Lord Justice Leveson is likely to face huge pressure to water down criticism of media organisations and witnesses after sending out the so-called Salmon Letters alerting individuals and companies to probable criticisms to be included in his report.
There is also likely to be a great deal of activity from spin doctors trying to "explain away" those criticisms, according to media law specialist Mark Stephens, a partner with law firm Finers Stephens Innocent.
Lord Justice Leveson is reported to be planning "excoriating" criticisms which will involve "throwing the kitchen sink" at the press.
The Independent newspaper quotes its editor, Chris Blackhurst, as saying that while some criticisms are justified, the document fails to reflect any of the positive character of Britain's press.
Mr Blackhurst told BBC Radio 4 programme The Media Show that his initial reaction to the overall tone of the draft was one of "shock and anger".
Lord Justice Leveson has to send the Salmon Letters - named after Lord Salmon who invented the procedure - because it is held to be necessary to give any witness at a public inquiry fair notice, in advance of publication, of any criticism of the individual that the report may contain.
Mr Stephens said Salmon Letters had to give proper details of any criticisms of an individual the report might contain, such as a conclusion that he or she lied, and with enough particulars to enable that person to correct errors or explain possible misunderstandings.
"The better practice, where it is practicable, is to give notice to witnesses and others who may be criticised at the earliest possible stage," he said. It is clear that Lord Justice Leveson is unlikely to be criticising the victims of phone-hacking, for example, but likely that he would be criticising the press and, quite possibly, the police.
It would be interesting, Mr Stephens said, to know who is receiving letters from Lord Justice Leveson.
Salmon Letters were put on a statutory footing by rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 and gives an inquiry chairman the power to send a warning letter in certain circumstances. But it also says that an inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless the chairman has sent the individual a warning letter and that he or she has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond.