Franchising was finally born this week after a troubled gestation when it was announced that some 1000 offices of about 600 legal aid firms had been offered contracts on 1 August.But only some 60% of those offices were offered contracts which included the full devolved powers provisions allowing firms to grant legal aid certificates.

These are viewed by many as the element of franchising most attractive to firms.Legal Aid Board officials were quick to counter suggestions that 40% of the offices were being offered what amounts to a second-class franchise.Steve Orchard, LAB chief executive, said firms which had not been given devolved powers would have to wait 'several months' while the board studied their systems further.

Many had not been given the full franchise, he said, because the volume of work in certain fields had not been high enough for board officials to make a full evaluation.Mr Orchard and board chairman John Pitts this week shied away from an outright suggestion that franchised firms would be better than non-franchised outfits, but they did point out the marketing advantages.Mr Orchard said the board was aiming to double the number of franchised firms within the next 18 months.

The board reckons the number so far represents between 20% and 25% of the firms currently doing legal aid work.He expressed disappointment at the relatively low number of applications from London, south Wales and Tyneside, but said there would be no specif ic drive aimed at getting law firms in those areas on board.The Law Society said this week that it would be 'making representations to the board for more information' on why such a high percentage of firms had not been offered devolved powers.

The contract offers came a fortnight after the Society's Council had lifted its temporary embargo on the franchising contracts (see letter to practitioners from Society President Charles Elly below).'We were surprised that so many firms didn't get devolved powers,' said the Society's head of professional policy, Russell Wallman, who led negotiations with the board over the franchising contracts.

'Many people will not be impressed at not obtaining them.'Mr Wallman added: 'It's unfortunate that some of what the board has said might lead people to believe that franchised firms are the only place to go for a quality service.'Franchising was a guide to the quality of administrative office systems and not the quality of legal advice.

'Clients will still be best served by using a solicitor they know or one who has been recommended to them or by choosing one from a Law Society specialist panel,' maintained Mr Wallman.The board received applications for contracts from about 1200 offices before the beginning of last November, the deadline for the first tranche.

Of those, about 5% were rejected.

In some cases, firms based at several sites had one office approved for a contract while another office was rejected.So far, the board has hired an additional 120 staff to run the franchise scheme which has an annual budget of some £3.5 million.The public will be able to recognise franchised firms by a new colour logo and the board is planning a series of newspaper advertisements.

Firms granted a contract will also be allowed to advertise their franchise.FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER FROM LAW SOCIETY PRESIDENT CHARLES ELLY TO LEGAL AID PRACTITIONERS:"After considering a detailed package of new proposals from the Legal Aid Board, the Council has decided to lift its advice to firms not to sign franchising contracts.

I am very pleased that our negotiations with the Legal Aid Board have enabled us to achieve substantial improvements to the terms which were on offer before the Council took its determined stand in April.

With goodwill on both sides, we have managed to obtain most of the changes to the contract, specification and the franchise manual which the profession asked for in our consultation meetings.

Most of all, however, I believe we have achieved a change in attitude.

As I have said on another occasion, the key to success is partnership.

The board has recognised that to rely on fear within the profession driving firms into franchising does not make for a true partnership between us.

Franchising will not work without co-operation.

There is no doubt that by your united response to the Council's advice in April not to enter franchising, you have enabled us to achieve these very significant improvements.

Now, whatever your decision, the Law Society will represent you to the best of its ability.

We are building on the success of our co-ordination arrangements over the last few months to set up a franchise-holders group, but we will also continue to represent those who wish to carry on with legal aid but decide not to apply for a franchise.

Both categories are represented within the leadership of your profession.

I know that many of you remain fearful of the government's ultimate intentions for legal aid.

I cannot pretend that I do not have my own fears, but I can reassure you to this extent .

If if were ever decided to exclude non-franchise holders from legal aid, the government would have to give notice and consult with us.That means that firms would have time to apply for a franchise at that stage.

I do not believe, therefore, that firms will risk being cut out of legal aid by not applying now.

On the other hand, I would urge you to implement the practice management standards in your firm, whether you intend to apply for a franchise or not.

I believe that not only will you find that the health of your firm improves as a result; you will also find yourself well positioned should you with to apply for a franchise later on.

During the past few months many of you have had contact with the Society.

I hope this closer relationship between us will continue over the next year.

Do not hesitate to let me or the Legal Practice Directorate staff know if we can help in any way."