Lawyer Phil Perinchief yesterday fired a second writ at Government over the Legal Aid controversy.

And then he took a pot-shot at Legal Aid Committee chairman Puisne Judge the Hon. Justice Ground.

He alleged Mr. Justice Ground had implied he was "cheating'' over his claims for Legal Aid payment.

"This is something I won't tolerate,'' he said.

The Legal Aid system -- funded by Government -- was designed to pay lawyers to represent clients unable to pay high legal fees.

But several lawyers, including Mr. Perinchief, claim they have been waiting well over a year to get paid.

Earlier this week, Mr. Perinchief slapped a $41,000 writ on the Finance Ministry, Mr. Justice Ground, and the Attorney General Mr. Elliott Mottley.

Yesterday he issued another writ against the Attorney General -- this one for $17,533.70.

The amount relates to accounts submitted by Mr. Perinchief in November 1994 and January 1995.

Mr. Justice Ground has blamed heavy administrative work and lack of manpower, for delays with paying lawyers.

But he strongly defended the Legal Aid Committee's approach to considering lawyers' billings. They were assessed for "fairness and reasonableness''.

"We disallow items which we consider unnecessary and over the years Mr.

Perinchief's bills have been taxed down.

"The committee often finds Mr. Perinchief's bills are larger than we would have thought appropriate.'' He added: "At the end of day if the Committee doesn't think a billing is justified it reduces it to what it considers to be a fair level.

"Mr. Perinchief has refused to accept those reductions. While we regard the account closed, he said there is debt owing.'' He added: "The Committee believes it is under a public duty to protect public funds by taxing lawyers' bills in this way. We believe we would be derelict in our duty to approve whatever was billed.'' Mr. Perinchief, however, took issue yesterday with Mr. Justice Ground's remarks.

He said it was not fair and reasonable for the Legal Aid Committee to "arbitrarily'' tax down lawyers' billings.

It was a case of Mr. Justice Ground taking a "paternalistic'' view.

"Unless he has a crystal ball or clairvoyance, it is bewildering how he can say bills from my firm are larger than his committee would have thought appropriate.'' Mr. Perinchief said no one court case was alike, since some involved many legal submissions, or "trials within trials'' such as voir dires .

He accused Mr. Justice Ground of implying that he padded or cheated with his accounts.

Mr. Perinchief said he had no problem with the Legal Aid Committee protecting public funds.

But it was important for the committee to produce reports explaining why they taxed down a lawyer's billing.

Alternatively, the lawyer should be able to argue his case before the committee, he added.