Criminal solicitors have warned that a ‘cull’ of firms has begun after Legal Services Commission figures revealed that 5% of firms did not secure new contracts.

The recent tender for criminal contracts ended with one in 20 firms failing to secure the right to do publicly funded work beyond July 2010. Firms applied for a total of 1,788 contracts, but 90 failed to secure one.

Unsuccessful firms can appeal the decision. Otherwise they will have to apply for permission to do ‘remainder work’, finishing off ongoing cases, and wind down their criminal departments.

Wigan solicitor Andrew Keogh said this signalled the start of a ‘cull’ of criminal defence firms, ahead of the plans announced last month by the Ministry of Justice to change the way criminal defence services are delivered, by giving contracts for larger volumes of work to fewer suppliers.

Ian Kelcey, chairman of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said: ‘This demonstrates why the LSC needs to evaluate these figures before it starts any other form of culling to ensure sufficient geographic coverage.’

An LSC spokesman said the figures did not represent the ‘true position’ as they were not final. He said there is unlikely to be ‘any substantial change’ to the number of crime contracts.

The MoJ has also announced changes to Crown court fees following its consultations on the advocates’ graduated fee scheme (AGFS) and very high cost case payments.

Over the next three years, there will be a staged reduction of 4.5% a year in advocates’ graduated fees, resulting in a total cut of 13.5%, rather than the 17.9% proposed.

Cases scheduled to last between 40 and 60 days will be paid under the AGFS rather than the more expensive VHCC scheme. The MoJ said the reforms are designed to reduce costs and increase value for money, while giving advocates time to adjust and minimising the impact on more junior practitioners.

Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said: ‘That the government has so suddenly – after the consultations have closed – ignored the overwhelming rejection of its plans by the profession, and done exactly what it planned to do all along, will cause many to question whether these really were genuine consultations in the first place.’