New legal aid contracting arrangements set to come into play in April were thrown into turmoil this week after solicitors warned that the changes could be unlawful and called for a moratorium of at least three months on implementing the revised agreements.

The furore arose ahead of the deadline for responses to the Legal Services Commission (LSC) consultation on the new civil and criminal contract standard terms, which saw the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) reveal that it had taken legal advice from a unnamed leading City firm on the proposed changes.

'The advice we have received is that a number of the clauses in the current draft may be found to be unlawful,' LAPG director Richard Miller said.

'Beyond the unlawfulness, there are numerous clauses that are, in lay terms, simply unfair.

And in what other field would it be controversial to ask that the value of payments under a contract be frozen in real terms for the life of the contract?'

LAPG chairman Roy Morgan complained that the terms had given the LSC the discretion to axe contracts or apply sanctions as it saw fit.

'The LSC is once again reserving the right to make unilateral changes to the contract,' he added.

'While this was at least understandable when the scheme was brand new, it cannot be appropriate after four years.'

The LAPG sought the advice with the support of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA); chairwoman Helen Cousins said: 'CLSA endorses the approach taken in that advice.

Many of the issues raised have been cause for concern for both CLSA and LAPG for some time now.'

Both practitioner groups echoed a call by Rodney Warren, chairman of the Law Society's access to justice committee, for a delay of at least three months to the planned implementation date of the new contracts, currently set at 1 April.

Mr Warren complained that solicitors were striving to negotiate 'fair and workable' contracts but this was proving impossible until the full drafts were available; these are scheduled to land on solicitors' desks on 16 February.

He added that the Law Society was also unable to consider the possible effects of outstanding consultation exercises on matters such as the effective trial management scheme pay structures, which would impact on how the contracts worked in practice.

'The LSC should delay implementation of the new contracts and extend all existing contracts for three months,' he insisted.

'They could then publish the contracts in their entirety to the whole profession, who would then have a chance to discuss and fully evaluate the impact.'

An LSC spokesman said: 'The LAPG's response was received today [Tuesday].

We thank the LAPG for their comments and will consider them carefully with all other responses to the consultation.

'We are happy to discuss any concerns LAPG, or other representative bodies, have regarding our proposals.

[LSC chief executive] Clare Dodgson will be arranging a meeting with LAPG, and possibly other representative bodies, to discuss their concerns in the near future.'

By Paula Rohan