David Davis said "some people" were exploiting practices "to delay and dispute the outcome" of the inquiry, which began in 2009.
The government said it was a matter for the independent inquiry.
It comes amid growing pressure on Sir John Chilcot to set a publication date.
The inquiry, which is looking at the reasons for the UK's involvement in the 2003 US-led invasion, held its last public hearing in 2011.
The war saw British troops remain in Iraq until 2009 and a total of 179 UK service personnel were killed in the conflict.
Sir John this week wrote to families of UK soldiers killed in Iraq saying he understood their "anguish" at delays, blaming the "Maxwellisation" process - where those criticised are given an opportunity to respond.
His response came after some bereaved families threatened legal action.
Mr Davis said: "What appears to be happening is that some people are using the Maxwellisation process to delay and dispute the outcome of Chilcot."
The purpose of the process, he said, was to give people notice that they were going to be criticised and give them time to prepare for it and correct any errors of fact.
He said it was not meant to be a "process of private dispute and debate between the inquiry and those being criticised in order to influence the conclusion of the inquiry".
Mr Davis told the Telegraph ministers should now act.
"Surely the reasonable action for the government to take now is to say 'there should be a limit in time and money on what can be spent on government lawyers to allow this inordinate delay to continue'," he said.
When the Chilcot inquiry was launched, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it would take at least a year.
Sir John has faced criticism in recent weeks, with Prime Minister David Cameron expressing his frustration at the delays.
The government spokesman told the Telegraph: "This is an independent inquiry and as such Maxwellisation, publication and timing are a matter for Sir John."

A Commons committee has said official copies of Acts of Parliament should be printed on archive paper to save money.
But member David Amess, Southend West MP, told the BBC he had had "second thoughts" and vellum should remain.
Fellow member James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire, said switching to paper would save "very little money, if any".
He was late for the meeting in October when the Commons Administration Committee decided to back a call from Lord Laming that Acts of Parliament should be recorded on "high-quality archive paper" instead of the vellum.
It said specialised printing on vellum cost too much and top quality archive paper could last for 500 years.
Lord Laming said the "slightly over Â£100,000 per year" cost of vellum could not be justified, when archival paper was "superior for print quality". An online database of legislation is also kept.
The change must be agreed in the House of Commons, which rejected a previous bid to ditch vellum in 1999.
Now one committee member has changed his mind.
"I should have given more careful consideration to what we had been asked to decide upon. I now believe that I made a mistake in not voicing my concerns then," Mr Amess told BBC Sunday Politics West.
"It's very precious and is at the heart of the United Kingdom's tradition as being the mother of all parliaments."
Paul Wright, manager of vellum manufacturer William Cowley, said he was "gobsmacked" at the committee's decision. He calculated the average yearly cost at nearer Â£47,000.
North Wiltshire MP Mr Gray said vellum would last for 5,000 years at least and "can be kept in an ordinary cupboard" while paper would require "a new archive centre" with environmental controls to stop it degrading.
"I can't think why it is that this committee in Parliament are thinking about changing something that's done perfectly well for 1,000 years. It's a real piece of Parliamentary history," he said.
The government should limit the amount of money spent on legal advice for politicians, officials and military figures as part of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, a Tory MP has said.
[NEXT_CONCEPT]
An MP who backed moves to scrap Parliament's centuries-old tradition of printing laws on calf skin has admitted he "made a mistake".