The notion of public defenders conjures up images of glossy US television programmes, where stressed district attorneys struggle under groaning towers of files, negotiating plea bargains with slick private practice lawyers as they down their tenth cup of coffee of the morning.The reality, of course, is different - especially given the encouraging signs from an ongoing pilot Public Defenders Solicitors' Office in Edinburgh - but this perception is strong enough that many will instinctively oppose the government plans, unveiled this week, to roll out a salaried defence service pilot next year.Key is choice of representation.

This week's consultation paper makes it clear that the Legal Services Commission will not require clients to choose a salaried defender over a private practitioner.

They will be free to choose either, it emphasises.

This is to be welcomed; it surely acknowledges the right to a fair trial soon to be enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

It is also vital that, to avoid the towers of files, the concept is properly funded.The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, has long made it clear that even if salaried defenders become part of the permanent landscape of criminal work, he does not see them taking over completely.

There will be a 'mixed' system of salaried defenders and private practitioners.

Salaried defenders will give the Criminal Defence Service (CDS) flexibility to fill gaps in the system, for example in locations where there are not enough law firms.This, for many, is the issue at the heart of these reforms.

The reason there might not be enough law firms is the introduction of the CDS and contracting, cutting the number of law firms in the field.

The government's need for salaried defenders becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.So why not scrap the idea of salaried defenders and just ensure that the system already in place has proper coverage and funding? The fear must be that the reason is financial.

'The cost of the salaried service will provide a benchmark, which the CDS can use to assess whether the prices charged by private practice lawyers are reasonable,' the government said this week.

Criminal law specialists see this as code for cracking down on their meagre fees even more.But this will not stop the introduction of salaried defenders.

Given that, the government should be largely applauded for listening to many practitioner concerns.

And with a four-year start-up phase, side by side with a research programme, there will at least be plenty of time to find out who was right after all.