Sir Richard Scott is clearly not someone who wants an easy life.

Fresh from conducting the controversial arms-to-Iraq inquiry .

.

.

which involved wading through 200,000 pages of documents and listening to 430 hours of evidence from 200 witnesses .

.

.

he is now about to take on what may be an even more demanding role.

In January, Sir Richard was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the new post of head of civil justice.

As such, he is charged with the task of implementing the reforms to the civil justice system recommended by Lord Woolf, which are intended to make proceedings quicker and cheaper.

In the words of the Lord Chancellor's Department when announcing the appointment, it will be Sir Richard's job to 'take forward reform, establish the practices and procedures necessary to bring about appropriate case management by the judiciary, and develop a single, co-ordinated, efficient and flexible system of civil justice'.

Along the way, he will also be expected to raise the status of civil justice and persuade the government to provide the additional resources needed .

.

.

at least initially .

.

.

to pay for the reforms.

All this without giving up his day job as vice-chancellor, and for no increase to his £110,000 a year salary.

Even those who admired Sir Richard's ability during his inquiry to rattle Margaret Thatcher and members of her erstwhile cabinet think this may be asking rather a lot.

'I've never heard it suggested that the vice-chancellor has nothing to do.

How on earth is he going to do a double job?' says solicitor Henry Hodge, one of the authors of the 1993 joint Law Society and Bar report into civil justice reform.

He adds that the move suggests the government is not really serious about wanting to introduce Lord Woolf's proposals, which are likely to include a fast track system for claims under £10,000 and turning judges into case managers who are able to impose deadlines to speed up cases.

Mr Hodge stresses that his concerns are no reflection on the abilities of Sir Richard himself, it is just that the scale of the task is too great for one person.

'He is probably one of the best people you could find to do this kind of job,' says Mr Hodge.

'He has shown himself to be radical and free thinking.'Politicians like the former foreign secretary, Lord Howe, and former Foreign Office minister Tristan Garel-Jones have claimed that Sir Richard was unqualified to run such an inquiry and that his findings should be disregarded.

However, Mr Hodge agrees with other senior lawyers that the attacks on Sir Richard by politicians over his handling of the inquiry will not damage his ability to fulfil his new role.

'Most people in the legal world won't pay much attention to the attacks on Sir Richard,' says Mr Hodge.

'Everyone realises that he is a grade A judge.

The criticism may even have strengthened his position as it shows he's not in anybody's pocket.' Peter Goldsmith QC, who, like Sir Richard, is a former Chairman of the Bar, agrees.

'I suspect a lot of people will admire Sir Richard if the report appears to show that he has taken on a headstrong government.' Sir Richard seems to share his fellow lawyers' lack of concern and is showing no signs that he intends to take Mr Garel-Jones' advice in the Sunday Telegraph to 'Stuff it, Scott.' Now his report has been published, Sir Richard plans to embark on a lecture tour focusing on its contents.

Visits to Newcastle to talk about public interest immunity and to Essex to speak on 'The export control system and the abuse of power' are already planned.

To those, like Lord Howe, who say the inquiry should have been conducted adversarially, with witnesses having legal representation, Sir Richard's retort seems unanswerable.

'This is an inquisitorial inquiry and I do not see how you can have an inquisitorial inquiry without it being inquisitorial,' he says.

But while fellow lawyers may applaud Sir Richard's spirited response to criticism over the inquiry, there are fears that he may be equally unmoved by legitimate concerns over Lord Woolf's proposed reforms.

Mr Goldsmith says: 'Sir Richard Scott is dynamic and has tremendous energy.

But if he were to make the mistake of not listening to our concerns about what might be the flip side of some of the ideas for civil justice reform, this would raise the risk of riding roughshod over the interests of litigants.' While some politicians have sought to rubbish Sir Richard's report because of his supposed naivety about the way Whitehall works, some senior members of the Bar have similar concerns about his lack of experience of criminal trials.

Mr Goldsmith, who stresses he has no prior knowledge of what Sir Richard's conclusions may be, says 'he is someone who doesn't come with a background of having prosecuted criminal cases in the period when PII certificates were becoming more prevalent.

This means he may be at risk of not understanding what the relationship is between barristers and instructing solicitor and the minister behind them.' However, Mr Goldsmith adds that someone from outside with no first-hand experience of the system might be better placed to assess how it should work.

Kevin Robinson, solicitor to Paul Henderson, one of the three defendants in the Matrix Churchill trial, has no such qualms.

'The fact that Sir Richard is not a criminal lawyer doesn't mean that he didn't approach the issue appropriately.

He was looking at an incredibly complex issue, not making a speech to a jury.

He was not cross-examining witnesses to try to promote his client's cause but conducting an impartial inquiry.' Mr Robinson also rejects claims that Sir Richard was unfair to those appearing before him during the inquiry.

'I had two private meetings with him at his invitation.

He didn't have to see us but he afforded us that courtesy.

He was the epitome of consideration and charm, with a Rolls Royce brain,' says Mr Robinson.

There is no sign here of the 'burning, smouldering sense of injustice' that Lord Howe claims is felt by witnesses to the inquiry because of the way they were treated.

Another of Lord Howe's claims is that the inquiry took too long and indulged in some wild goose chases.

While this may be mild criticism compared with some of Lord Howe's other comments, it is perhaps particularly unfortunate given that Sir Richard is just about to embark on the task of introducing 'fast-track' affordable justice in the civil courts.

(It also ignores the fact that, had Sir Richard taken up Lord Howe's suggestion of allowing cross-examination of witnesses, the process would have dragged on immeasurably longer and cost far more than the £750,000 spent on legal advice to government ministers and officials.)However, given the way Sir Richard stuck to his guns and insisted on running the inquiry as he saw fit, who better to advise judges in the new role envisaged for them by Lord Woolf as hands-on case managers?