One month after the launch of franchising, Buckingham-shire law firm Linnells has already found its franchise award a useful marketing device .

.

.

for its commercial clients.'A chap from a pharmaceutical company asked about franchising.

He knew all about it as an issue and wanted to know if we had applied,' says Linnells managing partner Jeremy Irwin-Singer.'He was a very shrewd commercial client who, on the face of it, had nothing to do with legal aid.

But he realised franchising is a quality mark, it means the quality of our work has been checked and our files have been inspected.'Linnells is a 21-partner firm, with franchises at five offices, covering consumer law, crime, debt, employment, housing, personal injury, and matrimonial and family work .

.

.

everything except immigration and welfare law.Mr Irwin-Singer is an unashamed convert to the merits of franchising .

.

.

'I was very sceptical at the beginning' .

.

.

with all the enthusiasm that normally characterises the newly converted.

He is, he says, 'thrilled to have got such an accolade from the Legal Aid Board'; and franchising will be a 'great fillip to the legal aid sector'.

Clients are already better informed and receiving a speedier service as a result of the procedures for franchised firms laid down by the board, he adds.At the other end of the scale, perhaps, is the Sheffield-based firm Graysons.

Partner Jonathan Bennett says: 'Despite all the hype over franchising, one month into procedures, it has not made one iota of difference to this firm.' Graysons has franchises for crime, matrimonial, and personal injury work, with some devolved powers in each category.Unlike Linnells, it has not used any of its powers.

Mr Bennett cites three reasons why his, and he suspects many other firms, have not yet exercised their right to extend green form or grant emergency certificates.

These are: the limited nature of the powers, concern about 'getting it wrong' and granting them inappropriately; and the 'fear factor'.

He says that, in the main, firms applied for franchises for negative rather than positive reasons.

Rather than being attracted by any supposed benefits it might bring, they feared that, if they did not, in a few years' time, they might not be able to do legal aid at all.By contrast, Mr Irwin-Singer has personally granted two emergency certificates in family cases, and the devolved powers have also been used elsewhere in the firm.

He found it a 'liberating' experience, 'not having to struggle with forms prior to issue'.

Devolved powers mean 'the law comes first and bureaucracy comes second', he adds.Bristol-based Bobbetts Mackan has also had cause to use its extended powers.

The firm is acting for Fred West, who is accused of multiple murders in Gloucester, and was able to grant itself a certificate to seek an injunction against Mr West's former solicitor, Howard Ogden.

'Having seen Mr West in Winston Green prison, our solicitor was able to phone through to the partner in charge, and he granted him an emergency certificate there and then,' says partner John Peake.He adds that the firm has seen other benefits, too.

'In the West case, because we granted ourselves an emergency certificate, we then had an interim payment on account, which we were not expecting.

Although it was only a nominal amount, it was still nice to see.'Despite this, Mr Peake says he gives franchising only a qualified welcome so far.

'As a firm, we are trying to make sure there is consistency of decision-making.

We have decided that approval of all devolved powers will be authorised by the supervisor of that franchise category.' Although he does not think this will be a major problem to sort out, Bobbetts has not yet come up with the appropriate in-house procedures, he says.

'In theory, there is no reason why Betty our cleaner could not grant a green form extension if she were so minded.'But while using devolved powers may be beneficial where the answer is yes, the case does qualify for an extension, some solicitors have reservations about the impact when an application has to be refused by the firm.

As Mr Peake says: 'It is far easier to blame someone else.'David Prince, franchise manager and partner at Irwin Mitchell agrees.

He foresees difficulties if it becomes well known among clients that it may be the firm itself turning them down .

.

.

albeit following guidelines laid down by the board.

'If you have a particularly aggressive client and you have to say "I'm refusing you legal aid," it puts you in a very difficult situation.

That will occur, I am certain,' says Mr Prince.He also has reservations about the inflexibility of the board's approach, which means its designated procedures must be followed to the letter.

Irwin Mitchell was already BS5750 accredited .

.

.

the British Standard that guarantees the quality of systems .

.

.

and already had file review procedures in place.

However, the LAB insists that files must be reviewed by a fee-earner otherwise unconnected with the case.

With complicated multi-party personal injury cases, this can be immensely time-consuming, says Mr Prince.

'On our audit of one particular disaster case, somebody had taken four days to review the file, and we were not going to get paid for it,' he says.The board's intransigence has caused some ill-feeling, he adds.

By contrast, Mr Peake says franchising has actually improved relations with the local area office.

'It almost seems that because we have a franchise, they feel we are more competent in making decisions.

In Bristol, we have always tried to get on with the board and that is beginning to pay off,' he says.