339
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political
Economy, 76(2), 169–217. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c3625/c3625.pdf
Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2009). The causal connection between drug misuse and crime.
The British Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp014
Berzofsky, M., Bronson, J., Stroop, J., & Zimmer, S. (2017). Drug use, dependence, and abuse
among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007–2009. U.S. Department of Justice. Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1–27. (Revised August 10, 2020).
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf
Bezin, E., Verdiet, T., & Zenou, Y. (2017). Crime, broken families, and punishment.
Tectacom, European Research Council. 1–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3200773

97
Bibas, S. (2017). Restoring democratic moral judgment within bureaucratic criminal justice.
Northwestern University Law Review, 111(6), 1677–1692.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/illlr111&i=1715
Birckhead, T. R. (2017). The racialization of juvenile justice and the role of the defense
attorney. Boston College Law Review, 58(2), 379–462.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/bclr58&i=379
Bkorkman, T. W. (2017). A state in shackles: The effect of a dysfunctional childhood on crime
and imprisonment. South Dakota Law Review, 62(2), 211–265.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sdlr62&i=247
Boccaccino, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2001). Characteristics of the ideal criminal defense
attorney from the client's perspective: Empirical findings and implications for legal
practice. Law and Psychology Review, 25(1), 81–118.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/lpsyr25&i=85
Boccaccino, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2002). Attorney-client trust among convicted defendants:
Preliminary examination of the attorney-client trust scale. Behavioral Science and the
Law. 20, 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsi.469
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), pg. 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bozza, J. A. (2002). The devil made me do it: Legal implications of the new treatment
imperative. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 12(1), 55–84.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/scid12&i=61
Brandt, J. (2019). Developing meaningful client relationships. Martindale-Avvo.
https://www.martindale-avvo.com/blog/developing-meaningful-client-relationships/

98
Brauer, M., Gavac, S., & Murrar, S. (2017). Social psychology: How other people influence
our thoughts and actions. 333–360. Greenwood.
Brooks, S. L. (2018). Fostering wholehearted lawyers: Practical guidance for
supporting law students' professional identity formation. University of St. Thomas
Law Journal, 14(2), 412–432.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/usthomlj14&i=412
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child
development: Revised formulations and current issues (p. 187–249). Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Bronfenbrenner, U., (1994). The ecological models of human development. In International
Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3, (2
nd
ed., pp. 37–43.) Oxford.
https://assets.ncj.nl/docs/6a45c1a4-82ad-4f69-957e-1c76966678e2.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. SAGE Publishing.
Brougham, Lord H. (1820). The life and times of Henry Lord Broughman, written by himself,
Vol. 11.
Bucholz, K. K., Heath, A. C., Lynskey, M. T., Madden, P. A. F., Martin, N. G., Nelson, E. C.,
Slutske, W. S., & Statham, D. J. (2003). Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis
users vs. co-twin controls. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 427–
433. https://doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.427

99
Burnham, B. (2019). The war on drugs: How America and Philippines are fighting the war in
different ways yet both are losing. Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 42(2), 327–352.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sujtnlr42&i=343
Call, J. T., Durkin, K. F., Evans, H. J., & Gray, A. C. (2015). Differential association and
marijuana use in a juvenile drug court sample. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice,
11(1), 1–8. http://dev.cjcenter.org/_files/apcj/APCJ%20SPECIAL%20ISSUE%202015-
Gray.pdf_1429633813.pdf
Carrillo-De-La-Pena, M. T., Luengo-Martin, A., Miron-Redondo, L., Otera-Lopez, J. M., &
Romero-Trinanes, E. (1994). An empirical study of the relationship between drug abuse
and delinquency among adolescents. The British Journal of Criminology, 34(4), 459–
478. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048447
Carson, E. A. (2020). Prison statistics. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program,
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf
Clair, M. (2020). Being a disadvantaged criminal defendant: Mistrust and resistance in
attorney-client interactions. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 100(1), 194–
217. https://doi:101093/sf/soaa082
Clark, M. D. (2001). Change-focused drug court: Examining the critical ingredients of
positive behavior change. National Drug Court Institute Review, 3(2), 35–87.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/change-focused-drug-courts-
examining-critical-ingredients-positive
Clark, V. L. P., Dariotis, J. K., Foote., L. A., & Moore, J., (2019). Attorney-client
communication in public defense: A qualitative examination. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 31(6), 908–938. https://doi.10.1177/0887403419861672

