WASHINGTON - Arthur Andersen LLP abruptly broke off talks yesterday with the Justice Department on settling criminal obstruction charges related to the destruction of documents in the financial collapse of Enron Corp.

The lawyer for the Andersen accounting firm notified government lawyers that the company was not in position to make a decision on any criminal settlement, a Justice official said.

"We are continuing to prepare for trial," Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra said. The trial date is May 6.

The sudden collapse of secret negotiations occurred after the outlines of a deal had been struck, and the sides had expected to announce a settlement this week.

In recent days, Andersen's lawyers could not agree with government lawyers on specific language admitting guilt in illegally destroying Enron documents, a person familiar with the negotiations said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Andersen also had balked at the length of time the Justice Department had proposed for deferring possible prosecution of the accounting firm, arguing that three years was too long, this person said.

Yesterday's end to talks came after weeks of negotiations between the Justice Department and Andersen in the wake of the firm's criminal indictment, which was unsealed March 14. Talks intensified after the government accepted a plea agreement from David B. Duncan, the former senior Andersen auditor on the Enron account.

In the indictment, the grand jury accused Andersen of destroying "tons of paper" at its offices worldwide and deleting enormous numbers of computer files on its Enron audits.

Duncan pleaded guilty April 9 to destroying documents related to Enron's collapse. He agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors and is to be sentenced in August.

The government had offered to defer any criminal prosecution of Andersen for up to three years, requiring Andersen as a corporation to cooperate in the investigation of Enron and promise not to violate any laws during that period.

In exchange, Andersen was expected to admit publicly it knew that employees were wrongfully destroying documents. Under the offer, Andersen could avoid the risks from either a guilty plea or a courtroom conviction. Company officials have expressed concerns that regulators in some states could revoke Andersen's license to operate if it didn't win its criminal case outright.