For months the legal profession has been urged to prepare itself for ground-breaking legislation that will revolutionise the decision-making processes of the judicial system.

Yet with the Human Rights Act 1998 not yet in force, the profession is warned by no less a figure than the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, to think very carefully before utilising its provisions (see [2000] Gazette, 8 June, 4).How are advocates to gauge the effectiveness of a law that will affect virtually every area of public and private rights unless they have the courage to make submissions that, on the surface and in advance of the development of any case law, may appear to have little merit?In the very issue of the Gazette in which these ex cathedra comments were reported, page 39 was devoted to a human rights update covering the right to silence, disclosure of an expert's report to the police though commissioned by a party to care proceedings, and the admissibility of self-incriminating statements in a road traffic prosecution.

Would the lawyers who pursued these perhaps narrow legal points, seeking in aid the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, be accused of 'squandering court resources', especially if the relevant judge does not find in their favour?Regretfully, not for the first time, it seems that concerns of the Exchequer threaten to mitigate the effectiveness of a vital addition to the statute book.

However, the profession should not be fazed by this double-edged appeal for caution, but proceed to represent clients in line with the increased rights afforded by the Act without fear of judicial retribution.Bill Jackson, Warren & Allen, Nottingham