100
Clayton, R., Leukfeld, C., Logan, T. K., Lyman, D. R., Martin, C., Milich, R., Novak, S. P., &
Zimmerman, R. (1999). Project DARE: No effects at 10-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(4), 590–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/11855-008
Cody, A. (2020) Reflection and clinical legal education: How do students learn about their
ethical duty to contribute towards justice. Legal Ethics, 23(1), 13–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2020.1799303
Cooper, H. L., Des Jarlais, D. C., Flom., P. L. Friedman, R., Friedman, S. R., Keem, M., &
Tempalski, B. (2006). Relationships of deterrence and law enforcement to drug-related
harms among drug injectors in U.S. metropolitan Areas. AIDS, 20(1), 93–99.
https://doi.10.1097/aids.0000196176.65551.a3
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publishing.
Dawson, D. A., & Grant, B. F. (1997). Age of onset of alcohol use and its association with
DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the National Longitudinal
Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9(1), 103–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3289(97)90009-2
Daicoff, S. (1997). Lawyer, know thyself: A review of empirical research on attorney attributes
bearing on professionalism. American University Law Review, 46(5), 1337–1428.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/aulr46&i=1351
Daicoff, S. (2014). Lawyer, form thyself: Professional identity formation strategies in legal
education through soft skills training, ethics, and experiental courses. Regent University
Law Review, 27(2), 205–224.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/regulr27&i=229

101
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Heath and Company.
Drug Policy Alliance (2018). The drug war, mass incarceration and race. Drug Policy
Alliance. www.drugpolicy.org/resource/drug-war-mass-incarceration-and-race-
englishspanish
Dukes, R. L., Stein, J. A., & Ulman, J. B. (1996). A three-year follow-up of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 20(1), 49–66.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019384X9602000103
Ellickson, R. C. (1989). Bringing culture and human frailty to rational actors: A critique of
classical law and economics. Chicago Kent Law Review, 65(1), 23–56.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/chknt65&i=35
Ennett, S. T., Flewelling, R. L., Ringwalt, C. L., & Tobler, N. S. (1994). How effective is drug
abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations.
American Journal of Public Health, 84(1), 1394–1401.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.84.9.1394
Federal Register (2019). Annual determination of average cost of incarceration fee. The Daily
Journal of the United States Government, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 84(223).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/19/2019-24942/annual-
determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration-fee-coif
Fitzpatrick, M., & Queenan, R. (2021). Professional identity formation, leadership and
exploration of self. UMKC Law Review, 89(3), 539–558.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/umkc89&i=559

102
Florida Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys (FACDL). (2021). Mission statement and
founding principles. https://www.facdl.org/p/cm/ld/fid=12
Florida Department of Corrections. (2021). Strategic plan and annual report: 2020-2021.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1819/2020-2021-Strategic-Plan.pdf
Fuller, K., & Zamani-Gallagher, E. M. (2016). Altering the pipeline to prison and pathways to
postsecondary education. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Office of
Community College Research and Leadership, 1(1), 1–8.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574524.pdf
Garoupa, N. (2003). Behavioral economic analysis of crime: A critical review. European
Journal of Law and Economics, 15(1), 5–15.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2720&rep=rep1&type=p
df
Gatorade. (1991, August 8). Be Like Mike [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0AGiq9j_Ak
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
Giovazolias, T., & Themeli, O. (2014). Social learning conceptualization for substance abuse:
Implications for therapeutic interventions. The European Journal of Counselling
Psychology, 3(1), 69–88. https://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2012
Grushka, K., Hinde-McLeod, J., & Reynolds, R. (2005). Reflecting upon reflection: Theory and
practice in one Australian university teacher education program. Reflective Practice,
6(1), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940500106187
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publishing.

