Lawyer office service quality evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a lawyer office service quality evaluation method, relates to the technical field of lawyer office quality evaluation, and solves the technical problems that the legal service quality is lack of guarantee and the benefits of legal service consumer groups are damaged due to the fact that no perfect evaluation system is used for evaluating the legal service quality at present. The method comprises the following steps: constructing a lawyer office service quality evaluation model, and analyzing an influence weight value of each lower-level index on an upper-level index in a lawyer office quality evaluation index system by using an analytic hierarchy process; combining the influence weight value of the second-level index with the corresponding score to calculate the score of the first-level index; the influence weight value of the first-level index and the corresponding score are combined to calculate the service quality score of the lawyer office, and the service quality of the lawyer office is comprehensively evaluated; an evaluation standard is established for the service quality of the lawyer office, and the scientificity of evaluating the service quality of the lawyer office is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the field of law firm quality evaluation, and specifically is a method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm. Background Art

[0002] In recent years, with the rapid economic growth and social progress, people's legal awareness has been continuously improving, and the demand for legal services has become increasingly strong; at the same time, the number of law firms has also increased, but the quality of their services varies greatly. People will inevitably consider the quality of service when choosing a law firm, but there are currently few methods to evaluate the service quality of law firms.

[0003] At present, the existing technology has not formulated industry-wide lawyer service quality standards, nor has it effectively supervised the service quality of law firms, resulting in that the quality of legal services in most cases can only be tied to the work attitude and professional ability of individual lawyers, which makes the quality of legal services lack of guarantee, damages the interests of legal service consumer groups and the image of the entire legal industry; therefore, the present invention provides a method for evaluating the service quality of law firms. Summary of the invention

[0004] The present invention aims to solve at least one of the technical problems existing in the prior art; to this end, the present invention proposes a method for evaluating the service quality of law firms, which is used to solve the technical problem that there is currently no perfect evaluation system for evaluating the service quality of law firms, resulting in a lack of guarantee for the quality of legal services and damaging the interests of legal service consumer groups.

[0005] To achieve the above object, the first aspect of the present invention provides a method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm, comprising the following steps:

[0006] Step 1: Construct a law firm service quality evaluation model; the evaluation model structure from top to bottom is the target layer, primary indicators and secondary indicators;

[0007] Step 2: Use the analytic hierarchy process to analyze the weight of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator in the law firm quality evaluation index system;

[0008] Step 3: Combine the weight of the impact of the secondary indicator on the primary indicator with the corresponding score to calculate the score of the primary indicator; the score of the secondary indicator is scored by combining the influencing factors of the secondary indicator with the actual situation of the law firm;

[0009] Step 4: The impact weight of the first-level indicator on the target layer is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the law firm's service quality score, and make a comprehensive evaluation of the law firm's service quality.

[0010] Preferably, the construction of the law firm service quality evaluation model includes:

[0011] The first-level indicators include three elements: law firm service resource elements, law firm service process elements and law firm service result elements; among them, the second-level indicators under the law firm service resource elements include four items: law firm qualifications, law firm management, lawyer skills and law firm location conditions; the second-level indicators under the law firm service process elements include five items: contract conditions, information conditions, service links, service attitudes, and complaints and penalties; the second-level indicators under the law firm service result elements include two items: customer satisfaction and service improvement.

[0012] The present invention covers the entire process of law firm operations, from service resources, service processes to service results, ensuring that each link can be scientifically evaluated and supervised. This comprehensive evaluation mechanism helps to discover potential problems, optimize service processes in a timely manner, and improve overall efficiency; the establishment of secondary indicators makes the evaluation more specific and in-depth, and a complete service evaluation system is an important part of the law firm's brand image; through open and transparent evaluation results, it can attract more potential customers' attention and trust, thereby standing out in the fierce market competition.

[0013] Preferably, the use of the analytic hierarchy process to analyze the weight of the impact of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator in the law firm quality evaluation index system includes:

[0014] Step S1: Determine the judgment matrix of indicators at all levels;

[0015] Step S2: Calculate the eigenvalues ​​of the judgment matrix, extract the maximum eigenvalue, calculate the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix, and analyze whether the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix is ​​less than 0.1; if yes, proceed to step S3; if no, adjust the judgment matrix;

[0016] Step S3: Calculate the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix; normalize the eigenvector to obtain the influence weight value of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator.

[0017] The construction of the judgment matrix of the present invention covers multiple aspects such as service resources, service process, service results, and their respective sub-indicators, ensuring the systematic and comprehensive nature of the evaluation system. This multi-dimensional consideration method helps to fully reflect the service quality and level of the law firm; during the calculation process, if the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix does not meet the requirements, it needs to be adjusted. This step reflects the flexibility and adjustability of the evaluation system and ensures the accuracy and reliability of the final weight.

