Well done!The judicial view up and down the country is that things have gone pretty well.

Solicitors have clearly put an enormous effort into getting themselves up to speed with the reforms.

The larger firms are reaping the benefits of their training, in-house and otherwise; some of them have embraced the new rules with enthusiasm and produced draft directions worded with a degree of care and forethought which was usually missing under the old regime.Hopefully the smaller high street firms, whose attention to the rules in earlier months was distracted by the need, for instance, to sort out their franchise applications, will soon catch up.

The aim must be to guard against learning by a process of osmosis in spite of all the publicity, literature and courses available.

There is absolutely no substitute for a thorough read through of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR).

Some solicitors are asking questions of the court to which the answers would be obvious on even a quick dip into the CPR.Part 36Part 36 claimants' offer appear to be making a real difference -- solicitors are commenting that cases are settling very soon after realistic -- and that is the key -- part 36 offers are made by claimants.

Just as in the past a case would very often settle soon after a sensible payment into court, so cases are settling now if accurately pitched part 36 offers are made.Statements of caseClear, concise, statements of fact on which the claimant relies, coupled with a statement of truth.

That is what the CPR require of a claimant's statement of case these days, and on the whole that appears to have been adopted.

Telling the court the 20 different allegations of negligence alleged against the other driver in the road traffic accident will in due course disappear; progress on that front is a little slow to date.

Some of these statements of case still leave the judge wondering just how the accident happened.On the other hand, some remarkable frankness is now appearing in defences.

Defences must state why the defendant will argue that he is not to blame; blanket denials and obfuscation have gone.Poorly pleaded cases, by whichever side, are being struck out.

The courts' powers are much wider than they ever have been before and district judges are looking at fast and multi-track cases much earlier in their history than equivalent cases came before them prior to 26 April 1999.Statements of truthStatements of truth are causing some problems.

Sometimes the statement is not signed or, if it is, the individual solicitor's name is not legibly printed.

An oversight?Every statement of case and every witness statement needs to be backed up with a statement of truth.

Every application notice ought to have one too.

Of course this causes a problem if the client is really an insurance company.

The nominal defendant in that scenario may even be a defunct company.

Or instructions on a housing case may be coming entirely from a managing agent.

Perservere: the wrinkles are emerging and will be corrected in due course, probably by an amendment to the practice direction (PD) supplementing part 22 of the CPR.The allocation questionnaireIs it really asking too much for claimants' solicitors to remember to send an £80 fee with the allocation questionnaire (AQ)? It may be seen as a gross increase in the expense of litig ation but the rules require it to be paid and non-payment of the £80 or the fee payable by the claimant on filing his listing questionnaire are the only instances where a strike out sanction is mandatory under the CPR (rule 3.7).

Added to that is the fact that the Court Service is picking up on this point quickly; chasing letters are being sent promptly.

To avoid having to apply for reinstatement, pay the fees when they are due.Many parties appear to be failing to file AQs on time.

Sometimes the procedural judge can allocate the claim to its appropriate track on the basis of the information he has, but where neither party has filed an AQ, "unless orders" are being made leading to a strike out in default.

If the claimant alone has failed to file his AQ a similar order is frequently being made.As well as being filed, the AQ should be completed in a helpful and informative way.

This is particularly important in the transitional period where solicitors are being asked to complete AQs in respect of cases commenced pre-26 April.

If a summons issued at the beginning of the year pleaded, say, 'damages over £10,000 but less than £50,000' it is not particularly helpful if one party fills in the AQ asking for the multi track and the other asks for the fast track with neither saying anything else at section B of the AQ.

If the claimant is after £35,000 and the defendant's solicitor thinks the claim is only worth £10,000 then he should use the box -- and an attached piece of paper if necessary -- to say why.Avoid inadequate or evasive answers.

The form is not perfect; work round its deficiencies.

Remember that in the fast track the district judge will be making directions designed to take the case right through to trial and all he will normally have before him are the two statements of case and two AQs.

