When Lord Woolf unveiled his final report last week, it was, in general, welcomed by solicitors.

However, there was an undercurrent of unease about the detailed proposals, echoing the Law Society's concern that fixed costs might be set too low.In an interview this week with the Gazette, the author of one of the most eagerly awaited reports on the civil justice system attempted to reassure lawyers: 'For goodness sake don't be frightened by the report.

It's already had a huge input from lawyers.

Solicitors and barristers will be involved in its implementation,' Lord Woolf said.In private, some solicitors have expressed greater fears than over the level of costs.

There are concerns that the streamlined system proposed by Lord Woolf and heavy emphasis on alternative dispute resolution could greatly reduce the work of litigation solicitors.

Could the impact mean a 'clear out' of overstaffed City litigation departments? 'If litigation departments do experience a clear out, it will be like clearing the shelves at a summer sale,' Lord Woolf declared.

'They will then have the capacity to do sensible and new business which will replenish them.'He maintains that clients, whether ordinary members of the public or big multinational companies, will be keener to instruct solicitors as a result of his reforms.

In addition, Lord Woolf predicts the quality of a solicitor's workload and the sense of job satisfaction will increase if long-winded procedures are swept away and results arrived at more quickly.'I think solicitors will find they get much more satisfaction from their work than they do at present,' he said.

'Their way of working should improve because they will know what is required of them, which they don't at the moment.

But they should bear in mind that there are alternatives to rushing into litigation, and should try to look upon litigation as a last resort to a greater extent than many of them do at the moment.'Lord Woolf hopes that part of this change of culture will be less reluctance on the part of the profession to embrace mediation.

'I'm not envisaging the state doing a tremendous amount on alternative dispute resolution, although courts have got to get into the business of educating and encouraging.

It will largely be up to the professions.

The report is really just a signpost.'Lord Woolf, who became Master of the Rolls at the end of May, said the time had come for him to 'take a step back' from his reforms and to concentrate on the Court of Appeal as his main responsibility.

A priority will be to ensure that his reform programme does not become unstuck in the Court of Appeal, which is currently struggling to clear a large backload of cases, according to last month's Courts Service annual report.'There is no point in having a fast track in the county courts if someone can appeal and undo all the benefits by allowing proceedings in the Court of Appeal to become complex and drawn out.

It will just be the same thing one step removed,' he said.Lord Woolf wants to push ahead as soon as possible with the 'training, organisation and support' of the judiciary.

Raising the small claims limit from £300 0 to £5000 will not be among the early changes.

Lord Woolf said it is 'far too early to talk about this as anything more than a possibility'.Of the bodies which have voiced concern over his report, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), has been by far the most vocal.

APIL singled out the fast track for criticism claiming it would increase inequality between accident victims and insurance companies.'I wish APIL could have waited until the report came out and not taken a position beforehand,' he said.

'The terrible danger is, once you've taken up a position, it's very difficult to depart from it.'Lord Woolf rejects suggestions by APIL that his reforms might undermine the development of conditional fees.

'Conditional fees have a part to play but they also have a price.

If it hadn't been for the fact that the legal aid budget was not at the level it should have been, no one would have advocated conditional fees.

They have no virtue in themselves, other than providing a means whereby those people who can't get legal aid can achieve most of what they could have done if they were legally aided.'He continued: 'At the moment conditional fees cover only a small area of litigation, in practice personal injury, because in other areas the uncertainty is much greater.

If you could get greater certainty into those areas then conditional fees could be extended and insurance premiums, although they may be higher, would still be attractive.'Lord Woolf hopes his civil justice reforms will also give a boost to the Lord Chancellor's overhaul of legal aid.

Referring to a case in which he is to deliver judgment -- involving two legally aided parties squabbling over 'a few household possessions' -- it is clear that he has strong feelings.'The multiplicity of proceedings over a few household possessions is horrifying.

I am not criticising the lawyers -- that is how the system works.

You throw every weapon in your armoury at the other side.

But in this case it would have been better if the Legal Aid Board had gone to Harrods and bought brand new items for both sides of the family.

This is nonsense.

It is not, I think, justice.'-- Now that Lord Woolf's final report has been published, attention will shift to the man charged with the responsibility of implementing his reforms -- Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Scott.

Sir Richard was given the role of head of civil justice, outlined by Lord Woolf in January, fresh from chairing the arms to Iraq inquiry.

The Vice-Chancellor, president of the Chancery Division of the High Court, was given the additional responsibilities of overseeing the implementation of Lord Woolf's reforms, improving judicial training and management, and monitoring administration of the civil courts.

Sir Richard will not be formally known as head of civil justice because, Lord Woolf explains, that would require legislation.

'His title is not as important as his role,' Lord Woolf said.

'At first instance, he has the responsibility of overseeing civil justice, and nobody has had that as a prime responsibility in the past.

Until now there has been no direct line of command in the judiciary.1996