If the Legal Services Commission (LSC) were to say tomato, it is likely that many private criminal law specialist solicitors would have a different idea about how the word should be pronounced.The latest example is the Public Defender Service (PDS) -- private practitioners suspect sinister motives, while the LSC argues that it holds no threat and will only benefit private firms.Last week, the commission told the Gazette that it might consider branching the concept out into the civil arena, having already learned some lessons from the four pilot public defender offices, which opened six months ago in Swansea, Middlesbrough, Birmingham and Liverpool (see [2001] Gazette, 15 November, 1).The LSC says that they are already fulfilling their aim of pl ugging gaps in provision, providing a way of benchmarking, and informing the decision-makers about what it is like on the frontline.Earlier this month, Richard Collins, head of the Criminal Defence Service (CDS), said he has discovered through the pilots that recruitment is a problem that might merit increasing rates, a move which encouraged even the most hardened cynics (see [2001] Gazette, 8 November, 1).Mr Collins stresses these are only the preliminary findings of the four-year pilot, which will yield more valuable information before its time is up.'The PDS gives us a much better understanding of what it is like to provide criminal services,' he argues.'We are trying to develop the criminal defence service overall, and our relationship with private practice.

They know what the agenda is -- we want better services for the client and at the same time we want to control what we spend.

We want good value for money.'Mr Collins adds that clients will benefit from the same quality of service provided by private firms, and denies criticisms that PDS staff will get involved in cosy deals with the local Crown Prosecution Service or take up an unmotivated, 'routinist' way of working.He says: 'If you were unlucky enough to be arrested by the police and decided to instruct a public defender rather than a private practice lawyer, you would not notice the difference.

They provide the same services.

The difference is behind the scenes.'Even most practitioners would agree with this.

Franklin Sinclair, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and a partner with three-office criminal law firm Tuckers, says the pilot offices in England and Wales are treating cases in 'a more positive manner' than in the similar if longer-running Scottish exercise, which raised concerns about clients pleading guilty earlier in the proceedings when they were represented by public defenders.For example, the Swansea office has four solicitors, four accredited police station representatives, and two support staff, and is situated close to the central police station and magistrates' court.

Solicitor Romano Ferrari, head of the office, says it operates much the same as any private firm; differences only arise because staff are aware that they are part of a pilot, and because they do not have to worry about the costs associated with running a firm.'We like to think of it as a typical criminal law practice,' he explains.

'In terms of the work we do as criminal lawyers, it doesn't differ at all.'Mr Sinclair concedes that one of the purposes behind the pilot is to benchmark, but suggests it is for the wrong motives.'I still think they have been created to compare them to us, in the hope that they will be cheaper and more efficient,' he argues.

'It is just the government applying another controlling factor against us.'However, Karen Mackay, director of the Legal Action Group, says there is another reason behind the cynicism displayed by solicitors.

She argues that changes to the criminal legal aid system have been too much, too soon.'The timing of the launch of the public defenders' offices was unfortunate, coming as it did at the same time that criminal contracts began,' she says.'This timing meant that the launch of the public defenders' offices was associated with criminal contracts, which were highly controversial with practitioners.

This was not a helpful association.'Mr Ferrari agrees that for an area of the profession in a state of flux, the introduction of public defenders is seen as just one more change which must be borne.'I think as a profession generally, any change is going to cause fear,' he says.

'Where we sit in the criminal system at the moment, you have Lord Justice Auld's report, you have a new home secretary, both of which will stimulate change in the criminal justice system.

People are fearful of change, that's just human nature.'Mr Ferrari adds that experience has taught him that the way to win private practice over is to keep the channels of communication open.

He has an open-door policy for local solicitors, as well as touring the area to educate everyone from law students to magistrates about the aims of the pilot.One of Mr Ferrari's first tasks was to try and dispel 'a number of misconceptions' which were floating around.

'For example, I had to reassure them we weren't going to have more slots in the duty solicitor's scheme, and we weren't going to have clients directed to us [which is how the Scottish pilot started].

But there were fears, and they were legitimate fears, and I hope I allayed them.'The true success of the pilots will be judged by the research, which is in the process of being organised.

It will focus on a mixture of qualitative analysis -- such as how much the public defender system costs compared to private practice -- and details from modes of measurement, such as peer reviews.Mr Collins and Mr Ferrari refuse to speculate on what the results will be, with Mr Collins accepting that studies abroad have highlighted 'some great public defender systems that do really great work, and some others that are completely crap'.Mr Ferrari adds: 'At the end of the day, there are 2,800 contracted criminal firms and there are currently four public defender offices.

It's up to us to get the message across as to what we are about, and to explain to people that when the research is provided, it will be useful.

Good, independent quality research is always useful.'It seems that the jury is out until the results come in.

Law Society President David McIntosh says Chancery Lane does not oppose the pilot in principle, as long as defendants get a choice in who represents them.

'Quality of service to the defendant is paramount,' he maintains.

'It is too early to assess how the PDS is working.

We look forward to seeing the evaluation reports as the pilot proceeds.'The Legal Aid Practitioners Group is also holding its breath, but maintains it can predict the results.

'We have nothing against the principle behind doing this, as we accept it is quite proper to examine alternatives in providing legal advice,' says LAPG director, Richard Miller.

'We think at the end of the day, it is going to show that the PDS is more expensive than private practice at doing the job.'Mr Sinclair is once again wary about how the study will operate.

'It may serve a useful purpose as long as the figures aren't rigged and there is proper disclosure of the real cost,' he says.

'If it shows the fact that we are cheap and good value for money, maybe then it will serve the purpose.'Ms Mackay is one advocate of experimenting with service provision, and says that if using public defenders is one way of making the profession think laterally, then a purpose has already been served.However, she adds that if future pilot studies into salaried solicitors are going to be set up, the government must look into developing them differently.'Although we support the experiment with salaried public defenders, we do not agree with the model the LSC is using,' she explains.

'We believe that the salaried defenders' offices should not be directly managed by the LSC but sho uld be managed by an arm's-length body.'With civil law solicitors now waiting to see whether they will be compared to state-employed practitioners, the LSC has its fingers crossed that the criminal pilots will be a success and that the profession will not be leading calls to abandon the initiative.