103
Haga, W. J. (1987). A survey of economic models of criminal behavior. Defense Personnel
Security Research and Education Center. (Declassified by the Office of Naval Research
Dec. 28, 2012). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA206520.pdf
Hakansson, A., & Jesionowska, V. (2018). Associations between substance abuse and type of
crime in prisoners with substance use problems—a focus on violence and fatal violence.
Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 9, 1–9. https://doi:10.2147/SAR.S143251
Hamilton, N. W., & Monson, V. E. (2011). Ethical professional (trans)formation: Early career
lawyers make sense of professionalism. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 8(2),
129–167. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/usthomlj8&i=145
Hassan, S. (2015). Behavioral economics in criminal justice messaging. The Opportunity
Agenda, 1–24. https://opportunityagenda.org/sites/default/files/2017-
03/2015%2011%2030%20-%20Behavioral%20Economics%20Paper%20-
%20FINAL.pdf
Heavin, H., & Keet, M. (2021). Client-centered communication: How effective lawyering
requires emotional intelligence, active listening, and client choice. Cardozo Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 22(2), 199–220.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cardcore22&i=214
Henderson, S. E. (2019). Should robots prosecute and defend. Oklahoma Law Review, 72(1), 1–
20. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/oklrv72&i=2
Hendrie, D., & Miller, T. (2008). Substance abuse prevention dollars and cents: A cost-benefit
analysis. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS Pub.
No. (SMA) 07-4298. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/cost-benefits-

104
prevention.pdf
Howard, D. (2020). Phantom thread: Restoring live-client interactions to the first-year
educational continuum in this age of information and beyond. University of Pittsburgh
Law Review. 81(3), 597–656.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/upitt81&i=610
Howard-Greenville, J., Lahneman, B., Pek, S. (2020). Organizational culture as a tool for
change. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 18(3), 28–33.
Jacob, A. (2011). Economic theories of crime and delinquency. Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment., 21(3), 270–283.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/10911359.2011.564951
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, T. (1997). A behavior approach to law and economics.
Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/stflr50&i=1489
Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Senger, P. (2018). The water of systems change. FSG.
https://www.fsg.org/publications/water_of_systems_change
Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process of personal theory building. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 14–17. https://www.eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ422847
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–
124.
https://doi.10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092

105
Kotter, J. P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73, 57–67.
http://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/91fc/coursematerial/management/20%20Leading%20Chang
e%20-%20Why%20Transformation%20Efforts%20Fail%20by%20JP%20Kotter.pdf
Knudson, M. (2016). Well-being and the attorney-client relationship. Law Practice Today.
https://www.lawpracticetoday.org/article/attorney-client-relationship/
Langevoort, D. C. (1995). Ego, human behavior, and law. Virginia Law Review, 81(3), 853–
886. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1073500
Leipold, A. D. (2019). Is mass incarceration inevitable. American Criminal Law Review, 56(4),
1579–1620. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/amcrimlr56&i=1600
Lord Brougham H. (1871). The life and times of Henry Lord Brougham, written by himself,
Vol. II, at 311 n.* (as quoted by Freedman, supra note 47, at 1322); see also Gideon's
Promise Summer Institute Training Manual 8-9 (n.d.) (on file with author).
Lowenstein, L. F. (2001). Recent research into the direct relationship between criminality and
substance abuse. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 9(4), 257–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2001.9747882
Luban D., & Wendel, W. (2017). Philosophical legal ethics: An affectionate history.
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30(3), 337–364.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/geojlege30&i=355
Lurigio, A. J. (2014). A century of losing battles: The costly and ill-advised war on drugs in the
United States. Loyola University Chicago, Social Justice, 21, 1–61.
https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=social_justice

106
Lurigio, A. J. (2016). Jails in the United States: The “old-new” frontier in American
corrections. The Prison Journal, 96(1), 3–9.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0032885515605462
Lyon, A. D. (2012). Race bias and the importance of consciousness for criminal defense
attorneys. Seattle University Law Review. 35(2), 754–768.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sealr35&i=779
Mai, C., & Subramanian, R. (2018). The price of prisons, 2015: Examining state spending
trends, 2010–2015. The Vera Institute of Justice.
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/the-price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-
trends.pdf
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, T. J. (2005). Empirical economics and the study of punishment and crime. University of
Chicago Legal Forum., 237–260.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/uchclf2005&i=241
Morris v. Slappy, 103 S. Ct. 1610 (1983).
Murakami, M., & Tsubakuro, M. (2017). Evaluating risk communication after the Fukushima
disaster based on the nudge theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 193–
200. https://doi.org/10.11776/1010539517691338
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2016). How to find what you need to know about drug use
and addiction: Media guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Revised
July 2018). https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/media_guide.pdf