[0018] Preferably, the calculation of the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix includes:

[0019] The formula for calculating the random consistency ratio is as follows:

[0020] CR = CI / RI;

[0021] Among them, CR is the random consistency ratio, CI is the consistency index, CI=(λ max -n) / (n-1), λ max is the maximum eigenvalue, n is the order of the judgment matrix, and RI is the average random consistency index.

[0022] Preferably, the influence weight value of the first-level indicator is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the law firm service quality score, including:

[0023] The weighted sum of the impact weight of the secondary indicator on the primary indicator and the score corresponding to the secondary indicator is calculated to obtain the corresponding primary indicator score;

[0024] The impact weight value of the first-level indicator and the corresponding score are weighted and summed to calculate the law firm's service quality score.

[0025] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0026] 1. The present invention comprehensively considers the first-level indicator service resource elements, law firm service process elements and law firm service result elements of law firms, as well as the second-level indicators under the first-level indicators; introduces the hierarchical analysis method to analyze the influence weight value of each subordinate indicator relative to the upper-level indicator, and obtains the score of the first-level indicator by weighted summing the influence weight value of the second-level indicator and the corresponding score, and obtains the law firm service quality score by weighted summing the influence weight coefficient of the first-level indicator and the corresponding score, thereby achieving a comprehensive evaluation of the service quality of the law firm and improving the scientific nature of the evaluation of the service quality of the law firm;

[0027] 2. The present invention constructs a law firm service quality evaluation model, and uses the hierarchical analysis method to analyze the influence weight value of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator in the law firm quality evaluation index system; the influence weight value of the secondary indicator is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the score of the primary indicator; the influence weight value of the primary indicator is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the law firm service quality score, and make a comprehensive evaluation of the law firm's service quality; the present invention decomposes the complex law firm service quality problem into multiple levels, each level contains a number of specific indicators, forming a clear and orderly evaluation system, and realizing a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the law firm's service quality. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0028] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0029] Figure 1 It is a schematic diagram of the process of the present invention;

[0030] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the law firm service quality evaluation model of the present invention;

[0031] Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the flow chart of the method for analyzing the influence weight values ​​of indicators at various levels of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0032] The technical solution of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the embodiments. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0033] See also Figure 1 The first aspect of the present invention provides a method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm, comprising the following steps:

[0034] Step 1: Construct a law firm service quality evaluation model; the evaluation model structure from top to bottom is the target layer, primary indicators and secondary indicators;

[0035] See also Figure 2 The first-level indicators include three elements: law firm service resource elements, law firm service process elements and law firm service result elements; among them, the second-level indicators under the law firm service resource elements include four items: law firm qualification, law firm management, lawyer skills and law firm location; the second-level indicators under the law firm service process elements include five items: contract status, information status, service links, service attitude, and complaints and penalties; the second-level indicators under the law firm service result elements include two items: customer satisfaction and service improvement.

[0036] It should be noted that the target layer represents the purpose of solving problems or making decisions. The problem to be solved is the goal to be achieved. In the present invention, it refers to the evaluation object of the service quality of the law firm. The first-level indicators and second-level indicators represent influencing factors.

[0037] See also Figure 3,Step 2: Use the analytic hierarchy process to analyze the weight of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator in the law firm quality evaluation index system;

[0038] Step S1: Determine the judgment matrix of indicators at all levels;

[0039] Specifically, the judgment matrix represents the comparison of the relative importance between an element of the previous level and its related elements. The relative superiority of any two objects for a certain criterion can be quantitatively described, which can make the judgment process more quantitative;

[0040] The expert panel members used the 1-9 scale method to give different evaluation quantitative scales according to different situations, that is, to compare the elements at the same level in pairs to determine the element z. i With z j Which one is more important, and construct a judgment matrix; zi, zj represent the i-th and j-th elements in the same level, i and j can take the same value; where the definition and description of the 1-9 scaling method are shown in Table 1 below;

[0041] Table 1 Definition and description of 1-9 scaling method

[0042]

[0043] Among them, it is assumed that the judgment matrix is ​​A = (aij) n×n , the property of the judgment matrix a ij >0;a ij =1 / a ji ; a ij =1.

