A mass withdrawal of services by criminal defence solicitors is set to escalate as the Department of Justice seems intent on implementing a new criminal legal aid payment model.Thousands of criminal cases in courts across the State were unable to proceed from Wednesday and special court sittings will again be affected this weekend as a result of the action. The protest is set to intensify from Monday when it will become more widespread and may also affect custody cases in addition to bail cases. More than 250 solicitors who met in Dublin on Friday were told department officials had on Thursday evening informed the Law Society, the solicitors’ representative body, that the new payments model for legal aid cases in the District Courts will be implemented from July 1st as planned. The officials appeared to have been directed not to engage in any meaningful way, the meeting was told.Garda headquarters fears suspects charged with crimes this week, including murder, may later seek to derail their prosecutions on grounds they had no access to legal advice after their arrest as a result of the withdrawal of services.The society earlier this week called for “genuine, structured consultation and engagement” with the department about its proposals, which the society says are “unworkable” and will lead to an exodus of solicitors from criminal legal aid work. It has issued guidance to members of the force urging extreme caution while the solicitors’ action continues.Law Society president Rosemarie Loftus said criminal defence solicitors “perform an essential constitutional function” and are “entitled to be treated as professionals who act in the interests of their clients and not blamed for delays which are fundamentally the consequence of inadequate resourcing of the wider criminal justice system”.A department spokeswoman on Friday said there was “constructive engagement” between its officials and the society on Tuesday and Thursday. She said the department “remains open to further engagement in advance of the new arrangements coming into effect on July 1st”.The withdrawal action was “regrettable” as the proposed reform of the fee structure “is aimed primarily at improving efficiencies, speeding up case resolution, and reducing unnecessary adjournments, while ensuring fair, faster and sustainable remuneration for legal practitioners”, she said. The scheduling of court cases is a matter for court presidents and presiding judges who are, under the Constitution, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, she said. The department is advised by the Courts Service that, in the absence of legal representatives for any reason, each court and judge can adjourn a matter to another date, she added.Following Friday’s meeting, legal sources said the solicitors are united about escalating their action. “It is for individual solicitors to decide what escalation looks like, but there are strong indications that some custody cases will be affected,” said one source.Since Wednesday, the withdrawal action has affected criminal cases in the District, Circuit, Central and Special Criminal courts, and the Court of Appeal, except those involving accused persons in custody, juveniles or priority sexual offence cases involving young people.A meeting of the Southern Law Association in Cork on Wednesday resolved to withdraw legal services in criminal cases in Cork from Monday indefinitely until the department engages “meaningfully” with the Law Society. The department’s proposals involve replacing the current criminal legal aid payments system, which is based on appearances, with a single flat fee for representation from the start to the end of a case, aimed at reducing delays and simplifying representation. It follows an internal department review of about 350,000 District Court cases during 2022 and 2023, which noted that expenditure on criminal legal aid in the District Court rose from €19 million in 2015 to €37 million in 2024.The review said the current fee structure incentivises solicitors to seek multiple hearings.The Law Society has described the review as “seriously flawed”, involving “anecdote deployed as accusation” rather than “evidence-based policy analysis”.