107
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-
based guide (3rd ed). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/download/675/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-
research-based-guide-third-edition.pdf?v=74dad603627bab89b93193918330c223
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of
behavior. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-
addiction/preface
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2013). Improving the measurement of drug-related
crime. Executive Office of the President of the United States.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-
research/drug_crime_report_final.pdf
O’Hanlon, S. (2009). Towards a more reasonable approach to free will in criminal law.
Cardoza Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, 7(2), 395–428.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cardplp7&i=399
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Paul-Emile, K. (2010). Making sense of drug regulation: A theory of law for drug control
policy. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 19(3), 691–740.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cjlpp19&i=697
Ranes, B. (2015). Drug abuse, dopamine, and the brain’s reward system. Butler Center for
Research, Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation. https://www.alcoverecovery.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/BCR_RU16_DrugAbuseAndDopamine.pdf

108
Rebellon, C. J. (2012). Differential association and substance use: Assessing the roles of
discriminant validity, socialization, and selection in traditional empirical tests.
European Journal of Criminology, 9(1), 73–96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811421647
Robbennolt, J. K., & Sternlight, J. R. (2015). Psychology and effective lawyering: Insights for
legal educators. Journal of Legal Education, 64(3), 365–384.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24716681
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE
Publishing.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic
Books, Inc.
Schram, P. J., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2018). Introduction to criminology: Why do they do it. SAGE
Publishing.
Silver, M. A. (2002). Emotional competence, multicultural lawyering and race. Florida Coastal
Law Journal, 3(2), 219–244. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fclj3&i=225
Simon, J. (2016). The new overcrowding. Connecticut Law Review, 48(4), 1191–1216.
https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=law_revie
w
Skywood Recovery, (2020). Why imprisonment is more harm than help to addicted offenders.
https://skywoodrecovery.com/why-imprisonment-is-more-harm-than-help-to-addicted-
offenders/#addiction--criminal-behavior

109
Smith, L. F. (2017). Get real: Why and how clinicians should record, transcribe and study
actual client consultations. Utah Law Faculty Scholarship. 69, 1–30.
https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=scholarship
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Sullivan, W. M. (2015). Professional formation as social movement. Professional Lawyer,
23(1), 26–33. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/proflw23&i=26
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Key substance use and
mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf
Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health. Wealth, and
Happiness, 6, 14–38.
Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (2021). Nudge: The final edition. Penguin Books.
Sutherland E. H. (1947). The principles of criminology. J. B. Lippincott, Co.
Thaler, R. (2015). Misbehaving. W. W. Norton and Company.
Thaler, R. (2018). From cashews to nudges: The evolution of behavioral economics. American
Economic Review, 108(6), 1265–1287. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.108.6.1265
The Florida Bar. (2021). http://www.floridabar.org
The Florida Bar. (2021). Chapter 4: Rules of professional conduct. In Preamble to the rules of
professional conduct: A lawyer’s responsibilities. https://www-
media.floridabar.org/uploads/2021/07/CH-4-2022_01-JUL-RRTFB-7-23-2021-4.pdf

110
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell.
Ulmer, J. T. (2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and
similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 483–522.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/701504
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (2017). Fact sheets on statistics and trends in illicit
drugs. World Drug Report.
https://www.unodc.org/wdr2017/field/WDR17_Fact_sheet.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice (1994). Drugs & crime data; fact sheet: Drug related crime. Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF
U.S. Department of Justice. (2021). Audit of the federal bureau of prisons: Annual financial
statements fiscal year 2020. Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, 21-016.
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-016.pdf
Title 21, United States Code, §812 (1970).
Wadman, M. (2018). Huge study of teen brains could reveal roots of mental illness, impacts of
drug abuse. Science. https://www.science.org/news/2018/01/huge-study-teen-brains-
could-reveal-roots-mental-illness-impacts-drug-abuse
Westfahl, S. A., & Wilkins, D. B. (2017). The leadership imperative: Collaborative
approach to professional development in the global age of more for less. Stanford Law
Review, 69(6), 1667–1730.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/stflr69&i=1707

111
Wexler, D. B. (2005). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the rehabilitative role of the criminal
defense lawyer. St. Thomas Law Review, 17(3), 743–774.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/stlr17&i=753
Wheeler, T., & Holmes, K. (2017). Rapid transformation of two libraries using Kotter’s eight
steps of change. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(3), 276–281.
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.97

