On 28 June 1996, the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a press statement announcing publication of a consultation paper by the Woolf implementation team on the rule-making committee proposed for the civil courts.

This paper invited responses by 9 August.The focus of attention was Lord Woolf's final report and the accompanying first draft of unified rules.

There was obviously a need to unify the High and county court rules and frame them in a way to ensure full implementation of Woolf's philosophy.

Almost nothing has been said, though, about the continuing effect of the body of case law relevant to the old rules.It is likely that all practitioners will be working in virgin territory.

As litigation solicitors will be the first port of call, it is imperative that their views are taken into account when framing these new rules, in seeing that they work in practice and that appropriate amendments are made when the inevitable teething problems emerge.The consultation paper proposed that the rule-making committee should have 17 members, of whom the only likely solicitor representatives would be restricted to 'advocates and authorised litigators as defined under the CLSA 1990'.This proposal caused considerable concern to the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA), which felt that the important role to be played by litigation solicitors necessitated a greater representation on the committee.

The LSLA suggested that the committee should include two barristers and four solicitors; specialists in litigation fields.The new Civil Procedure Bill proposes a committee comprising five members of the judiciary, one master, two people with working knowledge of the courts and four places to be split equally between advocates and practising solicitors.

The practitioner's voice appears to have been heard, at least in part.The June consultation paper also stated at para 3.3: 'The proposal that a Civil Justice Council (CJC) should be established is still under consideration.

If it is established, its composition might be expected to reflect similar considerations to those which would be taken into account in constituting a rule committee.'Lord Woolf leaves the reader of his reports in no doubt as to the importance he places upon a CJC to oversee and co-or dinate his proposals.

On p 221 of his interim report, he described the essential features of a CJC, emphasising the involvement of a wide range of participants in the system so that a two-way channel of communication would be established.The Lord Chancellor's strategy paper, 'The way forward', published last week, notes the need for a body to allow representation of the participants in the civil justice system and provide a channel of communication, but says he is not yet satisfied that the CJC is the best way of securing these objectives.It is a matter of considerable concern to the LSLA that the CJC has still not been formed.

It is disappointing that the Lord Chancellor feels it is necessary to invite further comment about the appropriate forum to be adopted.

Properly staffed and funded, the CJC would ensure that the work involved in unifying the rule book, organising the introduction of procedural judges and re-organising the courts into a coherent system fit for the next century would be carried out in a determined and efficient manner.The Law Society, LSLA and similar organisations should lobby to ensure that such a council is formed and its composition properly reflects the views and experience of litigation practitioners.

Only if a body is in place to respond to this feedback will Woolf's aims of cheaper and quicker litigation be achieved.