God make me good - tomorrow' characterises the attitude of the one in four law firms which have failed to implement an in-house complaints procedure - the subject of practice rule 15 passed two-and-a-half years ago.That is the view of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau's recently appointed compliance officer, Andrew Baker, who came from Barclays Bank's legal department after 20 years previous experience in practice.He is leading the SCB campaign t o drive home the message that client care initiatives, such as a publicly stated policy on complaints handling, are good for business.Despite the publicity accompanying the launch of rule 15, surveys reveal a low level of compliance.

Most recently, solicitors were chided by the National Consumer Council when it found that a quarter of 60 firms polled did not have a complaints system up and running (see [1994] Gazette, 9 February, 4).'Many of those who answered "no" were very small firms which claimed that the sole practitioner/senior partner would handle complaints personally and there was no need for a formal procedure,' the NCC observed.

It is this type of attitude that Mr Baker is striving to overcome.In 1992, 5733 of the complaints made to the SCB were referred to the firm concerned and rule 15 invoked.

Of these, 87% were successfully resolved.'How many people would not have complained to the bureau if the solicitors' firm had implemented rule 15 procedures in the first place?' the SCB asks.The aim of the SCB campaign, which began in earnest with the appointment of Mr Baker last July, is to persuade practitioners that an in-house complaints handling system can be simple and cheap.'Essentially it doesn't have to be complicated - it just has to be a system of which the client is aware,' says Mr Baker.Such systems also make business sense, says the bureau.'Rather than increasing the firm's overheads, it could result in improved revenue by retaining more existing clients and increasing the firm's client base.'If a client becomes unhappy with an aspect of the firm's service and has been made aware at the outset that the firm has an internal complaints handling procedure, he is far less likely to express that dissatisfaction to an external third party,' the SCB says.Mr Baker's first approaches to firms have been via local law societies in Birmingham, Warwickshire, Hereford & Worcester and Bristol.He has been using the SCB's complaints database to select those firms which could benefit from being approached on the subject of rule 15.

Initial contact is made by letter, with firms asked to provide details and examples of their client literature.Is there genuine professional resistance to rule 15? 'A lot of firms have been good at acknowledging that client care is an essential aspect of practice - but find more difficulty in its practical application,' Mr Baker says, adding: 'But I am surprised at the lack of resistance to rule 15.

No one rejects it outright.'He points out that smaller firms which have found it hard to put the system in place because of other pressures on senior staff can use a fellow firm to handle complaints if they wish, or even the local law society.In this way, the argument goes, many of the less serious, costly and time-consuming complaints currently filed with the SCB can be devolved to a much more local level.

'Undoubtedly there would be a saving to the profession,' observes Mr Baker.The early soundings in Birmingham have been fairly encouraging: out of six firms approached by letter, five were quick to provide client care literature.Firms which do not reply are then visited by the compliance officer who will discuss the object and benefits of rule 15 with them.Mr Baker emphasises that this aspect of the work is meant to be more pastoral than disciplinary.

'I hope I am not seen as a dentist or policeman-type figure,' he says.An important element of such a visit is to get a first-hand feel for what the physical environment of a particular firm is, Mr Baker believes.For the time being, the bureau's watchword is persuasion.

But it is quick to point out that compliance is mandatory for firms, and the velvet glove may be removed if this proves necessary after the initial campaigns.Another factor is legal aid franchising.

The Legal Aid Board's franchising specification has made it clear that applicants should comply with rule 15 if they are to be awarded a contract.

Getting systems going well in advance of an application may be necessary, the SCB says.'The bureau is also pushing its client care literature - 'The positive ways to avoid complaints', and 'Alias Smith & Jones', a sample client care leaflet which firms are free to adapt or copy according to their own needs.With this range of pressures, not to mention the rise of 'consumer-power' in John Major's charter-infested Britain, being 'good' may cease to be the subject of professional procrastination.-- Andrew Baker can be contacted on 0926 822155.