112
Appendix A: Economic Savings

# of Florida Prison Inmates as of June 2020 87,736 Inmates
Average Prison Length as of June 2020 5.4 years = 65 Months

Florida Inmates Serve 85% of Their Sentence 85.00% 85% x 65 Months = 55 Months

Average Annual Cost to House an Inmate as of June 2020 $24,265.00
Average Monthly Cost to House an Inmate as of June 2020 $2,022.08

Average Annual Cost to Educate an Inmate $485.00
Average Monthly Cost to Educate an Inmate $40.42

Average Annual Cost for pre-conviction Diversion $3,100.00
Average Monthly Cost for pre-conviction Diversion $253.00

Florida Inmate Recidivism Rate Within 12 months of Release 8.00% 1-month rate (8.00%/12) * 1 = 0.0067

Florida Inmate Recidivism Rate Within 24 Months of Release 17.00% 1-month rate (17.00%/12) * 1 = 0.0142

Florida Inmate Recidivism Rate Within 36 Months of Release 25.00% 1-month rate (25.00%/12) * 1 = 0.0208

Inflation Rate 3.00%

NPV = Net Present Value

Monthly Cost to House an Inmate $2,022.08 per month 1 Month 5 Months 10 Months 15 Months 20 Months 25 Months 30 Months 35 Months 40 Months 45 Months 50 Months 55 Months
$2,022.08 $10,413.71 $20,827.42 $31,241.14 $41,654.85 $52,068.56 $62,482.27 $72,895.98 $83,309.70 $93,723.41 $104,137.12 $114,550.83
NPV Denominator 1.0067 1.0404 1.0753 1.1113 1.1485 1.1870 1.2268 1.2679 1.3103 1.3542 1.3996 1.4465
NPV of Housing an Inmate $2,008.62 $10,009.10 $19,369.33 $28,112.23 $36,268.00 $43,865.50 $50,932.37 $57,495.01 $63,578.70 $69,207.58 $74,404.75 $79,192.29

Monthly Cost to Educate an Inmate $40.42 per month 1 Month 5 Months 10 Months 15 Months 20 Months 25 Months 30 Months 35 Months 40 Months 45 Months 50 Months 55 Months
$40.42 $208.16 $416.33 $624.49 $832.65 $1,040.82 $1,248.98 $1,457.14 $1,665.30 $1,873.47 $2,081.63 $2,289.79
NPV Denominator 1.0067 1.0404 1.0753 1.1113 1.1485 1.1870 1.2268 1.2679 1.3103 1.3542 1.3996 1.4465
NPV of Educating an Inmate $40.15 $200.08 $387.18 $561.94 $724.97 $876.84 $1,018.10 $1,149.29 $1,270.89 $1,383.41 $1,487.30 $1,583.00

Monthly Diversion Cost to Educate an Inmate $258.33 per month 1 Month 5 Months 10 Months 15 Months 20 Months 25 Months 30 Months 35 Months 40 Months 45 Months 50 Months 55 Months
$253.00 $1,302.95 $2,605.90 $3,908.85 $5,211.80 $6,514.75 $7,817.70 $9,120.65 $10,423.60 $11,726.55 $13,029.50 $14,332.45
NPV Denominator 1.0067 1.0404 1.0753 1.1113 1.1485 1.1870 1.2268 1.2679 1.3103 1.3542 1.3996 1.4465
NPV of Housing an Inmate $40.15 $1,252.33 $2,423.46 $3,517.37 $4,537.80 $5,488.39 $6,372.59 $7,193.70 $7,954.88 $8,659.16 $9,309.43 $9,908.44

Annual Cost to House an Inmate $24,265.00 per year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years
$24,265.00 $24,992.95 $25,742.74 $26,515.02 $27,310.47 $28,129.79 $28,973.68 $29,842.89 $30,738.18 $31,660.32
NPV Denominator 1.0800 1.1664 1.2597 1.3605 1.4693 1.5869 1.7138 1.8509 1.9990 2.1589
NPV of Housing an Inmate $22,467.59 $21,427.43 $20,435.42 $19,489.33 $18,587.05 $17,726.54 $16,905.86 $16,123.18 $15,376.74 $14,664.85
Total NPV $22,467.59 $43,895.02 $64,330.43 $83,819.77 $102,406.81 $120,133.35 $137,039.21 $153,162.40 $168,539.14 $183,203.99