Attach draft directions; even try to agree them in advance.

Remember that draft directions need to be expressed in date mode rather than setting out periods of time for compliance (rule 2.9).If you agree a stay for a month, in the hope that the case can be settled, the AQ still needs to be completed and filed.

In full.ExpertsThe idea of single joint experts is proving slow to catch on.

Old habits die hard.

'They have their expert, I must have mine'.

The practice direction supplementing part 35 starts by saying that where possible matters requiring expert evidence should be dealt with by a single expert; rule 35.4 says that no party may call an expert or put in evidence an expert's report without permission.

The rules do away with the concept of 'a claimant's expert' or 'he's a defendant's expert'.

They also try wherever possible to restrict the expert evidence to a written report and, where necessary, supplemented by answers to questions from the solicitors.It is a pity that to date FOIL and APIL have not been able to agree a list of experts acceptable to both sides, but pending that breakthrough be imaginative.

Single joint experts are here to stay; they save money, time and anguish.

Too many solicitors are still ploughing the old furrow of wanting 'their' expert.

Only time will tell whether rule 35.7 really works, but in the meanwhile it is at the forefront of the mind of every district judge every time he or she considers making directions for expert evidence.And all this applies as much to pre-26 April cases as it does to those commenced after that date.

A district judge will be running a critical eye at the experts even where their reports were commissioned years ago.

Are they still needed? If an up- dated medical report is required in a personal injury case, would a single joint expert suffice? Or whatever.ApplicationsThere seems to be a reluctance in many quarters to use the N244 form for applications.

As a result many applications are issued without a statement of truth attached.

Or the form is used, but the statement of truth is not fully completed.

Or the required signature and/or printed name are missing.

If any of these omissions results in a hearing being adjourned for want of evidence in the proper form before the court, a costs sanction is likely to be imposed.There is still a real attachment to affidavits.

Many N244s say 'please refer to the attached affidavit'.

But in most litigation now the need is just for a witness statement, not an affidavit.

If the statement will not fit easily on the form then of course annex it instead.

Do not use an affidavit where a statement is permitted; no judge is going to refuse to read the affidavit, but he or she will disallow the extra costs involved when conducting the assessment.With a little more thought and effort, many applications could be determined without a hearing.

District judges are keen to use their powers under part 3 to make orders of their own initiative; it saves everyone's time and money.

But they cannot do so unless the application notice is properly completed.

The N244 is there to help.Also, do not forget the draft order: PD23, para 12.

Help the busy district judge and he or she may be able to help you.Case managementMany solicitors attending case management conferences -- or even simple applications' hearings -- are showing signs of solid preparation, a good identification of the real issues in the particular case and initiative in the formulation of the appropriate directions.

But some are not.

There is no excuse.

Discuss points in advance with the other side.

Come prepared.

Think all the time of the over-riding objective.

Be imaginative.

Think in terms of the new rules and the new approach to litigation.

Try to work out how best to bring a case issued pre-26 April into the new regime.

Remember to apply to transitional provisions to be found in PD51.

Dump the old ideas.

And do not forget that case management will usually have to take place at a civil trial centre although the local 'feeder court' may be able to assist (see PD26, para 10(2)(10)).SanctionsProphets of doom had spread stories before 26 April of judges' chambers being awash with blood that had been spilt in the name of sanctions.

That just has not happened.

Common sense -- the application of the overriding objective -- has prevailed.

When pressed, solicitors are doing that which they ought to have done, albeit a little belatedly: cases are not being struck out by the score for non-compliance.

Costs orders are being made, summarily assessed, and no doubt in appropriate cases are being discharged by the solicitors rather than by their clients, but that is all.It is worth asking why.

It is not the action competently pursued and competently defended which has, historically, come to the district judge's attention but the action characterised by dilatoriness, obstruction and plain incompetence on one side or the other or both.

Those guilty of these vices let down not only the parties, but their clients and the profession as a whole.

