As administration partner in a firm applying for a legal aid franchise in the first wave, I am bound to say that during 1993 my head was buried too deep in the specification and the practice management standards to worry about the wider picture.

Only since recovering from the trauma of a preliminary audit have I considered critically the draft contract and re-appraised the situation.

Although I was, and still am to some extent, persuaded that franchising could be a good thing, I do not like what I now see.How do our original reasons for applying look now? The factors which originally attracted us to franchising included: practice management systems; payments on account; devolved powers; marketing advantage; and fear.Improved practice management systems will help to make us more efficient and, it is to be hoped, benefit our clients.

Franchising was the spur and we have now implemented these systems at not inconsiderable expense.

These systems are beginning to bear fruit and can continue to do so entirely independently of franchising.

The benefits contained in the specification - improved payments on account and devolved powers - are at best marginal.

These carried very little weight with us.

Indeed, the more I think through the practical implications of the latter having seen the franchise manual, the greater my fear that they will create an unacceptable conflict with our duty to our clients.

The competitive edge which a quality mark could offer has considerable attractions in an increasingly uncertain professional world.

Referral agencies in particular can be expected to use franchise status as a quality benchmark.This is linked to the 'fear factor' - if franchising is a fait accompli, we need to apply to survive.

These two factors have, I suspect, provided the main driving force behind franchise applications.

However, they no longer carry the same weight with me in the light of the contract and recent pronouncements from the Lord Chancellor's Department and Legal Aid Board.

The contract is one-sided and contains many onerous and some down-right offensive provisions.

We have moved a long way from the language of partnership with which the LAB sold the concept in the early days.

Do you remember when everyone accepted that franchising was something of a misnomer? The contract clearly does not.

It reads like a commercial franchise: one where the licensed product is so popular and profitable that franchisees will sign up to almost anything for the right to supply it.

Indeed, apart from the carrots in the specification, the board's only obligation under the contract is to use reasonable endeavour to meet its own service and payment targets.

Moreover, it can unilaterally change anything to do with franchising, including the contract itself, and the Lord Chancellor can pull the plug at any time.

Would you advise a client to sign a contract like this? A franchise on these terms seems a very high price to pay for a competitive edge and short-term peace of mind.

Arguably it might be worthwhile so long as we have a secure escape route in the form of continuing availability of legal aid outside franchising.

However, I fear that exclusivity and compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) will close off that route sooner rather than later.

This is the new 'fear factor'.Members of my firm are in practice for the benefit of the community we serve and are committed to legal aid work.

The worst possible scenario would be if we were forced to choose between giving up legal aid altogether or submitting to 'threshold quality' on uneconomic and unfair franchise terms.

This is a choice which we may all face if the ability to act on legal aid were dependent on having a franchise.

Competitive tendering in such circumstances would be a nightmare.

I have no doubt that standards and quality of service (as opposed to 'quality' in the systems sense) would drop.

Would the consumer's interests be best served by a cheap and less than cheerful legal bargain basement with restricted choice and access? The public's right to instruct a solicitor of their choice is worth defending.

It is justifiable both in professional principle and in market terms.

Half of our firm's work is for existing clients and another quarter derives from friend or family recommendation.

Our clients choose to instruct us.

If they were dissatisfied with our service we would lose them, their families and friends and our practice would founder.

That is market reality as opposed to the Lord Chancellor's artificial concept of a 'legal aid market' where the customer with choice is the state and not the client.I firmly believe that we should take a stand now on the franchise contract.

The LCD would find it very difficult to impose CCT and exclusivity at an 'agreed quality standard' without a viable network of franchised firms.

At present there are barely enough applicants and geographical coverage is patchy.

The LAB are worried.

We know that they are less than enthusiastic about CCT.

With hindsight they may regret shifting their ground on non-exclusivity so soon.

We and the LAB could do with a period of relative stability to give non-exclusive franchising a fair run.

It is a radical initiative which will transform the delivery of publicly funded legal services.

If the LAB is serious about the merits of franchising in its present non-exclusive form then, rather than risk alienating its solicitor 'stakeholders', it should be willing to concede ground on this crucial issue.Legal aid firms should give the LAB and the Lord Chancellor a clear message: we will enter into partnership with you on franchising provided that you give the profession the assurance it seeks against exclusivity and competitive price tendering during the contract term.