113
Annual Education Costs to Prevent Recidivism $485.00 per year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years
$485.00 $970.00 $1,455.00 $1,940.00 $2,425.00 $2,910.00 $3,395.00 $3,880.00 $4,365.00 $4,850.00
NPV Denominator 1.0800 1.1664 1.2597 1.3605 1.4693 1.5869 1.7138 1.8509 1.9990 2.1589
NPV $449.07 $831.62 $1,155.03 $1,425.96 $1,650.41 $1,833.79 $1,980.95 $2,096.24 $2,183.59 $2,246.49

Annual Diversion Costs to Prevent Conviction $3100.00 per year 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years
$3,100.00 $3,193.00 $3,288.79 $3,387.45 $3,489.08 $3,593.75 $3,701.56 $3,812.61 $3,926.99 $4,044.80
NPV Denominator 1.0800 1.1664 1.2597 1.3605 1.4693 1.5869 1.7138 1.8509 1.9990 2.1589
NPV $2,870.37 $2,737.48 $2,610.75 $2,489.88 $2,374.61 $2,264.67 $2,159.83 $2,059.83 $1,964.47 $1,873.52
Total NPV $2,870.37 $5,607.85 $8,218.60 $10,708.48 $13,083.09 $15,347.76 $17,507.59 $19,567.42 $21,531.89 $23,405.41

NPV for Housing an Inmate for 55 months $79,192.29

NPV for Educating an Inmate over 55 months $1,583.00

NPV of Pre-Conviction Diversion over 55 months $9,908.44

NPV for Housing an Inmate over 10 years $183,203.99

NPV of Educating an Inmate over 10 years $2,246.49

NPV of Pre-Conviction Diversion over 10 years $23,405.41

COST SAVINGS OVER 55 MONTHS PER INMATE $67,700.85 ($79,192.29 - $1,583.00 - $9,908.44)

COST SAVINGS OVER 10 YEARS PER INMATE $157,552.09 ($183,203.99 - $2,246.49 - $23,405.41)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: All data generated from the Florida Department of Corrections (2021) Strategic Plan and Annual Report demonstrating the net

present value of savings/costs per inmate for fiscal year 2020-2021.

114
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Problem of Practice: This study examines how criminal defense attorneys interact with clients
to make “meaningful” relationships and what effect they may have on a client’s microsystem, in
particular for substance abuse, including implications for how a “meaningful” relationship can
advance criminal justice reform.

Research Questions:

1. How do criminal defense attorneys establish what they perceive to be a “meaningful”
relationship” with a client?
2. How do criminal defense attorneys perceive their influence on a client’s microsystem as
it relates to substance abuse?
3. What role, if any, do criminal defense attorneys believe a “meaningful” attorney client
relationship plays in advancing criminal justice reform?
Introduction to the Interview:

I would like to first thank you for participating in this research project, and I believe,
because of your experiences, knowledge, or opinions, you may have some valuable insight to
help explain this research further. My name is Steven Leskovich, a University of Southern
California doctoral student. I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in this research
project, and if, for whatever reason, you wish to terminate this discussion, please let me know
and we will not proceed any further. This research project examines just how a criminal defense
attorney perceives the attorney-client relationship, a client’s substance abuse, and criminal
justice reform. I would like for you to review the information sheet that I am handing to you
now, and please let me know when you are finished reviewing it, and if you have any questions

115
regarding it. Please keep in mind that there are no correct or incorrect answers; thus, all of the
questions asked of you are merely to ascertain information on how you feel about a topic or think
about a topic, or that you may have personal experiences regarding a topic. All answers you
provide to me will be held in the strictest of confidences, and your identity will remain
confidential for all research purposes. Not only is this communicative interview confidential, but
your identity will remain anonymous. I may take some notes for my own reference to help assist
me in my questions and in my research. Finally, I am respectfully asking for your permission to
record this conversation, not for purposes of disclosure to other people, but merely to provide a
reference for accuracy. After I have the interview transcribed, you will be provided an
opportunity to review it and make any necessary changes or modifications to it. Also, please note
that at the conclusion of this research project, your transcribed interview will not be maintained;
thus, it will be fully destroyed. Do you have any questions for me currently?

Table B1
Interview Protocol
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
1.) What does the
attorney-client
relationship mean to
you?
“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Knowledge,
Experience
2.) What do you do, if
anything, to establish
what you would
consider to be a good
working attorney-client
relationship?
“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Experience

116
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
3.) Do you know what a
“meaningful” attorney-
client relationship is,
and if so, what is it?

