Leopards changing their spots are a rarity in the legal world at any time.

But a year after the much-maligned Legal Aid Board (LAB) was reborn in the shiny new pelt of the Legal Services Commission (LSC), the question remains as to whether it is a different kind of animal.Is the LSC the shining future of government-funded legal advice, as hoped, or merely a similarly spotted version of its predecessor?The change, which came about as a result of provisions in the Access to Justice Act 1999, meant that as well as a new look and logo, the LSC also had different priorities: the establishment of the civil scheme for funding cases, the Community Legal Service (CLS) which started on 1 April last year, and a project for funding criminal cases, the controversial Criminal Defence Service (CDS), which finally got under way earlier this month.The idea behind the LSC was always an ambitious one -- the introduction of legal aid contracts for selected firms effectively changing the concept of publicly funded legal advice -- and its work in its first year has reflected that.

Drawn-out wranglings over criminal defence contracts have led even Steve Orchard, the LSC's chief executive, to admit that 'it has been a turbulent year'.Turbulent, undoubtedly, but in Mr Orchard's view, ultimately productive.

'We've achieved an enormous amount this last year,' he says.

'The biggest change is obviously that, as of this month, all legal aid -- both criminal and civil -- will be done under contract.

The CLS has developed faster than, and beyond, what we anticipated last year, with more partnerships at a more advanced stage than we ever hoped.'However, he is keen to stress that the LSC has achieved more than just the headline-grabbing CDS introduction.

'Our special cases unit, which deals with all cases over £25,000, is fully operational; the funding code is pretty settled now; and work on the quality mark is proceeding at a rapid pace.'While stressing the LSC's 'impressive' achievements, he is keen not to let hubris overwhelm him.

'We haven't always been as robust as we could have been in managing some contracts,' he admits, emphasising that 'this is an issue with individual firms, however, rather than the contracts in general'.Problems need to be resolved elsewhere.

'Our telephone answering service in London also needs to be sorted out, because people are waiting far too long to get their calls answered.' This is an issue that arouses passions down at the coalface, and Cherry McMillen, a partner in London legal aid practice McMillen Hamilton McCarthy, says she regularly spends '45 minutes to an hour' waiting to hav e her calls answered by the LSC.

'But, on balance, when you finally get through, the people there do seem to talk sense,' she says.She admits that 'every legal aid practitioner will tell you a story about the inefficiency of the LSC', and one serious problem appears to be bill-settling.

'Since the change to the LSC, the office dealing with assessment of legal aid bills has moved from London to Liverpool and Nottingham,' says Ms McMillen.

'With a change of office has also come a change in attitude.

There seems to be a deliberate policy of cutting down bills,' she says, citing one of her recent cases where her ten hours of preparation were cut to just three by the LSC.Mr Orchard said: 'Many of the bills in the Nottingham and Liverpool offices have been subject to appeal.

Members of the profession in those area offices have been critical of the quality of bills they have had to consider.'Karen Todner, partner in London criminal legal aid practice Kaim Todner, agrees.

'Although in general the quality of personnel at the LSC has improved, the billing being handled by Liverpool and Nottingham simply hasn't worked,' she says, citing 'lack of training' as the problem.David McIntosh, Vice-President of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: 'Practitioners find many aspects of dealing with the commission frustrating, no more so than in the negotiations regarding the criminal defence contract in which we believe lessons have been learnt.

It is important that the Society is actively involved in trying to bring about improvements.'We are currently taking part in the LSC's review of its internal organisation looking at, for example, improving the call system and services they provide.

The Law Society continues to work with the LSC on a wide range of issues and look forward to working closely with them in the future.'Therefore, the view among legal aid practitioners appears to be cautious approval tempered by frustration.

Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), agrees.

'On balance, I think the LSC is an improvement on the LAB.

Mainly because it has a far broader remit -- for example, developing initiatives with the non-profit sector, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux -- compared to the LAB which was rather a bill-paying and application-processing scheme.'Mr Miller sees this relationship with the not-for-profit sector as fundamental to the LSC's success.

'A lot of money is being diverted to non-profit organisations, many of whom are providing excellent advice on areas not touched on by solicitors, and this is the first time these have come within the remit of a government body providing legal advice,' he says.Non-profit organisations aside, however, the real benefit of the LSC -- as Mr Miller sees it -- is the opportunity for solicitors to take back some of the government's power.

'The greatest improvement that the LSC has brought is that decisions about various aspects of legal help have now been devolved to the practitioners themselves,' explains Mr Miller.

'This is a hugely positive thing, as it's the practitioners who know what's going on in their cases, and they don't want to be second-guessed by someone with less experience.'He sees the future of the LSC bringing more decision-making powers to the practitioners.

'There is the potential for huge change next year -- the partnership innovation budget consultation paper, which is out now, seriously brings up the possibility that funding decisions will be devolved to practitioners themselves.'However, the LSC has by no means sparked a universal dec laration of welcome.

Malcolm Fowler, chairman of the Law Society's criminal law committee, for one, is deeply disappointed.'The vision behind an efficient delivery of a quality service is to be applauded,' he says.

'But the reality that we have in front of us is a pale shadow of what it ought to have been -- it has fallen far short because of under-funding and under-resourcing, and deprived the government and the community of the real aspirations they had about working together.'Mr Fowler maintains that although there are 'dedicated, well-meaning and professional staff working there', much of this fault lies with the LSC itself.He explains: 'The LSC needs to fight its corner more vigorously.

It needs to say to the government that it has to have more cash in order to deliver a quality service.

If the LSC would devote as much energy to recognising its inadequacies and trying to do something about them, as it does to papering over the cracks, then it would earn our respect.'The irony arising out of the system of contracting is not lost on Mr Fowler: 'Through contracting, the LSC has made us accountable for every professional breath we take -- whereas the LSC's delivery of services is utterly inefficient, yet they are not accountable to anyone for their shortcomings.'Nicola Mackintosh, a partner in niche mental health practice Mackintosh Duncan, agrees that there are flaws in the contracting system.

Last year, she took the LAB to court, claiming that the contracting scheme was flawed in its implementation, illogical and restrained an individual's right to choose a legal representative.She also is not overly impressed with the LSC.

'I'm concerned at the mental health and community care policy of the commission,' she says.

'It seems to be settling for mediocrity rather than aiming for a real quality service.'The LSC -- as with most legal organisations -- appears to inspire fear, suspicion and welcome in equal measure, with the profession divided as to the benefits of its existence.The question is still open as to whether the LAB has really 0changed.

However, the general feeling seems to be that a rose may still be a rose by any other name, but all that really matters is the quality of the flower.