0"Lions led by donkeys," was how one London defence lawyer described his counterparts in the local CPS.

This is a far cry from the early days of the service when a more likely description might have been "donkeys led by donkeys", he adds.When the CPS was first set up, it was popularly believed by some observers (no doubt often unfairly) that many of its in-house lawyers were second rate, that the CPS was a home to those who weren't up to private practice.

Much has changed in the years since the heady days of the legal recruitment boom of the late 80s.

According to Christopher Murray, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, and white collar crime specialist at Kingsley Napley, the London CPS in particular -- along with other less "mainstream" employers -- benefited from the downturn.

"When the legal market contracted, we saw City firms starting to lay off lawyers.

Some of those previously working in big City firms ended up in the public sector, which has had a trickle-down effect of higher quality lawyers in the CPS."Whatever the reason, in the main, defence lawyers now have nothing but praise for the prosecution lawyers they see day in, day out, in court.

"They are of the highest calibre," Christopher Murray says.

"With some exceptions, they are excellent.

People enjoy the work.

They aren't paid a huge amount but have a commitment to it -- rather like legal aid lawyers," says Robert Roscoe, chair of the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee and a central London based practitioner.

Mark Haslam of London-based Burton Copeland says: "There are large numbers of very able lawyers trying extremely hard to do a difficult job."While there is unanimity about the commitment and talent of the lawyers themselves, there is equal consensus that they are not always able to do as good a job as they might because of what Murray describes as "starvation of funds".

Because of under funding, too few lawyers are having to stretch themselves too thinly, handling too many cases.

Mark Haslam says: "When I go into court, I have two files, which I know backwards.

The prosecutor has 42, which he's never read before." When pressed, he concedes he is exaggerating -- but only slightly.

"OK, 32 might be more realistic.

But that is not at all unusual," he insists.Roger Ede, secretary to the Law Society's criminal law committee, says complaints about lack of resources filter through to his committee time and again.

The difficulties this causes can reach the most banal, basic of levels.

"People haven't been able to photocopy documents, or haven't had the administrative staff available to actually go and find the files," he says.Of course, some of this disorganisation can work to the advantage of the defence.

Mark Haslam admits that clients may sometimes get bail where, if the prosecution were better prepared, they otherwise might not.

And it is surely inevitable that where the playing field is so uneven, defendants may do rather better before the courts than they or their lawyers have a right to expect.

However, while conceding that there are occasions when they can make hay at the CPS's expense, defence lawyers insist that overall it is in no one's interests that this situation continue.

Christopher Murray says: "As lawyers, as officers of the court, and as tax paye rs, we quite often see cases being brought without inadequate supervision or inadequate time being spent on them by qualified lawyers -- cases which, had time been spent, would either not have been brought or would have been brought in a more efficient way." Robert Roscoe complains it is often difficult to track down the CPS lawyer in charge of a case -- who instead of being in the office preparing it is always out doing something else.

According to Roger Ede, cases may be adjourned unnecessarily and late delivery of papers causes huge problems for defence solicitors trying to prepare their own cases.Without radical changes, whatever resource problems the service faces now are only likely to increase.

Christopher Murray says: "Every time there is a new criminal statute, it imposes a further burden on the CPS.

It does on us (the defence) as well, but we can probably absorb it better." He singles out for special mention the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act with its "disclosure revolution".

As well as the training needed to ensure CPS lawyers are familiar with the Act, it also brings the day-to-day practical problems of having to consider the question of disclosure at each stage, of making sure time limits are met, and schedules adhered to.

All this can only mean already over-stretched prosecution lawyers taking their eye off the ball of actually assessing and bringing the case itself.

"If I were a CPS lawyer, I would be extremely demoralised.

I have enormous sympathy for them," he says.There are also other, albeit less drastic, pressures on the CPS which will also only increase.

The greater emphasis on the needs of victims caught up in the criminal justice process also places a greater burden on CPS lawyers, who are now being held more accountable for decisions taken.

A spokesperson for Victim Support says it is now generally recognised that the prosecution does have a duty to explain its actions where a charge has been down graded or dropped after a serious crime.

"Prosecutors will now offer an interview to explain its actions to the bereaved," she says.

Prosecutors will also routinely introduce themselves to prosecution witnesses at court -- a courtesy which may take only a few minutes but which could be precious time spent in a last-minute reading of files.It is not just lack of overall resources which plagues the CPS, but poor use of the ones they have, it seems.

Murray says: "I have come across examples of CPS lawyers who have become acknowledged experts in new areas of law, such as confiscation, but having built up this expertise, they are then not kept but allowed to go off into private practice." Even if these lawyers do stay with the CPS, they not able to capitalise on their newly developed expertise, but transferred into other areas, paving the way for a novice to go through the learning curve all over again.

"I really can't understand it in these days of specialisation," says Murray.Robert Roscoe suspects that blame lies not with the individuals at the top of the organisation but with the structure itself.

Rather than responsibility for all aspects of running the service falling to the DPP -- necessarily an ex-lawyer -- a chief executive -- someone with entirely different skills -- should be in charge of ensuring efficient deployment of resources, he says.

"I don't blame Barbara Mills for any of this," he stresses.

"The senior lawyers at the CPS are great; the law they practise is great.

I'm just not sure it is realistic to expect lawyers to be responsible for making decisions about running budgets and staffin g.

I'm not sure that the changes which have been introduced are the right ones."The CPS might also do well to hone its public relations skills.

At a time when other criminal justice professionals -- the defence, the police and even judges -- are learning the value of cultivating the media and using it as a vehicle to explain their actions, CPS lawyers are alone in remaining mute.

Maintaining a dignified silence means that it is often blamed for perceived errors which aren't its fault (for example, failing to bring a prosecution when the blame may lie with the police for failing to investigate properly) and that it doesn't have the public or political standing to argue for adequate funds.Robert Roscoe says, in particular, the service could learn by taking a leaf out of the Association of Chief Police Officers' book.

"The campaign run by ACPO over the last ten years has been financially and politically motivated.

They have thought that if we can blow the law and order trumpet, the Conservatives and now (Home Secretary) Jack Straw will not want to criticise us because we are the good guys.

We will be rewarded by bigger budgets and more powers."The real problem is that what those more politically astute criminal justice agencies do with their bigger budgets has a knock on effect on the CPS.

Ironically, the better funded the police, the more stretched the CPS.

Roger Ede says: "The CPS are not gatekeepers in any way.

The police can determine how many people they charge and can make pragmatic decisions about how far they want to pursue things.

The CPS have to deal with the cases they are given, according to predetermined criteria."He adds: "It has struck me as strange that at a time when more money is being put into the police and when they have been given performance targets relating to the number of arrests and told more people should be processed through the courts, money has been taken away from the CPS.

It doesn't seem to match."One of the first tasks of the new Blair government was to set up a wide-ranging inquiry into the CPS, under the stewardship of retired court of appeal judge Sir Iain Glidewell.

The review was prompted, in part, by concerns over falling conviction rates and the perceived problem of the down-grading of charges and is expected to report (belatedly) next month (May).

It remains to be seen whether poor PR is identified as one of the service's problems.

However, while some of the most vocal champions of the service are defence lawyers, something must surely be amiss.