As we wait for Lord Woolf's final report on the civil justice system, personal injury lawyers face many challenges.The first is Lord Woolf's review itself.

If the proposals are put into effect we will witness a huge upheaval in civil procedure.

Some of this will be for the good -- anything that cuts out unnecessary cost and delay and prevents a waste of resources is welcome.

The introduction of the plaintiff's offer to settle with real sanctions should stop the present waste of cases settling only at the door of the court.

Litigants will be well served by simplified procedures, better qualified judges, greater flexibility in case management by the courts, one set of rules uniformly applied and sanctions applied equally to both sides.The more streamlined procedures suggested for fast track cases include a trial date 20 to 30 weeks from close of pleadings and trials limited to three hours.

We must be certain that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with the wide variety of lower value personal injury cases.

Fitting personal injury into a procedural strait-jacket crea ted for other types of litigation will be counter-productive.Funding litigation remains a major challenge.

Fewer plaintiffs are able to bring cases funded by legal aid.

Whatever worries some may have, conditional fees provide greater access to justice.

Used responsibly, they provide the certainty in costs that Lord Woolf seeks as a result of being able to insure against the defendant's costs and the agreed 25% cap on damages.

However, there is a great fear that Lord Woolf's proposal for fixed costs in fast track cases will undermine the whole viability of the conditional fee system.Criticism has been voiced that legal aid and conditional fees allow ambulance-chasing lawyers to get rich on speculative litigation.

This is nonsense.

Personal injury lawyers bring cases on behalf of those who have been injured by another's negligence.

If successful, they can bring about safer products and better safety on the roads and in the workplace.The Law Commission's research 'Personal injury compensation -- how much is enough', its report on structured settlements and its recent consultation paper on damages for non-pecuniary loss have underlined the fact that plaintiffs are often under-compensated.

Actual and proposed changes in legislation, and a study of the public's perceptions of the proper level of general damages should result in more realistic damages for those whose disabilities prevent them working and who require long-term care.Lord Woolf may not suggest proposals for reform of the substantive law and the Law Commission does not look at procedural change, but the two go hand in hand.

A simple change in the law may reduce cost and delay more effectively than procedural change by, for example, reversing the burden of proof for pedestrians and passengers in road traffic cases.Once changes are made we must investigate whether they are successful before adding to them.

A civil justice system must also be able to be quickly amended where it is shown to be wrong.

Automatic striking out in the county court was introduced with little or no prior consultation over five years ago.

It quickly became clear that there were real difficulties leading to hundreds of cases before the Court of Appeal, adding to the unacceptable delays in that court.

Court time and legal costs have been wasted.

The civil justice system would be far better served if there were a sufficiently responsive rule-making body to deal with such problems.Finally, personal injury lawyers must continue to improve their expertise and services.

As we move away from the oral tradition of trial, those who prepare cases will have to look hard at procedures.