Paul Roach looks at the latest cost-cutting plans for criminal contracts and says that a Public Defence Service would better serve society

The latest cost-cutting proposals for the 2004 criminal contract, as outlined by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), are deeply demoralising for the profession and expose the paradox at the heart of our system of providing legal representation and justice for all.

From the date of mandatory franchising there has been a dramatic and continuing reduction in criminal practitioner numbers, with the provision of legal representation increasingly being concentrated in the hands of fewer and bigger firms.

These latest proposals merely manifest the government's intention to develop a system of profit-free criminal law.

History shows that the number of solicitors practising criminal law is directly proportional to fees earned, therefore there will be further reductions in practitioner numbers in April 2004.

So the drive to reduce costs by the LSC in a feeding frenzy of accounts-oriented management consultancy will inevitably undermine the system.

History also shows that, despite the relentless reduction in fee-income as our terms of engagement have been made less attractive, we as a profession have accepted the changes and simply readjusted expectations.

That will be the case next April, when solicitors' firms will sign up to the new contract.

The LSC and Department for Constitutional Affairs rightly assume that, while some firms will not participate, most firms will have little or no choice.

But there will be a point of no return at which there will be too few practising criminal lawyers to deal, at any level of competence, with the massive volume of work.

While our job description and remuneration is redefined by the LSC, arguments against a Public Defence Service (PDS) evaporate, but fear of the unknown remains.

For rank and file defence solicitors and for the smooth and effective supply of efficient criminal justice for all, the pros of a PDS outweigh the cons by a significant margin.

The benefits for the practitioner are obvious: structured career path as a respected public servant on a par with the Crown Prosecution Service, fewer hours, co-ordinated and sophisticated training, more formal relationships with, and protection from, clients and no commercial interest in the retainer.

The benefits for the defendant are equally wide ranging: representation by a professional who is able to concentrate on the job in hand and not on spinning plates for the LSC.

Total in-house control of the system would benefit the state directly, introducing efficiency and flexibility as well as the economies that scale allows.

Finding detriments is slightly more difficult, but for solicitors who are partners in their firms then a reduction in income is likely.

However, for assistant solicitors I can think of few detriments save the loss of opportunity to become a partner.

As for defendants, it is argued that they would lose their right to instruct the solicitor of their choice.

This is a non-starter, bearing in mind the drop-out rate in the profession and the fact that practice is dependent on the LSC granting a franchise and contract in the first place.

In any event, choice could be built into a public system rather as it is in the NHS.

All of this acknowledges something we, as criminal law practitioners, already know - we are in fact hybrid lawyers, with the state treating us as if we were public servants, but never committing itself to a fully joined-up system.

Instead, the LSC is charged with reducing our incomes while increasing our administrative burden.

Expanding the fledgling PDS would better serve the needs of the community and would not fritter away valuable talent.

Paul Roach heads his own two-partner firm practising criminal law in Suffolk and Essex