It was always going to take time for the profession to learn to love the most radical reform of the courts this century - the Civil Procedure Rules.

But it appears solicitors have whole-heartedly embraced one of its innovations, the pre-action protocol.

Currently solicitors are busy drafting protocols covering everything from debt collection to the millennium bug.Such enthusiasm will be heartening for the Master of Rolls, Lord Woolf, architect of the rules, who sees protocols as central to the new regime.

'My approach to civil justice is that disputes should, wherever possible, be resolved without litigation,' he wrote in his report proposing the reforms.

'Where litigation is unavoidable it should be conducted with a view to encouraging settlement at the earliest possible stage.

Pre-action protocols will be an important part of the new system'.The Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Scott - whose job it is to oversee the reforms' implementation - has to date only sanctioned protocols in personal injury (PI) and clinical dispute claims.

Speaking to the Gazette last month, he emphasised their importance, stressing that their spirit had deliberately been extended beyond specific practice areas.

He had made adverse cost orders in courts because parties had offended tha t spirit.According to the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD), there are approximately 20 protocols being drafted by the profession at the moment; including schemes covering occupational health and disease, defamation, expert witnesses, consumer credit, housing, debt recovery, claims against solicitors, and the millennium bug.

LCD officials are working on their own 'model protocol'.Amid this frenzy of activity, David Lock, parliamentary secretary at the LCD, urged discretion in their use at the annual general meeting of the Motor Accident Solicitors' Society.

The Society is currently drafting its own protocol for road traffic accident cases.'There is a danger with the proliferation of protocols that there will be inconsistency and that there will be overlaps with other protocols,' he warned.

The judiciary wanted clarity, he continued, adding that if the protocols were to have teeth, judges needed to be able to apply sanctions.David McIntosh, chairman of the Law Society's civil litigation committee, says the profession's enthusiasm - while 'admirable' - should be tempered and 'protocol-madness' resisted.

An over-proliferation could lead to confusion.

He supports the idea of having a general protocol with 'multi-purpose adaptability'.

He says: 'So the profession is working off one general template, and as few specialist templates as necessity requires.'The approved protocols have been enthusiastically welcomed by PI lawyers.

A 'great help' is the verdict of Martin Staples, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers.

Ian Walker, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), says so far everything is fine but warns of 'isolated thundery showers'.

APIL is currently working on the occupational health and disease protocol.Speaking from the insurance industry's perspective, Martin Staples says that protocols have concentrated the opposition's minds, forcing them to identify the issue of whether or not there is a case before firing off letters of claim.

He agrees with APIL that a disease protocol would be a welcome addition to the roster.

Claimant solicitors, he says, are trying to 'railroad' defendants into three-month timetables when an action could have a 45-year-old history.According to Mr Staples, the biggest problem lies with the 'poor old industry' struggling to keep up with the reforms.

For example, the requirement to collect documents under protocols might be easy for a company with 100 employees; however, it is a logistical nightmare for large businesses with staff spread out across the country.

The profession might be up to speed on Woolf, he comments, but the industry is not.The shake-up of civil justice has injected a new spirit of co-operation into litigation and nowhere more so than in the drafting of protocols where old adversaries face each other across a table and find common ground.

Woolf came along and 'banged heads' together, acknowledges Ian Walker.

Not all experiences have been harmonious, and one solicitor reports that the 'fur was really flying' during the debt recovery protocol drafting sessions.Jeremy Clarke-Williams, a partner in the defamation unit at Russell Jones Walker and chair of the Law Society-endorsed defamation protocol working party, admits that tempers were frayed when they began the initiative.

The party comprised of 15 libel lawyers from all sides of the industry - including Alastair Brett, head of law at The Times; Desmond Browne QC, currently representing Neil Hamilton in his libel action against Mohamed Al Fayed; and Sarah Jones, an in-house lawyer at the BBC.

It was a rare to have so many libel lawyers in the same room.

'But once a few toys had been thrown out of the pram it was reasonably civilised,' Mr Clarke-Williams says.He argues that there is a clear rationale for the defamation protocol as speed of resolution is so vital for clients.

Damage continues for as long as the libel is in circulation.

Clients generally want to clear their names first and be compensated later, he reckons.

Another reason for a protocol, Mr Clarke-Williams says, is that libel breeds suspicion from parties - newspapers, broadcasters and clients - who believe that the other side is withholding information.If IT systems go into a technological meltdown on New Year's Day, the courts could face a deluge of millennium bug-related claims and, consequently, lawyers are already busy developing a Y2K protocol.

Earlier this month, the City Disputes Panel unveiled a scheme where users could pay a fee for a licence to use a protocol which includes an alternative dispute resolution service.

In October, the Y2K Lawyers Association (Y2KLA) proposed its own draft protocol.

The Y2KLA has a representative from government-backed Action 2000 group on its working party and it is expected that Sir Richard Scott will approve the protocol next year.According to Y2KLA vice chairman Graham Ross, one potential danger facing protocols is that they fail to represent all parties.

He points to the US, where the government legislated in an attempt to reduce the expected Y2K litigation deluge.

One law has its own protocol that parties are obliged to use.

However, he argues, it is skewed in the interests of the IT industry.

Protocols reflect the interests of those consulted but they also reflect a lack of balance in that consultation exercise, Mr Ross says.

It is a problem that the Y2KLA's protocol has avoided, he adds.The Y2K protocol approach is unique in that it has generalist application covering, for example, breach of contract, PI or health and safety claims.

David McIntosh takes issue with this approach, saying Y2K litigation should treated as an add-on element to other actions.According to Mr Ross, the association's focus is to bring clarity 'in the fog of Y2K issues'.

The nature of the bug represents a challenge for the protocol as it must cover events yet to happen.

It will be possible for parties to bind themselves mutually to following the protocol by, for example, including it in the terms and conditions of a business agreement.With the Woolf reforms barely six months old, it is still early days.

According to Jeremy Clarke-Williams, protocols have yet to be tested because the only sanctions that enforce them happen when the courts make cost orders.

And so their success depends on the courts embracing them and not just the profession.PROTOCOLSProtocols in place (2)Clinical negligencePersonal injuryProtocols in draft or development (20)Contentious probateDebtDefamationDiscrimination (may be one protocol and may encompass disability as well)-- Racial-- Equal opportunitiesExpert witnesses code of guidanceHolidaysHousing disrepairIntellectual propertyModel protocolMortgage possessionPolice malpracticeProfessional negligenceRent arrearsRoad traffic accidentsSolicitor's negligenceTechnical and construction court IT protocolUninsured motorists (MIB protocol)Wrongful dismissalYear 2000Expressions of interest (2)Dilapidation of property (commercial)UtilitiesSource: Lord Chancellor's Department