1. I understand the importance of brands to some sectors of the market – not all clients will want to go for a brand, in the same way that some people (if they have the choice) will shop at their local fishmonger and not their local supermarket – but how can QS compete with the brand conglomerates? Can QS achieve economies of scale? I don’t see how it can when it is, effectively, a franchise operation. The QS brand might attract clients in but can it offer a more competitive service than the brands? It is competing on the high street which is most price sensitive.

2. Is there a danger of confusing the market? I understand (although Craig will correct me if I’m wrong no doubt) that some of the firms that have re-branded as QS have only rebranded one office – I believe there is a firm in Wigan that has rebranded one of its offices as QS yet across the road it has left its other office as was. What should the client make of that? Where is the quality control there?

3. What will happen when QS is sold out (e.g. to a brand conglomerate) and is no longer run by lawyers?

I completely agree with Rory’s comment about Tessa’s practice and being niche. I regularly pass on Tessa’s details to clients and friends alike.

Tessa, I agree that niches are a brilliant way to go. As soon as I came across your landlord website I forwarded it to my two close friends who are landlords and both were very grateful. Beat that for cost-effective marketing! It’s all in the name, and the focus. It takes nanoseconds to decide “Yes, Tessa is extremely likely to know what she is talking about.”

Its great to see lawyers fighting back against the brands and holding their own in this way. Keep up the good work Craig!

As well as the universal ‘all singing all dancing’ brands, I think there is also great scope for ‘niche’ brands, which is what I am looking to do with my Landlord Law service http://www.landlordlaw.co.uk,. This delivers information and services to the private rented sector via the internet.

The model I am sure could be used by other niche areas of law, to build up a specialist service.

I really wouldn’t read much at all into that, although those looking for comfort to support inertia undoubtedly will!

Firstly the question itself:

We asked: Which, if any, of the following factors would be likely to influence your decision when purchasing legal services… fixed prices; convenience; speed of service; reassurance of a well-known brand; or cheapest price?

It doesn’t particularly invite a response towards the brand option. Ask the same essential question a different way however and you get a very different result; a survey by “Which?”, for example, found that 75% of people thought getting legal services through a bank or supermarket was a “good idea”.

It also should be remembered that this is the kind of question that is typically inaccurately answered. People like to tell others that they wouldn’t use Tesco instead of the local butcher but then go and use Tesco anyway.

In any event, lets say the statistic is between 25% and 75%. Wherever it falls in the spectrum, even at 25%, a reduction of that magnitude in the retail legal services market available for law firms – probably alongside a commensurate reduction in fees as firms compete more and more agressively for less and less work – would have a devatasting impact.

Sorry! That’s not a very cheery post for a Friday evening but I’ve seen that statistic used a few times in a reassuring type context. I think it is anything but reassuring for law firms.

My views on brands in the legal market are pretty well known by now to anyone with an interest in the topic so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice to say I am firmly of the view that the impact of the likely entry into the legal market of the likes of Virgin, Tesco, M&S etc alongside the already present Co-op and Halifax is fatally underestimated by most. I found the LSG debate fascinating. I deliberately stayed out of it as it presented an almost unparalleled insight into the dichotomy between the innovators and the traditionalists (albeit the latter seemed to be dominated by one particular gentleman who was mortally affronted at being compared to lowly opticians and another who “didn’t go to University to have to work outside office hours” – wow!). However, lest that debate give the wrong impression about the appetite of the legal profession as a whole for innovation and change, since the launch of our first phase of branded firms on 20th May, QualitySolicitors has received a scarcely believable 750 enquiries from law firms wanting to learn more about becoming part of our brand. Hence the reason why my time is currently limited and I am trying to keep this brief…!

I did want to pick up on one point. You ask “how do you ensure consistent quality across 100 firms”. That is a good question. It is, however, perhaps not as hard as it seems: consistent quality, of course, is not the same as providing indentikit service which is neither achievable nor desirable. That is where the “Specsavers” analogy reaches its limits. Each QS firm will deliver their actual service in a slightly different way, just like individual lawyers within a firm also will. It will be tailored to their particular region and market. The key to the brand is in having a common set of brand values and core promises that pervade throughout the organisation. For us – at its heart – a message as simple as “making it easy and putting clients at ease”. Clients should come away from their experience with a QualitySolicitors firm feeling equally pleased with their experience wherever they are in the UK. That doesn’t, however, mean each lawyer has to have done things in precisely the same way to achieve that satisfaction.

Hotel chains provide a reasonable analogy here. Often hotel chains are franchises of a sort. Best Western is one of the more well known of this model. The experience from hotel to hotel can be very different in terms of atmosphere, style etc depending on whether it is a city or country hotel, big or small etc. Even the pricing can be different – as with most hotel chains – to reflect the locations. There are however common values and certain uniformities in key areas.

It is much like this with QS where we have a 10 partner, over 100 staff, Legal 500 ranked firm such as QualitySolicitors Burroughs Day in Bristol and a small 2 partner firm in Preston, QualitySolicitors A D Varley. Different in approach and atmosphere but both of the highest quality, both with Lexcel and both commited to promoting the QS brand values.

Of course, that aside, one essential element lies in choosing the right firms in the first place and we take extremely great care before allowing a firm to brand as a QualitySolicitors firm. We then monitor that firm through collecting feedback on them from every client that uses them. We have a clear procedure in that respect and firms who fail to receive consistently positive feedback from the public will lose their status as a QualitySolicitors firm. In this way there will be consistency is the most important area of all – the level of satisfaction of the client!

Having said I was going to brief, I’ve managed not to be. I’ll just add, Rory, that I wish you well with your Law Donut project. I’m always excited to see new ideas and innovations in the legal market. There will be many to come from QS in the coming months…

Best wishes,

Craig