To overcome problems of juridification and formalization of administrative law, successful initiatives have been undertaken by professionals in the public administration and judiciary to improve administrative procedures. These initiatives have been inspired by theories of (perceived) procedural justice, as developed by Tyler and Lind (1988). Although the author acknowledges the importance of procedural justice, she argues that the strong focus on procedural aspects, based on subjective opinions of claimants, may unintentionally lead to a situation in which other important issues may be easily overlooked, such as the question why citizens would refrain from starting a lawsuit or the question what explains the low success rates of citizens in administrative law.

This article serves to gain insight in the use and non-use of various types of legal advice, particularly in relation to income levels and legal costs. Based on (logistic regression) analyses involving survey data on 1,928 Dutch citizens who experienced a non-trivial problem in the period May 2009 to May 2014, main findings are as follows: (1) 37% of citizens facing a (potential) legal problem contacted various types of legal advisers once or repeatedly. (2) In the explanation of use/non-use of advocates, problem characteristics turned out to matter significantly, in contrast with the level of household income. Entitlements to subsidized legal aid (lower income groups) as well as legal expenses insurance have made income a factor of less importance. (3) Looking at the degree in which citizens reported (high) costs being a reason for not using legal advice, again no significant differences were found between income groups. Especially advocates were deemed too expensive, regardless of household income; a reason for non-use in half of the cases in which advocates had been considered.