When Lord Woolf's inquiry into civil justice was first launched last year, I argued that if the inquiry were to realise its goals, there was a need for some basic objectives to be identified, and for some research to be carried out into what could realistically be achieved (see 'Justice for the people' [1994] Gazette, 8 June, 2).Throughout the course of the inquiry, it was clear that this was not being done.

Rather than embarking on an empirical study of the causes of delay and the impact of procedural changes that had already been introduced on the back of the 1988 civil justice review, Lord Woolf has instead based his inquiry on extensive soundings throughout the legal profession and lay users of the courts.

This collection of anecdotes and perceptions is the foundation upon which rests his interim report, published last Friday.Predictably, this approach has been criticised.

Most famously, Professor Michael Zander has used it to question the thrust of the whole Woolf inquiry enterprise, arguing that without proper research its recommendations could actually make the situation worse (New Law Journal, 3 February 1995).

This is a legitimate concern.

To take one example -- the emphasis on court control of litigation -- the experience of the USA graphically demonstrates that notwithstanding the overwhelmingly positive feeling on the part of practitioners who feel that it does work, this belief is rarely reflected by the facts.

Numerous studies of court records revealed that court management only tended to improve efficiency in certain restricted forms.

Introduced across the board without recourse to the needs of an individual case it could actually slow up proceedings, impose extra costs burdens on the parties, drain court resources, and prejudice the values of due process.There is, therefore, a great deal we do not know about civil justice.

Many of Lord Woolf's proposals seem like a good idea, but the reality is that civil litigation is a complex animal.

There is often no way of predicting what impact a reform will have because different cases give rise to different considerations, procedures that work well in one situation may not in another, and a change introduced in one area may have a knock-on effect in others because it warps the intricate web of practitioner and client incentives.

Who knows what effect costs-capping will have on settlement negotiations? We do not even know whether exchange of witness statements have been a good idea or not.Lord Woolf's response to this is that it is all very well arguing that more research needs to be done, but the point is that there are disputes in the civil courts now, and we do know that the current system is not working satisfactorily.

In an ideal world, perhaps we would not introduce procedural changes without a pretty good idea of what the likely impact would be, but this is not an ideal world.

Something needs to be done for the present litigants.

We should not just embark on a lengthy research project in the hope of improving the lot of the ir descendants.This is a persuasive argument.

Given the complexities and unpredictable nature of civil justice reform, there is a lot to be said for the 'try it and see' approach.

My concern, however, is that at the moment we seem to have a lot of trying and very little seeing.

We lack any form of effective monitoring.I mentioned above the example of exchange of witness statements.

Introduced in November 1992 to a great fanfare of increased openness and encouragement of settlement, we now hear that the preparation costs often outweigh the savings in court time, that they just provide counsel with more ammunition for cross-examination, and that they provide a fertile area for satellite litigation.

Others argue that they do produce the gains alleged.

We simply do not know.We also have no idea what will be the impact of innovations such as the personal injury panel.

Will it address some of the criticisms about dilatory practitioners? Conditional fees, fixed fees, and the legal aid green paper similarly loom on the horizon but again, no-one knows how these will affect the conduct of litigation.

As for so-called straightforward reforms such as automatic striking out, I do not think I have to describe the chaos that has caused.On top of all this, it has never been established what effects it is that we want to get from our civil justice system.

We hear that civil justice is too expensive, too complex, and takes far too long.

Fine.

But when would it start giving value for money? As a litigant, you seek the resolution of your dispute, the chance to tell your side of the story, to seek an apology or to clear your name, to be treated politely and with respect and so on.

As a society, we are prepared to pay a certain amount for that, and a certain amount for the creation of codes of behaviour, but we are not prepared to pay for the vexatious and oppressive use of our court system.

Where is that line to be drawn? How much are we, each of us a potential litigant and a potential beneficiary of the system, prepared to pay for these things?The problem is that there is very little in civil justice reform that is new.

Most of the recommendations in the Woolf report have been talked of before, or tried somewhere else.

Fundamental review follows fundamental review and ideas that were rejected by previous inquiries are incorporated now because we never knew whether they would have worked or not and we are desperate.It does not have to be this way.

Monitoring can be done.

I want Lord Woolf to succeed.

I want him to set himself apart from everything that has gone before and show sceptics like me that real civil justice can be achieved.

My fear is that we may never know whether he has or not.