The vast majority of criminal defence firms signed up to the new criminal legal aid contract last week, but many did so under protest - branding it 'ill-conceived, poorly-managed and totally inequitable.'


A total of 2,261 legal aid providers signed the new agreement that will run for six months from 14 January 2008 and facilitates the introduction of fixed fees and changes to police station practice.



The Legal Services Commission (LSC) said that figure included 2,171 (89%) of the current criminal legal aid providers. Ninety new providers meant that 93% of current provision would be covered.



The LSC insisted that full coverage of publicly-funded defence services would be ensured as 37% of firms had indicated an interest in expanding their legal aid work.



Criminal Defence Service director of policy Derek Hill said: 'We're very pleased that the majority of firms have chosen to apply and that so many are willing to expand. We look forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with the legal aid providers on the reform programme.'



But many firms across the country attached covering pro forma letters to the LSC stating that they did not support the 'ill-conceived, poorly-managed and totally inequitable contract, which had been foisted upon [them]'.



The firms said they had been forced by economic necessity to participate in an unsustainable procurement system, as they had not had sufficient time to formulate alternative business strategies, but would be looking at strategies to reduce their dependence on legal aid work.



Brian Craig, chairman of the Association of Major Criminal Law Firms and business manager at national firm Tuckers, said the LSC should not misunderstand the reasons why some firms said they would accept more work.



In a letter sent to the LSC with the firm's contract, Tuckers said it was not because the proposed rates were appropriate or because the work was currently profitable. 'The reason for us seeking additional slots... is to try and make the proposed rates viable through economies of scale,' it said.



But Tuckers' letter added that it expected the LSC would be unable to deliver the necessary volumes under the proposed application rules for duty scheme membership.



Speaking at the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) annual conference last weekend, Roger Smith, director of Justice, said it was unlikely that small firms would be able to survive in the long term.



But Mr Craig told the Gazette it was the large firms, which had invested heavily and had large overheads, that would struggle. He said the result of big firms downsizing or leaving the market would leave the LSC with a cottage industry with no incentive for the small firms to grow.



Addressing the CLSA conference, chairman Ian Kelcey warned firms to 'wake up and smell the coffee' and work together to find a long-term solution, instead of allowing themselves to be played off against each other by the LSC.



Catherine Baksi