Furious criminal defence solicitors this week lashed out at the government over plans to reform the way they are paid under the effective trial management review project, branding it a 'charter for injustice and shoddy work' owing to low fees and over-simplified pay structures.

Launching a consultation on payment for the project - formerly the case preparation programme - the Department for Constitutional Affairs proposed a single standard fee to replace the upper and lower fees currently in place, where solicitors can claim a proportion of their costs that fall within each threshold.

This would see, for example, a basic fee of 195 where a defendant pleads guilty, even if the solicitor has tallied up costs of several hundreds of pounds.

They will only be able to claim non-standard fees where the costs exceed 850.

Where defence solicitors have acted on a cracked trial which is deemed to be their fault, they will only be able to claim 75% of the contested trial fee.

The paper also proposed more scope for courts to make adverse observations about the conduct of cases, and a streamlined wasted costs process.

The changes would affect solicitors working in the pilot areas of Essex, Bedfordshire, the West Midlands, north Wales, Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire.

The paper said the structure would be cost-neutral and benefit firms as they would cut out the need for recording time in cases where a standard fee is attracted.

It said the proposals aimed to produce value for money and ensure solicitors are not paid for poor work - or no work at all.

But Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said that although firms were open to change which improved matters, these proposals were 'all stick and no carrot'.

He warned: 'The fee levels and structure are designed to encourage the earliest possible disposal of a case along with less work and preparation.

This is a charter for injustice and shoddy work.'

Franklin Sinclair, a partner at national crime firm Tuckers and a consultant to the review, agreed the plans could hit both justice and firms' finances.

'The emphasis will be on us trying to get the client to plead guilty right away because we will be under huge financial pressure to do that, and also to cherry-pick the simpler cases,' he predicted.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'We welcome proposals that would simplify the costs structure and increase the efficiency of the courts, but not at the expense of the quality of advice provided to the client.

These proposals may prove to carry significant risks which we will highlight once we have examined them thoroughly.'

By Paula Rohan