Even in law, it's all about the bottom line. Which is crazy, because jurors should know better than this. A person can afford an expensive attorney? Fine, take that into consideration. If you can't afford one, that should be taken into consideration as well. It definitely impacts legal outcomes for the poor.
If the poor did not get legal services at all, they would get railroaded by the system and the rich at every turn of events. Legal aid for the impoverished is certainly not as good as the representation that the rich can afford, but it is better than nothing at all.
I believe the quality of legal services for the poor does significantly impact legal outcomes. In criminal cases a poor person accused of a crime is more likely to be convicted and sent to prison. They can't buy a good lawyer like a wealthy person can. In civil cases there are a lot of legal proceedings that are all together avoided because the parties simply can't afford the legal services required. This means companies can target the poor, rip them off, and get away with it because there's no way for the consumer to retaliate. The legal system is not in favor of the poverty stricken, in fact it works directly against them.
I definitely think that the quality of the legal services of the poor may affect the legal outcomes. I think that if somebody has the money to buy a better lawyer, they should. It's only logical to think that a lawyer that is expensive can do a better job than a lawyer paid for by the state.
No, the quality of legal services for the poor do not significantly impact legal outcomes, because most cases are cut and dry. Most people cannot afford lawyers because they choose not to. A poor person could stop watching cable and smoking cigarettes and drinking, and spend that money on an attorney instead, but they choose not to.