“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Knowledge,
Experience
4.) Can you provide
examples of what you
do, if anything, to
empower a client
psychologically,
educationally,
economically,
politically, and/or
socially?
“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Experience
5.) What would you do,
if anything, to improve
your relationship with
a client?
“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Knowledge,
Experience
6.) What do you think
your clients would say
about you?
“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Opinion
7.) Do you think your
clients believe you
have a good
relationship with
them? If so, why? If
not, why?
“Meaningful”
Attorney-Client
Relationship
1 Atty-Client
Relationship
Opinion
8.) What percentage of
clients, if any, do you
believe have a
substance abuse
problem?
Substance Abuse 2 Substance
Abuse
Opinion

117
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
9.) What percentage of
clients, if any, who
have been arrested, do
you believe their arrest
is linked to substance
abuse?
Substance Abuse 2 Substance
Abuse
Opinion
10.) Why, if at all, is it
important for you to
understand why a
client has a substance
abuse problem? Probe:
Why do you think it is
unimportant?
Substance Abuse
Problem
2, 3 Substance
Abuse
Opinion
11.) Why, if it all, is it
important for you to
know why a client
chooses to engage in
criminal behavior?
Probe: Why do you
think it is unimportant?
Choice Theory 2, 3 Choice Experience
12.) In what ways, if at
all, do you think clients
make rational choices
regarding substance
abuse or criminality?
Probe: Why do you
think their choices are
not rational?
Socialization/Choice
Theories
2 Choice and
Socialization
Opinion

118
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
13.) Why, if at all, is it
important for you to
know how a client’s
family, friendships
with peers, and/or the
client’s childhood
development
contributes to their
decision to engage in
criminal behavior?
What about substance
abuse specifically? If
so, why; and if not,
why not?
What are the causes? 2 Criminal
Behavior
Opinion
14.) Can you provide
examples, tactics, or
strategies you currently
use, if you do, to assist
a client to refrain from
substance abuse and/or
criminal behavior?
Microsystem 2 Experience
15.) Can you provide
examples, tactics, or
strategies of what you
can do, if anything, in
the future to dissuade a
client from future
substance abuse or
criminal behavior?
Microsystem 2 Reform Opinion
16.) What does Criminal
Justice Reform mean
to you?
Macrosystem 3 Reform Experience,
Opinion
17.) What do you
currently do, if
anything, to assist the
criminal justice system
with reform initiatives?
Macrosystem 3 Reform Experience

119
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
18.) Can you provide
examples, tactics, or
strategies of what you
would be interested in
doing or could be
doing to promote
criminal justice reform,
if anything?
Macrosystem 3 Reform Opinion
19.) In what ways, if you
can think of anything,
can you encourage a
client to make changes
in their life choices?
Macrosystem 3 Reform Experience
20.) Do you think that if
you had a
“meaningful”
relationship with a
client, that the client
may be persuaded to
reduce their substance
use or criminal
behavior? If so, why; if
not, why not?
Microsystem 2/3 Reform Opinion

Conclusion to the Interview:

I want to thank you for participating in this interview and providing answers to some tough
questions. Your answers have truly assisted me in this research process.

Do you have any questions for me currently?

120
I am hopeful that you will permit me to contact you again, if needed, to help answer or clarify
any questions that may come up after this interview. If you know of anyone who could possibly
contribute to or have any additional insight into this research project, I would greatly appreciate
you taking the time to pass my information off to that person, or, if you feel comfortable, you
can provide their information to me, and I will reach out to them myself. I will not disclose to
any person how their information was provided to me, but merely that they were provided as a
possible resource with potentially valuable information.

Finally, for my records, and again, to remain confidential, I want to make sure I have your name
and phone number correct.

Thank you and have a wonderful rest of the day.

