To the outside world it must seem extraordinary that lawyers (of all people) signed a contract so apparently weighted in favour of the paymaster that the profession’s own contract lawyer advised them not to put pen to paper.

In the end, what had once threatened to be a nationwide boycott ended when nearly every firm in England and Wales capitulated and signed the new contract with the Legal Services Commission (LSC) with effect from the start of the month. But not before widespread accusations of bullying and threats had left relations between the profession and commission at a record low.

Many firms specifically made the point of signing “under protest”. June Venters said: “I felt physically and emotionally more unwell in a professional capacity than I have ever felt in 24 years of practice.” The solicitor-QC claims that she signed “because of the pressure that the LSC had put on my practice. It effectively meant had we not signed, we’d almost certainly have reached insolvency within a very short period”. Another leading legal aid lawyer was told by his LSC account manager that his firm could wave goodbye to its contract with the Government help-line CLS Direct if it did not commit. It would have meant immediate redundancies.

After the demonstration outside Parliament, a profession-wide boycott seemed possible, led by Bindman & Partners. But resolution began to crumble after Carolyn Regan, the chief executive of the LSC, wrote to the Law Society accusing it of giving “unbalanced” advice. Regan stated that if lawyers did not sign they could consider the letter “authorisation” to continue existing cases “until your account manager has had the opportunity of discussing the matter with you”.

That sparked panic. The Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) claimed that the commission had no power forcibly to transfer clients and was “threatening to put thousands of clients in this situation unnecessarily”. Richard Miller, the director, later described the commission’s conduct as “an abuse of power... that will not lightly be forgotten or forgiven”. “I’ve seen many of the letters firms sent in with their signed contracts,” he said. “Even in the worst days of franchising and contracting from the past 15 years, I have never seen anything approaching the degree of contempt and loathing expressed in them.”

Martin Sewell, a sole practitioner in Gravesend, Kent, was at a meeting with ten local firms when the Regan letter arrived. “There were young lawyers whom I respected, who set up their own firms, nearly in tears,” he recalled. “It’s deliberate state bullying and has had a profound effect upon the independence of the legal profession.” Sewell was the author of a letter in The Times on April 2 with 94 firms backing its simple message. “We, who felt obliged to sign the new LSC contract, write to express our gratitude and admiration for those who did not,” it began. It also claimed that many firms were forced to sign or face the threat that the LSC would “immediately start to recoup money properly paid on account on ongoing cases from bills delivered on concluded matters”.

It is a claim that the LSC denies. “My letter was to encourage [them] to sign and correct what we saw as unbalanced advice coming from the Law Society,” Regan said. “There was no threat to recoup money paid for ongoing cases.” An LSC spokesman later acknowledged that an account manager did threaten one firm with terminating its CLS Direct contract. He apologised and said that the LSC had no such power.

Fisher Meredith, of South London, finally put pen to paper on April 2, after the LSC extended the deadline. “Our staff were unanimous in their opposition to what you seek to impose on us and the lawyers instructed by our professional body could not advise any firm to sign,” Eileen Pembridge, senior partner, and Stephen Hewitt, managing partner, wrote to Regan. They argued that the actions of the LSC, Department for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor had “poisoned the relationship with all those firms who have tried their hardest... to provide access to justice for the socially disadvantaged... You have treated us appallingly.”

Dexter Montague & Partners, a Reading firm, was one of a few refuseniks to hold out. Why? “Basically we’re the last community legal practice standing and the October changes would wipe us out,” Bill Montague, a partner, said. “So rather than face a slow demise, we’ve opted for structured withdrawal under the current contract.” Does he feel let down by other firms? “I’m disappointed there has not been a unified response because that would probably have been the last opportunity for legal aid lawyers to make an effective stand.” Pembridge reflected on the irony of a human rights firm signing a contract she described as “inequitable and destructive”. She said: “I have spent my professional life advising clients to leave abusive relationships.”

The author is editor of Independent Lawyer

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers