Whatever one’s views on the ­recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs - and few litigation lawyers will find the whole report entirely to their liking - most would expect the implementation process to be well-managed and transparent.

Once the report was published, ownership of its implementation largely passed from its author’s ­control. It received a warm welcome from the new government, which liked its conclusions and the possibilities they offered to help address aspects of a new political and economic agenda. Most of the recommendations were speedily adopted as ­government policy.

Responsibilities for implementation were also speedily allocated. Those that required primary legislation went to the Ministry of Justice, others to the Civil Justice Council (CJC) and yet others to the judiciary.

The CJC has already completed some of its tasks: the third-party funding voluntary code has been drafted and agreed; an experts’ workshop held on important technical matters such as qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS); and a detailed set of recommendations published on the significant issues arising from (and for) the growing cohort of self-represented litigants. Several other workstreams continue.

Government policy in relation to the Jackson recommendations is of course largely contained within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill. It favours the abolition of recoverability of success fees and after-the-event premiums, a ban on referral fees and the introduction of damages-based agreements (DBAs) as means to reduce costs in civil litigation.

The bill, which was introduced to parliament in June, is currently at the committee stage in the Lords. The intention is that it will receive royal assent around Easter, though this may depend on the extent to which changes are made in the Lords, where opposition to various provisions of the bill (and certainly not just to part 2, the section dealing with costs in civil litigation) has been strong.

The planned timetable for implementation has already slipped. Having already announced that the legal aid provisions contained in part 1 of the bill would be put back from October 2012 to April 2013, the government has now announced the same deferral for the Jackson programme. The explanation for this change of heart was the wish to get the details of the rules and regulations right; a sentiment echoed by practitioners.

It is almost exactly two years since Jackson’s final report was published. Government consultation proceeded soon after and the government’s response (and the LASPO bill itself) followed with what some regarded as indecent haste.

So what is the problem now? It appears to be a late recognition that there is a critical path which must be followed if the reforms are to be introduced in a way which works. And that we are no longer capable of following that path within the original timescale.

Three of the most important ­matters which practitioners will need to understand are those addressed last October at the experts’ workshop - QOCS, part 36 offers and proportionality. Decisions on how the current ­position is to change are vital for claimants, defendants and their legal representatives. They affect the ­number of cases which will be brought - litigants may decide not to pursue a case if the new regime makes it uneconomic or too uncertain to do so.

The decisions therefore need to be clearly articulated (that is, in final form) in sufficient time ahead of their introduction to allow practitioners to digest the implications of the changes, and to consider their impact on advice to clients and on processes.

However, since that workshop, where many leading practitioners put forward their proposals for change, no announcement has been made about the decisions which are so critical to all those involved in their application, nor has any timetable been published.

Let us look for a moment at just one of these matters on which a decision is needed - QOCS. The workshop highlighted the practical difficulties arising from the ‘qualified’ aspect of one-way costs shifting. The idea that it should be retrospectively decided whether an individual could lose the protection from costs caused all kinds of concern for lawyers and insurers. The idea that changes in personal circumstances during the life of a claim could put a claimant at risk of having to meet an opponent’s costs was seen as improper. The difficulty in defining objectively the kind of behaviour which might disqualify a claimant from costs protection was evident to all.

All of these issues had been clearly flagged in the consultation process and must have been considered in the impact assessments signed by the parliamentary under-secretary of state for justice. If so, one might have expected that decisions on how best to introduce the changes would not take so long.

Another emerging issue is whether the Civil Procedure Rule Committee will have its customary authority ­fettered. Will the committee be able to implement the Jackson recommendations or will the government seek to direct its work? Many of the reforms will have a direct impact on both claimant and defendant insurers. The RTA portal experience highlights the dangers of underestimating the lead time required for the system to be successfully implemented. A good understanding of the new regime is fundamental if insurance solutions are required to underpin it (as with cover for own disbursements in clinical negligence cases).

What is urgently required is transparency as to who is responsible for which decisions. The driving force and controlling mind of the programme has to be the government through its agents at the MoJ. All those who are involved in civil litigation need clarity on what the new regime will look like and when important decisions will be announced. A successful introduction of the reforms requires time for practitioners to adapt their processes. This is likely to need several months of lead time. So, for implementation in April 2013, this implies that all key decisions are known, in final and detailed form, by the end of 2012. That includes not only the LASPO bill, but all the many other essential matters which do not require primary legislation but do need new rules or procedures.

Peter Smith is managing director of Firstassist Legal Expenses Insurance and a member of the CJC. The views expressed are solely his own