-- What the future holdsThe second millenium will be upon us befor e we know it.

The process of change that has already brought us legal aid franchising, automatic striking-out and a ten-fold increase in the county court's monetary jurisdiction will continue, may even accelerate, with the result that in six years' time civil litigation will have changed in several, fundamental respects.As John Betjeman once said: 'I have a vision of the future, chum', and a snapshot of the 'headline' features looks like this.The theme which underscores the vision is cheaper, quicker litigation.

Most of it is going to be conducted without the benefit of legal aid.In his recent speech to the Social Market Foundation, the Lord Chancellor did not include mainstream personal injury, medical negligence and contractual claims in his idea of 'priority cases' so the chances are that Henry Hodge's report of the death of legal aid is not at all exaggerated as far as the majority of individual civil litigants is concerned.

In effect, access to civil justice, in so far as it exists at all, will be funded and underwritten by us through conditional fee arrangements.

The cheaper we make it the less financial risk to which we are exposed.

The quicker we are, the sooner we get paid.-- Adapting to changeIf we are to survive as litigators and, hence, if the public is to continue to enjoy access to civil justice, we must approach and conduct litigation not only in a different manner, but in a different culture.

The profession has demonstrated on many past occasions that it can assimilate procedural changes without too much difficulty.

The problem over the next six years will be assimilating the sheer number of changes, but more especially, in adapting to the cultural shift which they inevitably entail.-- Early assessmentFor example, we shall have to make an incisively accurate assessment of merits and quantum, and plan the route to trial/settlement, right at the outset if we are to avoid running what ultimately turn out to be 'small claims' (for which, after Azal, we shall not recover costs), or unsuccessful claims.

Too many of either and we are headed for certain bankruptcy.

We cannot afford to drift into litigation and hope that counsel or experts will sort us out later.

We need to clear our minds of all preconceptions and ask the client all the open (why? when? what? where? how?) questions to avoid leading our clients and ourselves into litigation based on evidence which has not been properly tested.

We must take clients' and witnesses' evidence as if we are examining them in-chief.This requirement to understand, assess and plan a claim at the very outset will inevitably increase the front-end loading of costs started by the requirement to file medical reports and a schedule of damages when issuing proceedings.

But if, as I anticipate, we act for most clients on a conditional fee basis we are underwriting those front-end costs, so we are going to have to make accurate assessments using the absolute minimum of resources.

That will require a highly trained, specialist lawyer to make the assessment, but the lowest possible grade of fee-earner or support staff to obtain the information to reach the assessment.

The 'this is my case' syndrome is obsolete: we shall have to start working in teams and allocating work accurately.-- TechnologyMaximum effectiveness and efficiency will only be achieved if we use available technology.

We cannot afford the luxury of 'one fee-earner, one secretary': the fee-earner will have to enter initial instructions and client's evidence on to a desk-top computer terminal or a lap-top computer and will have to make maximum use of standard documents and precendents which can be completed without resort to the wasteful dictation - typing - checking procedure.-- ExpertsExperts and others who assist us will have to adapt to the same culture.

For instance, initial reports will have to be restricted to the central issue(s) without any padding or irrelevancies.-- Judicial interventionWe are going to be subject to increasing judicial scrutiny, perhaps even intervention, triggered other than by the parties.

Rebukes such as that delivered by Saville LJ in Trusts Securities Holdings Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Son Ltd [1994] The Times, 21 December about lawyers playing games will become commonplace.

They are another traditional and absorbing indulgence which we can no longer afford.

Judges will be much less tolerant of slow or incompetent lawyers.-- Them and usAbove all, we are going to have to move away from the 'them and us' culture.

The procedural changes which have already taken place have forced us to 'show our hand' at a relatively early stage and to be open about our case in a way which would probably have amounted to professional negligence ten years ago.

Those changes, and the cultural shift they bring with them, will continue.

Mutual disclosure will move even further forward up the timetable.

The court will appoint experts.

ADR will initially be encouraged but eventually the court will be given the power to refer cases for ADR.

Plaintiff and defendant representatives are going to be forced, like it or not, to share information and resources.

The more enlightened and perceptive, those who lead the way, will see that to conduct the entire litigation process in a spirit of co-operation, without at the same time compromising clients' interests, is the way to achieve the quickest, cheapest, most effective, and hence accessible justice for litigants.

At the same time it will permit the legal profession to withstand the inexorable and relentless pressure bearing upon it so that it survives as an independent, high quality profession with, maybe (but let's not get too carried away) a better public image.-- Practice and procedure1.

Further increase in county court jurisdiction, probably to £75,000, maybe £100,000, and increase in the 'small claims' limit to £5000.2.

Commons procedural rules in high and county courts.3.

Automatic striking-out after a fixed period in all cases.4.

Conversely, the return of the pre-trial review, but this time 'with attitude', and including the ability of the court to refer for arbitration or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in appropriate cases.5.

Debarring/striking-out orders granted on first application.6.

Relaxation of hearsay rules.7.

Use of court-appointed experts.-- Professional8.

Access to the Bar widened to include agencies such as citizens advice bureaux.9.

Compulsory compliance with the Law Society's practice management standards.-- Access and funding10.

Conditional fees in all civil litigation combined with 'after the event' insurance.11.

Fee agreements allowed in contentious matters.12.

Legal aid available only through franchisees or 'fundholders', including selected agencies.13.

Move from prescribed rates towards fixed fees in certain types of legally aided cases.-- ConclusionIt is unfortunate in many ways but I see government and vested interest, perhaps even public opinion, drawing a line.

It finds tacit expression in recent personal injury judgments such as Morris v Murray, Pitts v Hunt, the Hillsborough claims and the pharmaceutica l claims.

It is drawn clearly by the Lord Chancellor, whose proposals for capping legal aid expenditure, appointing fundholders and moving certain work away from solicitors met with a favourable reception from the 'serious' press.

It is implicit in the 'filtering' process forced by the effective privatisation of litigation funding.I fear the imminent, sad demise of the crusading plaintiff lawyer, but that will be partially offset by quicker, cheaper and possibly better outcomes for the majority of those litigants whose claims clear the initial hurdles.

Those hurdles will be much higher and will be screwed to the floor so that if you do not quite clear one of them, you are down: it will not tip or give a little so as to let you clear it with a gentle tap and warning.My vision of the future is of a more efficient civil justice system, but one which, at the same time, is more ruthless and rigid in its selection of those cases which are allowed into it.

The pioneering claims, those which push at the frontiers, will be the preserve of the wealthy, the foolhardy, or the very brave.There will still be much of the interest and satisfaction for lawyers working within the system, but like other aspects of legal practice, civil litigation will have to be conducted in an altogether more business-like manner.

The client's interests will remain paramount, but only so long as the pursuit of those interests has first been assessed as commercially viable.It is a vision very much at odds with the image of the 'caring, sharing 1990s' and more in tune with what we know to be the harsh realities of current legal practice.Still, I don't suppose it is any worse than our pre-teens vision of 21st century Dan Dare types driving flying bubble cars round a concrete megalopolis.

Is it?