The cloud hanging over criminal legal aid became thicker last week after hundreds of criminal defence solicitors voted to abstain from signing any new contracts until their representative groups give them the go-ahead.

The move - reminiscent of a similar ballot that resulted in a stand-off between the government and practitioners two years ago - came at a joint meeting of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA), held in London.

CLSA chairman Sandy Morrison proposed the motion after delegates voiced fears about proposed cuts to legal aid at police stations and magistrates courts.

But he argued: 'The real injustice and the single most offensive factor in this whole sorry affair is the ignorance of the government in pandering to the Daily Mail while ignoring the realities of the situation.'

Criminal Defence Service head Richard Collins admitted that the system was not working 'for you or for us', and that the government did not always seem to appreciate the work defence solicitors did.

Speaking afterwards, he said the meeting had provided a useful forum, but he added: 'I am not sure that the set-piece resolution and vote added much to the important process of finding a way forward.'

CLSA director Rodney Warren insisted after the meeting that the proposal was a 'spontaneous' response to delegates' concerns.

'The CLSA and LCCSA, along with the Law Society, are keen to ensure that this time the contracts are in the interests of the profession as well as the Legal Services Commission (LSC),' he said.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'We remain concerned about the unnecessary bureaucracy within existing contracts and the fact that there has been no significant increase in rates in the last decade.

'We look forward to negotiating terms of the new contract with the LSC through the consultative group involving the CLSA, LCCSA and Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG).'

The vote came in the same week that the LSC published its annual report on the Public Defender Service (PDS), which showed that the project has cost a total of nearly 3.5 million to set up and run.

It said that PDS offices were bringing in more cases and achieving high levels of client satisfaction.

However, just one of the branches - Cheltenham - had achieved category one status in this year's LSC audits, showing a variation of 10% or less between costs claimed and those allowed by the LSC.

Pontypridd and Liverpool were classified as category two (indicating discrepancies of 10% to 20%), while Swansea fell into category three (more than 20% discrepancy).

An LSC spokesman said none of the PDS offices had appealed the audit results as 'this would not have added value to the process and been wasteful of resources'.

Mr Morrison said the report indicated that private firms still gave the best value for money, surviving on rates that were lower than the minimum wage and bearing the financial cost of low audit ratings.

'If the PDS were subject to the same rules as solicitors in private practice, someone there would be getting their chequebook out by now [to pay LSC-imposed penalties],' he argued.

LAPG director Richard Miller said his group was pleased that the PDS was proving to offer a decent service, adding: 'We hope that the LSC accepts the clear proof this presents that a 'category three' finding does not mean that the solicitors concerned are thus by definition either dishonest or providing a poor service to clients.'

By Paula Rohan