The Bloody Sunday inquiry faced its 10-year anniversary this month with a scathing verdict from the profession after senior lawyers strongly criticised the inquiry for waste, having swallowed nearly £100m in legal costs.

The Saville Inquiry, which this month marked the 10th anniversary of its 1998 opening statement by Lord Saville, has generated mounting disquiet in the profession, including from many who have worked on the process.

A key area of concern is spiralling costs – which were revealed to have reached £182m in a Parliamentary question in February – half of which has gone on legal costs, without yet producing a final report into the 1972 killing of 14 demonstrators in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, by British paratroopers.

Former Eversheds partner Charles Holloway, who worked as a lawyer for the tribunal, commented: "A huge amount of time and money has been spent on the inquiry and no-one expected when it first started that it would still be ongoing 10 years later. A lot of money was spent on lawyers and you can argue whether that was money well spent. In hindsight, giving everyone the opportunity to be represented at the cost of the public purse is questionable."

Putting it into a wider context, Holloway added: "Time has moved on. There has been an extraordinary cultural change in Northern Ireland since 1998. However, it is important to bring an end to this inquiry and receive this much-anticipated and long-awaited report."

As lead solicitor to the inquiry, Eversheds was reported to have earned £11m in fees, according to official figures in 2002, while several QCs have earned more than £1m. Eversheds declined to comment but its total fees are now believed to be approaching £13m.

A number of advisers have acted on the inquiry, including Allen & Overy (A&O), Kingsley Napley and a raft of heavyweight counsel such as Michael Mansfield QC and Edwin Glasgow QC of Tooks Chambers and 39 Essex Street respectively.

A&O disputes partner Richard Smith, who represented former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath commented: "The inquiry has to take the time it needs to do a thorough job, but we are anxious for our clients to see the report as soon as possible. Some were in their 80s when they gave evidence and, very sadly, Sir Edward died in 2005."

Many lawyers are concerned about the wider implications the Saville Inquiry will have on public perception. Herbert Smith public law partner Andrew Lidbetter told Legal Week: "It runs the risk of giving inquiries an unduly bad name; leading people to think that all inquiries will be as lengthy and costly, when this is not the case."

Law Society chief executive Des Hudson (pictured right) said: "One has to raise the question after 10 years: will it deliver the clarity and insight that people are anxious for? What we can learn is how to organise these things more effectively."

Privately, some lawyers who worked on the inquiry are now far more critical, with one describing the process as "a disgraceful waste of public money".

The cost and delays of the inquiry, the creation of which was a flagship policy decision of Tony Blair's incoming Labour administration, were linked to the unprecedented scale of the process and the decision to publicly fund representatives' legal costs. The Saville Inquiry received around 2,500 witness statements, making it by far the largest inquiry of its nature in the UK.

Many public lawyers believe that the inquiry's costs were the direct result of its original conception. Clifford Chance head of public policy Michael Smyth commented: "The decision to establish this inquiry was a political one. That decision having been taken and determinations as to the extent of representation by counsel having been made, the costs incurred over the decade that followed should have come as no surprise."

Criticisms of the inquiry's costs are likely to be sharpened as the anniversary comes as the controversial Diana inquest finally drew to a close this week (7 April), at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £10m. The inquest has been criticised for producing the same conclusions as police inquiries.

Despite the length of the Saville Inquiry, there still seems no clear end in sight. A spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Office told Legal Week: "Lord Saville has indicated that he will give a 'substantial' advance notice of the delivery of the report to the Secretary of State. It is our understanding that the submission of the report is not imminent, and that media speculation that the report will be concluded in May 2008 has no basis in fact."

Talkback: What is your verdict on the Saville inquiry? Click here to have your say.