[0044] For example: In one embodiment of the present invention, the structural diagram of the evaluation model is shown in Figure 2 , assuming that the constructed judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0045] Matrix 1 Judgment matrix of law firm service quality (A) and its subordinate influencing indicators (B1~B3):

[0046]

[0047] Matrix 2 Law firm resource elements (B1) and their subordinate influence indicators (C 11 ~C 14 ) Judgment matrix:

[0048]

[0049] Matrix 3 Law firm service process elements (B2) and their subordinate impact indicators (C 21 ~C 25 ) Judgment matrix:

[0050]

[0051] Matrix 4 Law firm service result elements (B3) and their subordinate impact indicators (C 31 ~C 32 ) Judgment matrix:

[0052]

[0053] Step S2: Calculate the eigenvalues ​​of the judgment matrix, extract the maximum eigenvalue, calculate the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix, and analyze whether the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix is ​​less than 0.1; if yes, proceed to step S3; if no, adjust the judgment matrix;

[0054] The formula for calculating the random consistency ratio is as follows:

[0055] CR = CI / RI;

[0056] Among them, CR is the random consistency ratio, CI is the consistency index, CI=(λ max -n) / (n-1), λ max is the maximum eigenvalue, n is the order of the judgment matrix, and RI is the average random consistency index.

[0057] The calculation formula shows that the random consistency ratios CR of the above judgment matrix are 0.024, 0.012, 0.006 and 0 respectively, and the CR is less than 0.1, so the judgment matrix is ​​consistent.

[0058] Step S3: Calculate the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix; normalize the eigenvector to obtain the influence weight value of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator.

[0059] For example, through the above-determined judgment matrix, the influence weight values ​​of the subordinate indicators (B1 to B3) of the law firm service quality (A) are calculated as follows:

[0060]

[0061] The impact weights of the subordinate indicators (C11 to C14) of the law firm resource factor (B1) are as follows:

[0062]

[0063] The influence weight values ​​of the subordinate influencing indicators (C21-C25) of the law firm service process element (B2) are as follows:

[0064]

[0065] The influence weights of the subordinate influence indicators (C31-C32) of the law firm service results factor (B3) are as follows:

[0066]

[0067] Step 3: Combine the weight of the impact of the secondary indicator on the primary indicator with the corresponding score to calculate the score of the primary indicator; the score of the secondary indicator is scored by combining the influencing factors of the secondary indicator with the actual situation of the law firm, with a score range of 0 to 100, and the higher the score, the better;

[0068] The weighted sum of the impact weight of the secondary indicator on the primary indicator and the score corresponding to the secondary indicator is calculated to obtain the corresponding primary indicator score.

[0069] It should be noted that the influencing factors of the secondary indicators are as follows:

[0070] Qualifications of the law firm: the registered capital, qualification certification, and registration of the law firm;

[0071] Law firm management: the improvement of the law firm's business management system, financial management system, human resources management system, supervision and management mechanism, and assessment management mechanism; the supervision and management mechanism includes publishing service commitments, setting up a special complaint reception and processing department, and complaint handling records, etc.;

[0072] Lawyer skills: The lawyer has legal qualifications to engage in labor; the lawyer has an education level that meets the job requirements; the lawyer has a professional and technical certificate that meets the job requirements; the lawyer has a corresponding job qualification certificate; the lawyer's mastery of business links, procedures and regulations; the lawyer's ability to use Mandarin and express himself; the lawyer's mastery of foreign languages ​​required for the job; the lawyer's ability to provide targeted services that meet needs;

[0073] Law firm premises: Law firm premises shall be equipped with public signs in accordance with GB / T10001.1 and coordinated with the overall environment; the text signs at law firm premises shall use standardized text, with Chinese and English translations and accurate translations; law firms shall regularly inspect and maintain these signs to ensure that the graphic symbols are clear and complete;

[0074] Contract situation: The law firm signs a service contract with each client for each service; the service contract format of the law firm is standardized; the content of the service contract of the law firm is complete, detailed, clear, objective and fair;

[0075] Information status: Comply with the content of the Service Information Disclosure Specifications, achieving minimum consistency, selected consistency or equivalent consistency;

[0076] Service links: The law firm provides a convenient and accessible place for contact services; the law firm provides convenient service consultation channels, such as front desk, telephone, text message, email, portal website, etc.; the law firm responds to service consultation in a timely manner; the law firm formulates service quality management rules; the law firm provides services on time and in accordance with the contract; the service charges of the law firm are reasonable, open and transparent;

[0077] Service attitude: The service attitude is humble, and the speaking speed and voice meet the needs of service provision;

[0078] Complaints and penalties: Timeliness of receiving and handling service complaints; the establishment of a dedicated department or personnel within the scope of authorization by the law firm to receive and handle customer complaints; the establishment of detailed rules for handling complaints by the law firm; the perfection of the law firm's complaint mechanism, that is, the perfection of the law firm's service complaint mechanism; the timeliness of the law firm's response to complaints, that is, the speed at which the law firm responds to complaints from service recipients;

[0079] Client satisfaction: Client satisfaction refers to the client’s overall satisfaction with the law firm’s services, satisfaction compared with expectations, satisfaction compared with other law firms, and satisfaction compared with ideal services;

[0080] Service improvement: the degree of perfection of the law firm’s improvement mechanism, that is, the degree to which the law firm has established a service improvement mechanism; the speed of improvement of the law firm, that is, the speed of improvement after the law firm discovers that its service is insufficient.

