Sir Hugh Laddie likened the English civil justice system to a Rolls-Royce – high in quality but too expensive. ( Legal Week, 25 May; Top lawyers back Laddie costs salvo, 8 June). His argument is that Lord Woolf's reforms did not go far enough and, in particular, that we should consider abandoning the adversarial system in favour of an inquisitorial system, such as those which prevail in Germany and France.

I think this would be a mistake. Not only would it be counter-cultural, but we would no longer have a business-friendly system that achieves a high level of settlements and that many foreign companies are prepared to submit to.

However, that does not mean that the rise in costs cannot be reversed by a greater understanding of what has caused it. The problem with the Woolf process was that there was no proper debate about whether the proposed reforms would achieve their laudable aims in practice, at least in commercial cases. There was also a concern that anyone who criticised reforms would be seen to be merely protecting a vested interest. Without a robust debate or a pilot scheme to test the reforms in practice, it is perhaps not surprising that the reforms have had a serious unintended impact on costs.

In truth, the Woolf reforms were always going to lead to higher costs in commercial cases and I was widely reported as saying so at the time. However, that is not because we have an adversarial system, it is a result of the introduction of pre-action protocols, case management and unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as unrealistic timetables and the unpredictable threat of costs sanctions which cause lawyers to practise 'defensively'.

Lord Woolf was nevertheless right to conclude that the adversarial system should be retained. The advantage of the adversarial system is that it leads to a much higher rate of settlements (and a lower rate of appeals). The adversarial system produces a greater certainty of outcome and enables the parties to expose the weaknesses in each other's case.

Another factor is that witnesses are exposed to cross-examination if the case goes to trial. They know that the truth is likely to come out from this process and so have greater reason to settle if they are unsure of their case. Over and above these considerations, the adversarial system is also fairer, and probably quicker, which is no doubt why many foreign parties agree to have their disputes decided here.

The idea that cases would settle sooner if the parties were made to incur costs upfront was never debated or tested and, in commercial cases at least, did not justify the significant increase in costs that has resulted. This needs to be reconsidered in the light of experience. In my view, we need to strip away many of the recent reforms and streamline the procedure by giving autonomy back to the parties and ceasing to use costs orders to punish parties for asking the courts to decide their disputes. I would therefore favour a review, at least for commercial cases, but would retain the adversarial system.

Changes that may appear likely to reduce costs can have the opposite effect in practice. That has certainly been the legacy of the Woolf reforms.

Ted Greeno, partner, Herbert Smith

Carter must reward efficiency

So, Lord Carter's final proposals to reform publicly-funded legal work are to be delayed to allow time for further discussion. (Carter called to usher in longer contracts in legal aid revolution, Legal Week 25 May). This should be seen as a positive development in the public interest. Solicitors will be able to make their powerful points that business viability and contractual terms must go hand in hand.

The Bar similarly can reinforce the powerful case already made for safeguards to prevent barristers being the losers in a bidding war. Direct payment to the Bar by a reformed Legal Services Commission and a fixed relationship between the barrister's and the litigator's fee, and a base fee below which no solicitor will be able to negotiate a contract to the Bar's detriment, will ensure neither side loses out.

The Bar is firmly of the view that both barristers and litigators should be brought within a graduated fee scheme for publicly funded work, and that co-operative reform of the payment system for 'very high cost cases', married with a scheme that rewards efficiency, is long overdue.

Bruce Houlder QC, 6 King's Bench Walk