We all know that the Woolf reforms are going to change legal methods and practice, in some cases out of all recognition.

For some of us this is to be welcomed: for others, the changes signify the end of life as they know it.

Whichever view we hold, the impending revolution cannot be ignored.Expert witnesses and the rules relating thereto represent one area where the changes may well be dramatic.

At present, the proposals are subject to consultation, and what has been published (in the Consultation Paper, Transitional Arrangements: Proposed Procedures) is, obviously, liable to be amended.

Nevertheless, what is suggested in the paper is clearly important as being an indication of the Lord Chancellor's thoughts on the subject, and it may well be very near what is finally decided.

My preliminary observation is that the proposals are very similar to what is now standard practice in family cases: for example, orders for joint instructions to experts, meetings of experts, the identity of experts to be approved by the court are now commonplace in the family jurisdictions.

Perhaps Woolf, (by which generic term I mean all those involved in the Woolf process) has learned from the success of the family initiatives.One of the key proposals in the new procedures is pre-Action Protocols.

The emphasis is on greater preparation of cases before issue, with the protocols serving as guides to practitioners in various fields, and the hope is they might lead to facilitation of the more rapid settlement of cases after issue.

It is intended that the proto cols will bring about a change in culture of openness and co-operation.The consultation paper contains extracts from these draft protocols, and I will set out the relevant parts below.

However, a preliminary matter will have to be discussed, and on which the Lord Chancellor, and perhaps, eventually, Parliament will have to make a decision, as to what is to happen if the protocol is not complied with.

This may not be a problem in the case of actions issued after the coming into force of the new rules, since it is intended that the rules will contain the power for courts to penalise non-compliance in appropriate cases and this provision will clearly govern all subsequent matters.

However, there will be a problem as to how to deal with breaches of the protocol in old actions which have been proceeding for some time.

In many such cases it would be unreasonable to expect practitioners to have complied with a protocol of which they may have been only dimly aware.

Nevertheless, even in the case of old actions, a day must come when non-compliance can no longer be excused.

These are matters on which the Consultation Paper invited comment and which the rule committee will have to decide upon.It is intended to publish the full draft protocols in mid 1998, ie well before the coming into force of the Woolf rules.

The intention clearly is that practitioners should begin to operate them as soon as possible with a view to changing their culture.

In the meantime, the best guess one can make as to what is in the protocols is provided by the draft Protocol annexed to the Consultation Paper.The draft Protocol begins by stating what it is and what it is for.

It is intended as guidance to help those who instruct expert witnesses and make use of expert evidence to do so more effectively and more efficiently.

It is also intended to facilitate better communication and dealing, not only between the expert and the instructing party but also between the opposing parties.The draft Protocol then states that it is for the parties to decide whether or not and if so to what extent to adhere to the specific principles of the Protocol.

Nevertheless, "they do reflect principles which a court will expect litigants and experts to observe".

What is one to make of this? It seems that the principle will be that, while the court cannot compel parties to abide by the Protocol it can penalise them if they do not do so; it sounds a bit like an offer you cannot afford to refuse.

Moving on to the detail, the first major area concerns appointment of the expert.

Do you need an expert at all? A number of stages in the mental process are put forward.

First, "those appointing an expert ought to consider whether the appointment is reasonable and/or necessary".

So, ask yourself what it is that the expert will be asked to pronounce upon: is it something which is really a matter of commonsense or within the scope of "judicial knowledge"; is the expert being asked to give an opinion on something which it is really the function of the court to adjudicate on (eg accident reconstruction reports); is the issue really going to be in dispute in the action? Is the court going to be helped by the expert evidence?Having decided that an expert is necessary and/or reasonable, will the evidence be cost-effective? Experts do not come cheaply, and while the evidence might be highly desirable in order to help the litigant to prove his assertions, is the cost going to be out of proportion to the amount in dispute? One of the problems which the practitioners will face is going to be, in effect, to second guess (in advance) the attitude of the court at a later date when the court is exercising its discretion as to costs.

"Feel for a case" and experience is clearly going to be vital.Having made the initial decision that the court will be helped by an expert report and that it is reasonable in all circumstances to instruct an expert, the next stage is to identify a suitable expert; it will be helpful if more work is done on preparing lists of experts in various fields.

In any event, before any party instructs an expert he must give the other party a list of the names of one or more experts in the relevant speciality whom he considers are suitable to instruct; within 14 days thereafter, the other party may then indicate an objection to one or more of such experts.

The first party should then instruct a mutually acceptable expert.