[0081] For example, suppose that the secondary indicators in the law firm service quality evaluation index system are scored (0-100) based on the influencing factors of the secondary indicators, as follows:

[0082]

[0083]

[0084] Based on the score of the secondary indicator and combined with the impact weight value of the secondary indicator, the score of the primary indicator is calculated as follows: Score of the law firm resource factor (B1) = Score of C11 × weight of C11 + Score of C12 × weight of C12 + Score of C13 × weight of C13 + Score of C14 × weight of C14;

[0085] The score of the law firm service process element (B2) = C21 score × C21 weight + C22 score × C22 weight + C23 score × C23 weight + C24 score × C24 weight + C25 score × C25 weight;

[0086] The score of the law firm service result factor (B2) = C31 score × C31 weight + C32 score × C32 weight;

[0087] According to the above calculation formula, the scores of the first-level indicators are calculated as follows:

[0088]

[0089] Step 4: The impact weight of the first-level indicator on the target layer is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the law firm's service quality score, and make a comprehensive evaluation of the law firm's service quality.

[0090] In summary, we can further calculate the law firm’s service quality score = 0.406×89.279+0.114×95.006+0.48×94.375=92.378.

[0091] The law firm service quality score can be used to intuitively select the law firm with the best service quality from a number of law firms.

[0092] Part of the data in the above formula is calculated by removing the dimension and taking its numerical value. The formula is a formula closest to the actual situation obtained by software simulation of a large amount of collected data; the preset parameters and preset thresholds in the formula are set by technical personnel in this field according to actual conditions or obtained through simulation of a large amount of data.

[0093] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical method of the present invention rather than to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the preferred embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that the technical method of the present invention may be modified or replaced by equivalents without departing from the spirit and scope of the technical method of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Step 1: Construct a law firm service quality evaluation model; the evaluation model structure from top to bottom is the target layer, primary indicators and secondary indicators; Step 2: Use the analytic hierarchy process to analyze the weight of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator in the law firm quality evaluation index system; Step 3: Combine the weight of the impact of the secondary indicator on the primary indicator with the corresponding score to calculate the score of the primary indicator; the score of the secondary indicator is scored by combining the influencing factors of the secondary indicator with the actual situation of the law firm; Step 4: The impact weight of the first-level indicator on the target layer is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the law firm's service quality score, and make a comprehensive evaluation of the law firm's service quality.

2. A method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm according to claim 1, characterized in that: The construction of the law firm service quality evaluation model includes: The first-level indicators include three elements: law firm service resource elements, law firm service process elements and law firm service result elements; among them, the second-level indicators under the law firm service resource elements include four items: law firm qualifications, law firm management, lawyer skills and law firm location conditions; the second-level indicators under the law firm service process elements include five items: contract conditions, information conditions, service links, service attitudes, and complaints and penalties; the second-level indicators under the law firm service result elements include two items: customer satisfaction and service improvement.

3. A method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm according to claim 1, characterized in that: The use of the analytic hierarchy process to analyze the weight of the impact of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator in the law firm quality evaluation index system includes: Step S1: Determine the judgment matrix of indicators at all levels; Step S2: Calculate the eigenvalues ​​of the judgment matrix, extract the maximum eigenvalue, calculate the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix, and analyze whether the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix is ​​less than 0.1; if yes, proceed to step S3; if no, adjust the judgment matrix; Step S3: Calculate the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix; normalize the eigenvector to obtain the influence weight value of each lower-level indicator on the upper-level indicator.

4. A method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm according to claim 3, characterized in that: The calculation of the random consistency ratio of the judgment matrix includes: The formula for calculating the random consistency ratio is as follows: CR = CI / RI; Among them, CR is the random consistency ratio, CI is the consistency index, CI=(λ max -n) / (n-1), λ max is the maximum eigenvalue, n is the order of the judgment matrix, and RI is the average random consistency index.

5. A method for evaluating the service quality of a law firm according to claim 3, characterized in that: The influence weight value of the first-level indicator is combined with the corresponding score to calculate the law firm's service quality score, including: The weighted sum of the impact weight of the secondary indicator on the primary indicator and the score corresponding to the secondary indicator is calculated to obtain the corresponding primary indicator score; The impact weight value of the first-level indicator and the corresponding score are weighted and summed to calculate the law firm's service quality score.

Images