The Legal Services Commission (LSC) last week vowed to stick to its guns over its very high cost criminal cases scheme - despite unofficial strikes by barristers - while the Law Society called for a cap on QCs' fees for cases that fall into the regime.

Speaking at a forum hosted by the Society's law management section and supported by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, the LSC said it would strongly defend the scheme in a review, announced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) last week.

The DCA said complaints about bureaucracy at the LSC in relation to the scheme had prompted the review.

The Bar Council has also called for a 'substantial improvement' in hourly rates for experienced counsel, saying individual barristers must decide whether they now accept cases under the scheme.

But an adamant Roger Hamilton, LSC head of policy and legal, insisted that a situation where half of the criminal budget was being eaten up by 1% of the cases could no longer continue.

'You have seen how barristers reacted [to the scheme] and now the question is whether we can stand firm over what we promised to deliver,' he told delegates at the forum.

He added: 'We will make our views on it very plain.'

Julia Balfour-Lynn, chairwoman of the law management section and managing partner at fraud specialist firm Peters & Peters, said solicitors were experiencing serious problems finding counsel to work under the scheme.

'Cases are falling by the wayside,' she warned.

However, she added that she did sympathise with junior barristers, who in some cases earned less per hour than paralegals.

The Law Society backed attempts to rein in high cost cases, saying the current system worked to the detriment of solicitors as well as the overall legal aid budget.

'The key problem with high cost cases is the failure to control fees paid to QCs,' said chief executive Janet Paraskeva.

'[We have] suggested that QCs' fees for legal aid work might be capped at broadly the level NHS consultants can achieve - at present some receive far more than that.'

See Comment, [2004] Gazette, 7 May, page 14

By Paula Rohan