Where the second party objects to all the proposed experts, the parties may instruct experts of their choice; it will be for the court at a later date to decide whether either party had acted unreasonably.

There will be a decision to be made by the "second party" on these occasions which could have important consequences.

If he receives a list of experts and does not object to a nominated expert "he shall not be able to rely on his own expert evidence within that particular speciality" save in limited circumstances or with leave of the court.

In other words, if no objection is taken, the report will be regarded as a joint report.The emphasis in the protocol is on agreeing a joint expert: "all reasonable efforts should be made to agree the instruction of joint expert and to produce a joint letter of instruction".

This is going to be a major culture change for most solicitors (though not, as I have already said, for those in the family field).

It may be that, from where I sit, I have developed a jaundiced view of matters, but I have to say that, given the apparent predispositions of most personal injury lawyers, I think this culture change will take a little time to come about.

It is obviously intended that, where a claim, say for personal injuries, has been made, the solicitors for the claimant and for the defendant (more usually his insurers) will co-operate in identifying a medical expert, and share the cost of his report.

That report would then be the property of both of them and, save in unusual circumstances, it would be unnecessary to call the expert to give evidence, the report would be an agreed document.

The letter of instructions would be agreed between the parties and, if the family practice were followed, would be one of the documents to go in the trial bundle.The same would apply to non-medical experts, such as consulting engineers, or surveyors: since their evidence would have a more direct effect on liability as opposed to quantum, it might be more difficult to reach agreement for a joint report.

However, the invocation to do so remains.

In any event, progress on the instruction of a joint expert would have to be reported to the court, assuming, of course, that proceedings had been instituted.

The latter is an important point, since one of the purposes of all this is that parties may be able to settle their differences without resorting to proceedings.The draft Protocol then moves on to deal with what happens when a joint expert cannot be agreed.

In such cases, it follows that each party will instruct their own expert but "all reasonable efforts should be made to agree the issues on which each party's expert should be instructed".

Moreover, "each party to the proceedings should be gi ven the opportunity to contribute to the letter of instruction between the opponent party and his/her expert.

The letter of instruction is not privileged".

This means first of all a positive obligation on both parties to co-operate in defining the terms of reference of the expert, and secondly, in default of agreement, the right for a party to demand to see the other's letter of instructions.

It must presumably follow that either party is entitled to write to the other's expert direct to ask that expert to take account of which have not been agreed.Where proceedings have been issued, the court will clearly have a supervisory role in all this, and, presumably, where agreement could not be reached, either party would be able to apply to the court for a ruling on the terms of reference of an expert.What then must the expert do when he receives a letter of instruction, whether sole or joint? The draft protocol provides that "it is the expert's duty to co-operate in the parties' endeavours to produce a joint report.

A joint report should state areas of disagreement as well as areas of agreement".

That is sensible enough, but the duties of the expert when the report is not joint remain to be clarified.We then move to the position where each side has produced a report.

Ideally, these reports will have been produced on the basis of the same terms of reference and will be addressing the same issues.

The next stage for the lawyers is to try to narrow down the issues.

"The parties and their lawyers should consider and, if appropriate, take steps aimed at agreement of experts evidence, or narrowing the issues".

If this can be done by the lawyers, well and good.

Either party has the right to communicate with the other's expert, via the other party's solicitors.

In this way, questions can be put to clarify the report, and the expert must reply separately to both parties.

However, the experts "should be encouraged to communicate or meet to seek to agree the facts or otherwise narrow the issues in dispute".

This, again, will be familiar to family practitioners: in these days of e mail, fax, video conferencing, not to mention the telephone, it has never been easier to set up such meetings.

However, a word of caution which some family practitioners may advance is that some experts are just as capable as lawyers of behaving like prima donnas, and professional animosity is not confined to members of the legal profession: it is not just lawyers who will have to change.

The status of such meetings is considered by the draft protocol.

The communications "will be without prejudice, will not bind the instructing parties, and should take place as soon as practicable with regard to the issues in dispute".Where a meeting takes place, the experts "must not accept instructions not to reach agreement at such meetings on areas within the expert's competence", nor must those instructing them try to give them such instructions.

In any event, "a note stating the areas of agreement and disagreement should be prepared and agreed between the experts without delay, preferably at the meeting".There are various other areas in the protocol which remain to be inserted.

However, there is more than enough here to be going on with, and much food for thought.

My view is that the proposals are eminently sensible and I hope the Protocol will be adopted, though, once again, it is necessary to give the warning that the protocol is liable to be amended.

Others may have a different view.

In any event, something like this is going to happen, so the sooner we accustom ourselves to the new thinking the better.