Any reader to whom this comes as a culture shock will have to make a rapid and perhaps painful re-adjustment, for it is the way things are now and have been since the 26 April 1999.

They will surely be few.

The vast majority of solicitors have welcomed the ethos which underlies the new rules.

Of course, solicitors have adjustments to make in their working practices and new habits which will take time to acquire but, if they conduct their clients' cases in accordance with that ethos, they have little to fear.

As has been said before: 'The philosophy behind this approach .

.

.

is to encourage the solicitor .

.

.

to do whatever he ought to have done and get on with resolving the particular case'.CostsTry to remember the statement of costs (see PD part 43, para 1.2).

It has to be served 24 hours before any interim hearing.

Judges are not taking kindly to statements served on the day, particularly if the other side has failed to appear.

In such circumstances costs are sometimes being disallowed which might otherwise have been allowed.

Many solicitors are turning up at hearings with no statement at all; as a consequence the judge is summarily assessing costs at a low figure.

Sometimes nothing is being allowed at all; that is a mistake the solicitor will make only once.One attempt round this problem has been to ask for costs 'to be summarily assessed at the conclusion of the case'.

Forget it.

Summary assessment means what it says -- assessment there and then.

It is the most often used sanction available to a judge; putting the assessment off strips it of all usefulness.Wise solicitors will ensure they have a system for marking their file with those attendances/letters or whatever which were claimed in a summary assessment situation.

Note the emphasis on 'claimed', not 'allowed'.

Otherwise, there will be an unholy row on any detailed assessment when the costs' officer is asked to be satisfied that no work is being claimed which was considered at any previous summary assessment.The county court scales have gone.

A case may have taken years to settle, with little work done after 26 April.

But in the Tomlin order the costs are not 'to be assessed on scale 1' or whatever.

The only costs orders possible are for costs to be assessed on either the standard or indemnity basis.

Many proposed consent orders coming through the system are making this mistake.It is a bonanza for the receiving party; no more talk of scale 1 discretion, caps at £1,315 or Daniels v LB Lambeth (1996) The Times 18 October CA but instead merely of proportionality and reasonableness.

The only guidance offered at PD 48, para 3.3 is that where an order was made in county court proceedings before 26th April under which costs are to be taxed on scale 1 no costs will normally be allowed which would not have been allowed in a taxation before 26 April.

But nothing is said of costs incurred prior to 26 April to be assessed under an order made after that date; defendants' solicitors would be well advised to try to settle the costs as well as the damages when drawing up the Tomlin order.Mortgage costsDoes a mortgagee's solicitor need to ask for costs, or even to go one step further and have them assessed, at the end of a mortgage hearing? No, in a word.

The misapprehension stems from PD44.3 para 2.4 which says that where the court makes no order as to costs then each party must bear his own.

What mortgagees are overlooking is that s 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 has not been repealed and Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1993] Ch 171, [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA, is still good law.

The mortgagee is entitled to his costs under the mortgage contract; he does not need an order.

On the same basis, a mortgagor cannot insist on the mortgagee's costs bein g summarily assessed.Certificates for counselThese just are not needed anymore, whether in civil or in family cases.

More often than not counsel still ask for a certificate.

The CPR have abolished the need to obtain one.

Why? Because the experience was that it was rarely refused and it is more often than not cheaper to brief counsel to attend alone then for the solicitor to attend himself.The confusion seems to have centroid around PD44, para 2.6 which says that where an order for costs states the opinion of the court as to whether or not the hearing was fit for the attendance of one of more counsel, a costs officer conducting a detailed assessment of costs will have regard to the opinion stated.

What that provision is intended to cover is the situation where the judge is of the view that the use of counsel was unreasonable or disproportionate, or that (say) one counsel was appropriate rather than two.

Counsel are nevertheless pressing judges to express a view as to reasonableness under para 2.6; that is just a throw-back to the old 'certified fit for counsel' regime, and will whither on the vine.