With the Civil Justice Council having just set up a working party to implement the Jackson reforms, one could be forgiven for assuming that the government’s plans to shake up civil litigation costs are a done deal by now.

But of course the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which contains the changes, is still only at committee stage, and will then need to make it through a third reading in the Commons, and on to the Lords.

Speaking to lawyers on the claimant side of the fence, I am beginning to detect a cautious optimism that they believe they are making progress in getting the message across that the reforms will - as they believe - damage access to justice.

They are still talking about if, not when, the reforms come in; and in particular, they are hoping that the government will ditch its plans to end recoverability of after-the-event insurance and success fees from losing defendants.

And while, as I understand it, many meetings sought with MPs have been met by ‘full diaries’, there are still some Members of Parliament sympathetic to the cause, even within the Conservative party.

Certainly there has been good press coverage of the issues at stake. Indeed, reading the Observer last Sunday I admit I was pretty surprised to open page three and see a full-page story about how two prominent Para-Olympians are speaking out against the reforms, which could affect the ability of disabled people to claim compensation.

That was quite a publicity coup for the Law Society’s Sound Off for Justice campaign.

There are even signs that the insurance industry, which is generally in favour of the reforms, may be getting just a little bit rattled. A press release issued by the Forum of Insurance Lawyers yesterday urged MPs ‘not to go soft and be swayed by those arguing against change’.

It added: ‘FOIL says it would be regrettable if the considerable noise being created by the various campaigns against reform was allowed to drown out the reasonable demands of the less vocal man-on-the-street, who is currently paying the price of the litigation regime through taxation and escalating insurance premiums.’

In the next few days, we will learn what amendments the parties are tabling in relation to the bill – and of course the Gazette site will report on these as soon as they are known.

Whatever the final outcome, it is fair to say that the battle is far from over.