- These factors are:

- Based on the research model, the following hypotheses are formulated, that there is no significant relationship between:

- The knowledge sharing behaviour of the lawyers was collected by measuring how frequently they shared knowledge or knowledge sources with other lawyers. A 4–point Likert scale was developed to measure these opinions from:

- To measure the level of usage of Information Technology (IT) services for knowledge sharing, a 4–point Likert scale was developed, from:

- To ascertain the individual lawyer’s opinion about factors that may affect their knowledge sharing, questions were asked on their beliefs, with the following possibilities:

- Table 5 presents the regression analysis for the test of hypotheses.

- The results in Table 5 showed a positive and very weak correlation (r = 0.058). The result also indicated no significance (p > 0.05) in the relationship between expected rewards and attitudes towards knowledge sharing. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected, that is there is no significant relationship between the lawyers’ expected rewards and attitude towards knowledge sharing.

- As shown in Table 5, the relationship showed a positive and strong correlation (r = 0.540). It also indicates a positive and significant slope (B = 0.363; p = 0.000 < 0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected, implying that there is a relationship with expected associations of lawyers in Ibadan and their attitude to sharing knowledge.

- Table 5 showed that the expected contribution is significantly related (r = 0.478; p < 0.05) with the attitude towards knowledge sharing, of lawyers in the Ibadan metropolis. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, meaning that there is a significant relationship between expected contributions and attitudes towards knowledge sharing amongst lawyers in the Ibadan metropolis.

- The results in Table 5 showed that attitude towards knowledge sharing gave a positive correlation (r = 0.156) with the intention to share knowledge, which was significant, at p < 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a significant relationship between the lawyers’ attitudes towards knowledge sharing and their intention to share knowledge.

- From Table 5, the relationship between the intention to share knowledge and knowledge sharing behaviour is not significant (r = 0.084; p = 0.165 > 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is thus accepted. This implies that there is no significant relationship between intention to share knowledge and the knowledge sharing behaviour of lawyers.

- The summary from the results of the hypotheses test showed that the null hypotheses tested for hypothesis one and hypothesis five were not rejected, and were thus supported.Table 6 also shows that the null hypothesis 2, hypothesis 3, hypothesis 4 and hypothesis 6 were supported. These were tested for the following purposes, namely to establish: