Sensible TermsI refer to Steve Orchard's letter (see [2001] Gazette, 25 January, 18).

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has been regularly told that its timetable for the introduction of criminal contracting was too tight.

The commission has no fall-back position for ensuring cases are covered after 2 April 2001 if contracting is not achieved.

The commission should be under no illusion that the profession will not sign contracts which are unreasonable and unfair in contract clauses and remuneration.

I ask the LSC to explain how it intends to provide criminal defence services on and after 2 April if insufficient solicitors sign a contract.

The negotiating group has made it clear to the commission that it does not accept that they have to be bound by the LSC timetable.

Clearly, if no agreement is reached the recommendation from the Law Society to the profession will remain not to enter into contracting.

As time goes on the mood of the profession is hardening, not weakening.

After 2 April, police stations will not be covered, courts will not be served, and cases will not be prepared.

The government and the LSC will be failing in its duty to ensure access to justice and it is therefore unfortunate that such posturing is taking place.

It would be more helpful if the commission concentrated on agreeing sensible terms, both on the workability and fairness of the proposed contracts and remuneration, rather than trying to pressurise the profession into signing what is an unreasonable contract.

Franklin Sinclair, chairman, Criminal Law Solicitors Association