Lawyers could be sacked if they cause delays during expensive terrorism trials under plans to speed up cases announced by the Government yesterday.

Lawyers who act for several defendants accused of conspiracy charges will also face new measures. Law firms may be restricted to acting on legal aid for just one defendant per case.

The reforms have been drawn up after consultation with senior judges. They are being put forward because of concern about delays in terrorism and fraud trials involving several defendants.

“High-cost” trials usually last 41 days or more and can involve several defendants accused of terrorism or fraud. Delays can incur huge costs.

Under the plans, a judge could refer lawyers who needlessly delay a trial to the Legal Services Commission, the body that awards legal aid contracts in such cases.

The commission would have power effectively to sack the lawyer on the case and ask the defendant to find a different lawyer. It would also be able to insist that law firms sign legal aid contracts on the basis of one defendant only per firm where there are multiple defendants because of concerns about the firm’s capacity.

The move would remove the potential for a conflict of interest either to affect unfairly the defendant’s case or to cause the case to collapse.

The responsibility for ending the legal aid contract, or effectively sacking the lawyer, would rest with the Legal Services Commission, not the judge as proposed when the plans were mooted last year.

The Ministry of Justice said: “This recognises the legal independence of the trial judge, but still meets the intended aim to assist the judge in efficiently managing the trial process.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, the Secretary of State for Justice, said: “Trials that take too long not only reduce public confidence in the criminal justice system, but also cost the taxpayer money.

“We all want a justice system that is efficient and fair. A small number of cases are being unnecessarily delayed due to a number of specialist lawyers lacking the resources and capacity to provide timely advice to their clients and prepare cases for court. These measures will strip away problem areas and deliver a more efficient service.”

He published draft proposals last year on giving courts powers to sack lawyers after the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee highlighted the problem of small legal firms representing large numbers of terrorism suspects.

It said that on more than one occasion a single firm with a small number of solicitors had represented twice that number of suspects.

The committee said: “We doubt therefore whether those suspects were represented to the highest legal standards: this, of course, raises questions of whether justice has been properly served.”

Defence lawyers said that the problem could be dealt with by professional rules.

The Ministry of Justice published the responses yesterday to the original proposals. A majority of respondents opposed the measures, saying that they were not a proportionate response to a “problem in a small number of cases”.

The ministry has modified the original proposals so that it is not the judge but the Legal Services Commission that has the power to sack a lawyer or terminate his legal aid contract.

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “Failure to control the few very high-cost cases leads to cost pressures on the rest of the legal aid system.

“We have always supported proper management of high-cost criminal cases and, where advocates are causing obvious delay that can be proved, it is right and proper that a suitable sanction is appropriate.

“Sustainable access to justice needs efficiency across the system, not piecemeal approaches that threaten the viability of legal aid firms.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones