The government faced intense lobbying over its legal aid reforms this week, as the Law Society put forward a raft of alternative measures to preserve the legal aid budget, and the shadow legal aid minister warned that the government’s cuts will ‘destroy’ civil legal advice.

The Society also launched a high-profile internet campaign, ‘Sound off for justice’ (pictured), aimed at making members of the public aware of how legal aid cuts will affect them.

The government was attacked over its reforms at a debate held by the Westminster Legal Policy Forum on Monday, a week before next Monday’s formal deadline for consultation responses.

The Law Society’s director of legal policy, Mark Stobbs, said Chancery Lane had identified alternative ways to reduce the burden on the legal aid budget.

He said better decision-making by the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the number of cases that are dropped would save an estimated £48m, while introducing a single fee for advocacy and litigation in Crown court work could save £50m. Stobbs said the Law Society had estimated that greater efficiencies elsewhere in the criminal justice system would save an estimated £20m.

Stobbs suggested that imposing a levy on the Financial Services Authority to pay for fraud cases would raise a further £80m.

He said there should be a ‘polluter pays’ system to compensate the legal aid budget for cases that result from the failings of other government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions.

Former legal aid minister Lord Bach, now shadow legal aid minister, told the forum that the £350m planned cuts, which he claimed did little to tackle the cost of criminal legal aid but sought instead to reduce the scope of civil legal aid, were ‘perverse, completely unjust and counter-productive’.

Bach said the proposals would ‘decimate, if not destroy civil legal advice and social welfare law in England and Wales. The threat is as serious as that.’

Bach warned that citizens advice bureaux will not be able to carry on and private practice law firms would be ‘tipped over the edge’.

He added: ‘But what should also be shouted loud and clear is that the law centre movement, which does so much for the dispossessed and underprivileged in our society, is likely to be crushed.’

Bach said cutting funding that enables people to get help early on was a ‘false economy’.

He said Labour would have focused reform on restructuring the delivery of criminal defence services to have fewer firms, making savings of around £200m.

Max Hill QC, vice-chair of the Criminal Bar Association, suggested that releasing restrained or frozen funds to enable millionaire defendants to pay for their defence costs would save almost the entire amount spent on very high cost (criminal) cases.

Legal aid minister Jonathan Djanogly said the ‘driving factor’ for the reforms was cost reduction. While fewer people will go to court, he said more people will get access to justice through mediation.

Meanwhile, the Law Society has launched a campaign website, soundoffforjustice.org, asking members of the public to sign up to oppose legal aid cuts.

The site warns that ‘over 30 million British people are about to be silenced by the government’ by losing their right to legal representation.