Solicitors and district judges in Kent are up in arms about the proposed closure of the county courts in Dover and in Folkestone.

They say it is unjustified and that users will be caused inconvenience and expense in travelling to Canterbury, to where it is intended the work will be transfer red.The two courts are on a list with 20 others being considered for closure.

Some 32 county courts have been shut down over the last five years in spite of strong local opposition.

Indeed, the Lord Chancellor's Department confirms that, at least in recent years, local opposition has not averted closure of a county court.

In the light of this, solicitors in Dover and Folkestone who attended a protest meeting last week hold out little hope.The creeping closure programme is causing concern as much because there is no published national plan on the issue as that users may be disadvantaged in any given area.

'There is no central policy about geographical access to the courts.

It seems very ad hoc,' said Suzanne Burn, secretary to the Law Society's civil litigation committeeThe Society has recently talked to the LCD about a national policy which might set overall standards for levels of service and maximum journey times to courts.

For example, it has suggested a maximum journey time of one hour for interlocutory and other shorter matters and two hours for a trial.

But so far the department has poured cold water on the idea, taking the view that it is not feasible to set generally applicable standards.Last summer, in evidence to the home affairs select committee, the LCD revealed the criteria that are applied locally in deciding whether to close county courts.

These include: the condition of existing accommodation; the frequency of judicial visits and waiting times; the capacity of the facilities provided by alternative courts to absorb the extra work; travel distances and public transport; and, finally, the effect on the provision of services in the area as a whole.In discussions with the Society the department has also confirmed that decisions about closure are made by the Lord Chancellor personally and only after wide consultation including local firms of solicitors, the local law society, the court users committee, the local Bar and local business groups.But while this sounds very reasonable in theory, there has been fierce criticism of the way closure plans have operated in practice.

In particular, lawyers complain that consultation has been far from comprehensive in many instances and even in the face of widespread opposition to closures the department goes ahead regardless.Last year, following the closure of Sudbury County Court, local solicitors sought to have the decision reviewed by the High Court on the basis, among other things, that the consultation was inadequate.According to Tim McNeill, a partner with Bates Wells & Braithwaite, the judge noted that the consultation was far from complete.

However, the judged also noted that the fact that the proposed closure was well publicised ensured that people had a chance to make representations.On the basis of the closures that have taken place to date, the Society has come to the conclusion that the real reason behind many is financial.

It discerns a policy to concentrate resources on the limited number of courts upgraded to full trial centres and then to consider the smaller surrounding courts for closure.Ms Burn accepts that in the case of some smaller courts, there may not be a case for keeping them open and local opposition may be just 'a knee jerk reaction'.

She also acknowledges the LCD's efforts to improve facilities.

'The LCD is trying to provide some really modern trial centres with several rooms and back to back listing.'However, she believes the department makes only limited attempts to ensure there is adequate public transport to convey users to the alternative courts and this is why she believes nationally set maxima for travelling time are necessary.

Ms Burn is particularly concerned that the county court closure programme may prove to be very shortsighted.

She points to the increase in the number of litigants in person as just one of the factors which heighten the importance of local access to court offices.There is also the prospect that civil litigation reforms proposed by Lord Woolf when he reports later this year will require easy local access to court offices.

For example, one proposal being considered includes raising the small claims limit.

Other proposals include giving the litigant a much more active role even in those cases where a legal adviser is involved.

The LCD says it is confident, however, that nothing it is doing now will undermine anything Lord Woolf proposes.Meanwhile, as far as Kent is concerned, the department is satisfied that the closure of Dover and Folkestone will not have any appreciable downside.

A spokesman said that a new improved trial centre would be opened in Canterbury in April, and this would absorb the workload and the staff of Dover and Folkestone to provide 'an improved quality of service overall'.The department says Dover and Folkestone are up for closure because 'district judge sittings are minimal' and a survey of users has shown that most business could be done over the telephone or in writing.

But Jeremy Wilkes, secretary of the Dover, Deal and Sandwich Law Society, is convinced the department is closing these courts for one reason only - to save money.A seasoned county court practitioner, he notes from his diary that district judges normally sit five times a month in Dover.

He also disputes the theory that users can do most business over the telephone or in writing.

Those who do not understand court documents or lack the communication skills to ask the right questions over the telephone will have to travel to Canterbury for help, he says.And he also points out that there is no direct rail link to Canterbury from Deal and Sandwich, although there is a bus service.