You will have great difficulty in finding any support among the criminal defence fraternity for the changes currently being introduced by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) following Lord Carter's review of legal aid procurement.

The public funding body would contend that the quest for efficiency, best value and quality control within a steady and controllable market is long overdue and a desirable target for the state acting on behalf of the taxpayer. Further, cost reductions and the tightest of projected profit margins must be accepted by defence practitioners as the logical repercussion of spiralling costs in previous years. While defence lawyers have long since accepted that the receipt of public money carries with it an audit culture and constant monitoring and supervision, the Carter Review and its implementation has been widely perceived as more than regulation – it approaches denigration.

To be present at The Law Society when Vera Baird QC, of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, addressed the profession, was to experience an atmosphere of acrimony and incredulity. Defence lawyers were told that there was a finite amount of money for their services, "an envelope", and that consultation meant only some input as to how this reduced fund would be distributed. Allied to this would be myriad changes, including price-competitive tendering, fixed fees and revolution in the management of the duty solicitor schemes.

Despite a heavier statute book and deep-frozen rates of remuneration, defence lawyers must accept fee reductions, from typical rates of £30-£50 per hour. We are not worthy, despite the Public Defender Service signally failing to match our economy.

The path ahead is discernible now. The movement towards fixed fees in all aspects of our work, from police stations to Crown Court and high cost cases, is a clear LSC objective. Fixed fees will be set in order to establish a huge drop in expenditure on preparation, especially travel and waiting costs.

Some commercial efficacy, albeit with reduced profits, may only be found by the largest of legal aid suppliers, enjoying economies of scale and monopolising supply in their region. They must have multiple case loads at the Courts and police stations to survive. They will be under pressure to expend less upon the preparation of cases for which they are being paid a fraction of previous claims. The interests of justice will be severely compromised and additional funding for appeals should be under consideration. Smaller firms should consider their options. Some have already terminated their LSC contracts.

From April, the fees structure changes before many firms have time to re-structure, despite the Otterburn Report warning of the dangers of such haste. Given the drop in incomes, fewer lawyers (or more probably, unqualified staff) may be asked to conduct more cases. The fixed fees will encourage the adoption of a minimalist approach to representation. Funding inducements for early guilty pleas are surely on the horizon; intellectual rigour and the proper examination of prosecution evidence will become outdated.

The landscape will change, with fewer providers. Client choice is not the imperative here. There may be an unwanted outcome for Vera Baird and her envelope. If profits are so slim that only huge suppliers may survive, those firms will dominate the market, and have the leverage to raise prices.

Back to disgruntlement – the profession has tired of change, having evolved and restructured according to LSC edicts for many years now. Lawyers dealing with criminal cases are assailed by administration and official interference.

There is a particular commitment required for this work, and many undertake it in order to provide a crucial check against the wrongful use of power. The role does require detachment, but also engagement and empathy. Many lawyers in this field test and challenge the authorities so that justice may prevail. This requires spirit and motivation; the erosion of these qualities may be the result of the fiscal and critical onslaught.

Some say that there is the whiff of dishonesty in the way that these cuts are being presented. It should be understood that defence lawyers can identify window dressing and obfuscation – no volume of consultation documents, forums or even the LSC's tortuous and repetitive management speak can disguise the key message – we do not support your work, your aims do not accord with those of a fearful and centrist electorate and you must perform the prescribed function or disappear.

Daniel Berman is senior partner of Daniel Berman & Co.