'Cheap and quick justice "for all", 'trumpeted the front page headline in the Observer (29 May 1994).In an interview with the Observer's home affairs correspondent, Lord Woolf set out his apparently radical proposals for making justice cheap and simple enough for everyone.

'We have a very good system of justice - but no one can afford it,' he said.Lord Woolf said he wanted to see all civil actions brought under a united set of rules, with costs ceilings and strict timetables imposed at the outset of a case and the parties encouraged to agree a settlement at every stage.

'Simpler procedures would mean more people being able to bring their own actions,' he said.Lord Woolf was appointed by the Lord Chancellor in March to head a review of procedures in the civil courts.

His committee's mandate is to 'improve access to justice and to produce a single set of rules' for all civil courts.Some senior lawyers are, however, unhappy that Lord Woolf has chosen first to air his intentions for reform of the civil justice system in a newspaper interview - rather than outlining them in detail to the profession.One commented that if his plans were radical, they would need the goodwill and co-operation of the legal profession to succeed.

'If I were trying to get collaboration for bold and visionary proposals, I'm not sure I'd have publicised them first in a newspaper, to somebody who may not know very much about the law.'Apparently, at the heart of Lord Woolf's current thinking is the creation of 'procedural judges'.

These new judges would equate to masters and district judges, and take control of High Court and county court cases from the beginning.Proced ural judges would have the power at the outset to set ceilings on costs and lay down strict timetables - with most cases being expected to be heard within 12 months.

They would also appoint expert witnesses, rather than each side having its own and encourage the parties to reach agreement, or reduce the scope of their action, at every stage.Roger Smith, director of the Legal Action Group, sees the proposals as a welcome shift towards a more continental-style, inquisitorial system.

'Anyone who has taken cases to the European court is struck by the fact that many cases can be dealt with on the papers, with short oral submissions.

You don't have to have such heavy dependence on oral evidence,' he said.

If the point at issue is one of law, rather than of fact, there is no reason why the domestic courts should not follow suit, he believes.However, Law Society Assistant Secretary-General Walter Merricks does not agree with Mr Smith's interpretation of Lord Woolf's comments as meaning judges would have an inquisitorial role in the case itself.

'As I read it, he is proposing having a judge take a preliminary look at a case, assessing how much time will be allowed for its preparation, and what costs will be allowed.

They are called procedural judges, after all.'Bar Chairman Robert Seabrook QC would welcome judges having a more active role, but warns against their dominating cases.

'It could be very unsatisfactory to have judges overriding the need for people to have proper presentation.'Not surprisingly, all observers seem to welcome Lord Woolf''s basic premise, that justice should be made quicker, cheaper, more understandable and accessible to ordinary people.

But there are concerns over how his plans would work in practice.Mr Merricks warns that the proposal for cases to be heard within 12 months may be impractical.

'It is an interesting question whether the courts could cope, if this was suddenly introduced all at once.

It would also be nice to feel that the Lord Chancellor's Department could lay on enough judges.'The strict deadlines would be used tactically by lawyers, he warns.

And those, like insurance companies, who are geared up with procedures to handle cases in volume, would benefit most from the reduced time scale, said Mr Merricks.

Plaintiffs in person or their lawyers would be less able fully to prepare their case in the short time allowed.Keith Miles, of the patients' charity Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, says that, in any event, very few medical negligence cases could be adequately prepared in a year.

He agrees, however, that: 'At the moment, things do drag on far too long.'Mr Miles is alarmed at the suggestion that expert witnesses should be appointed by the court.

'We would be enormously worried about the sorts of experts being appointed.

We spend a great deal of our time monitoring the performance of experts - and I'm quite sure the court wouldn't be able to do that.'Lord Woolf's committee, made up of judges and lawyers, is expected to take around two years to publish its recommendations.

It is planning a series of public seminars around the country later this year to gauge the opinions of interested parties.Lord Woolf's is not the only examination of the justice system currently under way.

In December 1993, a fundamental review of expenditure on legal services was launched, under the auspices of chief secretary to the Treasury Michael Portillo.

This committee of LCD officials is due to make an interim report, which will not be made public, to the Lord Chancellor later this month.

It is expecte d to address questions as fundamental and iconoclastic as 'do we need courts?'The Lord Chancellor has yet to explain where the answer 'no' would leave Lord Woolf's proposals.