121
Appendix C
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy
Los Angeles, CA 90089
(213) 740-0224

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: The Quest for Alternative Criminal Justice Reform: A Criminal Defense
Attorney as the Change Agent

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Steven S. Leskovich

FACULTY ADVISOR: Kimberly Ferrario, Ph.D.
Associate Professor at the Rossier School of Education

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine how a criminal defense attorney may be able to
effectively propagate criminal justice reform necessitated by substance abuse. The examination
will investigate a ““meaningful” attorney-client relationship;” a client’s socialization to group
norms and economic choice behaviors, and the intertwined link between the client’s ecological
human development microsystem and advocating for change to the macrosystem. We hope to
learn how a criminal defense attorney can effectively promote criminal justice reform. You are

122
invited as a possible participant because you may have extensive knowledge, experiences, and
opinions on how substance abuse affects criminal behavior.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Each participant will be asked a series of questions as it relates to their knowledge, experience,
and/or opinions regarding the role of a criminal defense attorney with their client who has a
substance abuse problem, all in efforts to advance an alternative means to effective criminal
justice reform. Interviews are anticipated to last no longer than one hour. Audio recording may
be utilized for so long as the participant is willing to consent to said recording.

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to provide honest, sincere, and truthful answers.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Because you have chosen to voluntarily participate in this research project, you will be entered
into a drawing for a chance to win a $500 gift card.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

All data gathered from this study will be destroyed upon completion of the study.

123
If you have granted permission to have your interview audio recorded, you will be provided with
an opportunity to review the transcript to check it for accuracy and make necessary changes, if
applicable. All audio recordings will be destroyed upon the completion of the study.

Any and all personal information or demographics you provide will be kept confidential, and not
disclosed to outside parties.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact:

Steven S. Leskovich - Researcher
leskovic@usc.edu
(239) 822-9727

Dr. Kimberly Ferrario
kferrari@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the client. In developing this philosophical statement from the data contained within this study, this paper developed evidence-based recommendations regarding how criminal defense attorneys can assist in the deterrence of substance abuse for a client and eventually contribute to alternative criminal justice reform through the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship. In this semi-structured qualitative analysis study, nine criminal defense attorneys, who are in good standing with The Florida Bar and had at least 6 years of experience in the field of criminal law, were interviewed to provide their perceptions regarding the development of a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship, perceptions regarding their influence on a client’s microsystem as it relates to substance abuse, and perceptions on how a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship can advance alternative criminal justice reform. After analyzing the data, it was determined that criminal defense attorneys had a limited understanding of what a “meaningful” attorney-client relationship entails and that attorneys need to engage in self-reflection that advances client-centered initiatives. From this study’s findings, it is recommended that all criminal defense attorneys engage in self-reflection to promote their professional identity formations to improve their interpersonal skills, lawyering skills, and relationship skills; that all criminal defense attorneys actively participate in the enhancement of alternative criminal justice reform; and that all law students and experienced lawyers be required to take “Client Psychology and the Law” related courses and/or continuing legal education credit hours towards understanding a client’s ecological human developmental factors.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A field study of juvenile recidivism in Los Angeles

PDF

Toward equity and inclusion for developmentally disabled persons: a study of electoral engagement

PDF

Supporting the equitable treatment of youth in the criminal justice system: an evaluation of a systematic decision-making process for a juvenile diversion program

PDF

Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Improving continuity of care in the juvenile justice system: A pilot proposal

PDF

Procedural justice and the impact on African Americans: an evaluation study

PDF

Intersectional equity in higher education leadership: leveraging social capital for success

PDF

Student engagement: a quantitative analysis on aspects that are predictive of engagement

PDF

Reinventing everything: identity, injustice, and an arts program for justice-involved young adults

PDF

A legacy of resilience: the experiences of African-American female attorneys: a case study

PDF

Financial literacy for women and the role of financial education: an exploratory study of promising practices

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians

PDF

Black women’s mental health is impacted by the unjust killing of their unarmed Black relatives in America

PDF

The nature of K-12 education news in the United States

PDF

Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

PDF

Motivational interviewing with adolescent substance users: a closer look

PDF

Where are they? The underrepresentation of African or Black American senior executives in the Department of Defense

PDF

International school director tenure: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Leskovich, Steven S. (author)

Core Title The quest for alternative criminal justice reform: a criminal defense attorney as the change agent

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 02/08/2022

Defense Date 11/09/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag "meaningful" attorney-client relationship,alternative criminal justice reform,behavioral economics,client-centered initiatives,criminal behavior,criminality,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,rational choice,socialization to group norms

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ferrario, Kimberly A. (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas E. (committee member), Phillips, Jennifer L. (committee member)

Creator Email leskovic@usc.edu,steven@southernjustice.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110702281

Unique identifier UC110702281

Legacy Identifier etd-LeskovichS-10385

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Leskovich, Steven S.

Type texts

Source 20220214-usctheses-batch-912 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu