Law firms signing legal aid franchise contracts will do so with qualified Law Society blessing, following a vote by the ruling body's Council last week.

The Council withdrew earlier advice to firms not to sign contracts until the Legal Aid Board had substantially amended the terms on offer.Although it adopted a resolution which stopped well short of outright approval of the contract, it said practitioners should now 'consider the various documentation concerning franchising and...

make their own individual assessment of whether they wish to apply for or accept a franchise'.The Council acknowledged that substantial concessions had been wrung from the board, but it still attached a caveat to the final package.

The resolution said 'the benefits to franchise holders do not adequately reflect the substantial effort involved in applying for a franchise, and the high quality of service franchise holders will provide'.LAB officials reacted to the Council's decision with relief.

'There were times when we doubted it would be possible to reach an agreement,' said chief executive Steve Orchard.

'However, those doubts have disappeared over the last few weeks.' He said the board would remain open to modifying the scheme 'where that is necessary in the light of developments in the law and in good practice'.Commenting on the less than full-blooded support given by the Council, Mr Orchard said the resolution was 'the best we [the LAB] could have hoped for'.In rescinding its earlier advice, the Council recognised that a significant number of firms might have signed contracts this August regardless of advice from Chancery Lane.Outgoing Law Society President Rodger Pannone was visibly relieved that the Council qualified its earlier advice.

He told Council members: 'The board has moved very substantially in our direction.

It does seem to have recognised that without the goodwill of practitioners it would have been impossible to go ahead with such a complex new scheme.'Indeed, franchising was a scheme which 'had the potential eventually to change the face of the legal aid scheme - for better or for worse...We owed it to legally aided clients to do everything we could - and that we have done.'There are several key areas where the Society negotiators consider they have scored concessions.

Most importantly, the Lord Chancellor has agreed to drop a provision which would have allowed him unilaterally to cancel the whole franchising programme.

Likewise, the board has calmed fears that franchising will eventually lead to a system of exclusivity whereby only firms in the scheme would be allowed to conduct legally aided work.

At the end of last month, the Lord Chancellor confirmed he had no immediate plans to ask the board to study the feasibility of such a plan.But stumbling blocks remain.

There is concern over the board's requirement regarding the amount of information on advance costs solicitors must provide to clients.

According to negotiators, the requirement goes well beyond the Society's own written professional standards.And the Society is worried the board's requirement to review the 'legal aspects' of the files of even highly experienced solicitors goes far beyond existing practice management standards and 'is inappropriate as a mandatory requirement'.Because of those sticking points, there was some feeling on the Society's Council that outright opposition to the signing of the contracts should remain.

Elieen Pembridge (South London) recommended that the Society should push to have the contract signing date delayed by at least two months.

Such a tactic, she said, would give firms a chance to digest the final draft and give the Society more time to push for the final concessions.Roger Dixon (Yorkshire) agreed.

'Why should we give up now?' he asked.

'Without the co-operation of solicitors, the franchising partnership cannot proceed.'But courts and legal services committee chairman Robert Winstanley main-tained there would be sufficient time to consider the contracts once they are released at the beginning of August.

Mr Winstanley also said there was no question of the Society abandoning the fight for more concessions.

Instead, he said, the resolution before the Council was 'the best way of getting further improvements from the board'.Incoming Society President Charles Elly reinforced Chancery Lane's pitch both to firms which had applied for a franchise and to those which did not intend joining the scheme.

In a statement published in the Society's franchising newsletter, Mr Elly said: 'Whatever your decision, the Law Society will represent you to the best of its ability'.Mr Elly also attempted to dissolve what one Society official described as 'a climate of fear' over the possibility of exclusivity.

He pointed out that the LCD is committed to consulting the Society if exclusivity becomes more likely and that firms will have sufficient time to apply for franchises if it is going to become a reality.A Society-sponsored 'franchise-holders group' is to be launched in the autumn with a contact based at Chancery Lane.Society officials were concerned that a significant number of firms would ignore any continuing recommendation to boycott the franchise contract.

In that case, the board would be able to claim that a proportion of the profession effectively held the Council in contempt - a view which could be invoked to the Society's detriment in future negotiations over other issues.