The growing clamour by newspapers about claimants' use of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) in libel cases received an airing in The Guardian this week, with a warning about the potential 'chilling effect' on freedom of expression thrown in for good measure.

Writing ahead of the deadline for the government's consultation on simplifying CFAs (8 September), Dan Tench, a partner at London media firm Olswang, argued that the system has 'perverse effects' by putting a defendant newspaper which has acted properly in a worse position than one which acted badly.

He explained: 'The better the newspaper acts, the more likely it is to win.

But this means the risk for the claimant is higher and so, if the claimant in fact wins, the costs award will also be greater.'

Mr Tench said that because of the 'potentially massive costs awards in libel cases, some newspaper lawyers are concerned about the chilling effect these awards will have on freedom of expression', as they may decide against publishing controversial material.

He also complained that CFAs are being used by wealthy claimants out of 'simple financial convenience', rather than affording access to justice, 'leaving the media defendant in danger of being at the receiving end of an inflated cost award'.

The newspapers certainly have not held back from attacking Scottish judge Lord Reed over his five-year sentence for a man who admitted raping a 13-month-old baby girl.

The columnists were out in force over the weekend, with veteran broadcaster Jimmy Young in the Sunday Express (7 September) throwing a populist hat into the ring, railing against 'the dangerous extent to which many at the highest level of the judiciary are completely out of touch with the feelings of ordinary people'.

Unsurprisingly, he also trotted out the charge put to Lord Woolf late last year that he was soft on criminals.

However, it was Lady Woolf who made a rare appearance in the news earlier in the week, telling The Times of her fierce opposition to plans to close 21 family court centres in London and centralise their operations in three locations (4 September).

Lady Woolf, a magistrate for 27 years and chairwoman of the Richmond Family Proceedings Court in south London, said the move will deprive 'some of the most disadvantaged members of society from any real access to justice at all'.

She argued that many would be put off with long journeys across the capital.

Mark Eldridge, director of legal operations at the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority, told the paper that the authority believed people would be willing to travel to specialist centres more able to meet their needs.

Lady Woolf's husband is also on the warpath, leading judicial opposition to Treasury plans to increase taxes on their pensions and stop tax relief on 'pension pots of more than 1.4 million' (The Times, 6 September).

With pensions being 'one of the chief attractions of a move to the bench', there are warnings that the proposals will discourage those considering a judicial career.

The judges argue, among other things, that as their pension schemes are non-contributory, they have not had the benefit of tax relief, while their schemes are 'unfunded' and so do not have a fund that can accrue value tax-free.

The paper raised the possibility that if the government pushes ahead regardless, there may be a legal challenge - 'with judges deciding on a case directly affecting their own interests'.

And even more controversial lawyer-to-be Louise Woodward spoke this week 'for the first time about the new man in her life' and that she would employ a nanny when she has children (the Mirror, 9 September).

Ms Woodward, convicted of second-degree murder in 1997 while working as a nanny in the US - a conviction reduced on appeal to involuntary manslaughter - has recently been accepted on the legal practice course but has first to gain approval from the Law Society because of her conviction.

However, previewing an interview she has given to a women's magazine, the Mirror was more interested in charting Ms Woodward's future with 'salsa dance teacher Richard Colley, 31'.

Mr Colley said he decided at the time of the trial that she was innocent.

They met when she attended a salsa class he ran.

'I asked her out straight away because she was so beautiful - and a good mover.'

Neil Rose