The sad thing about traditions is that it is easy to get rid of them and impossible to get them back again. Once lost they are lost forever and sometimes change is done for the sake of change and not for any good reason.

sarah, bristol, England

Why draw the line at no wig and zip-up gowns? Why not shell suits and baseball caps with CA or HC emblazoned on the front to denote the relevant court? Or perhaps a gold chain with the initials? That would be liek well cool innit.

Disgruntled of, North London, UK

What will the advocates have to wear, or not wear in those civil cases, and what about the disparity between barristers and solicitor-advocates in criminal cases? Wigs for solicitors? Hopefully this will be dealt with too.

Justin Atkinson, Lincoln,

Lord Phillips is behaving like a politician.

Richard Sudbury, London,

Only a member of the bar could misrepresent public opinion with such brazen ignorance. There has not, to my knowledge, been a government sponsored (as opposed to bar funded) opinion poll taken on this issue.

I have a number of freinds who are members of the bar and it is clear to me that the only people who wish to see the continuance of this arcane dress code are the layers themselves. To quote one such member "It is the only thing that makes us stand out from the solicitors and the proles".

Until the legal profession are brought (kicking and screaming) into the 21st century, the mass of the population will continue to view them and their traditions with suspicion. The sooner the gowns, wigs and archaic procedural anachronisms are expunged the better for the practice of law in this country. Why not start with providing full transparency on the performance of barristers and let the public 'consumers' of this service select the best available lawyer to represent them?

Joseph, London, UK

Absolutely a welcome change, OPTIONAL being the key word here. We will be able to easier identify the fuddy-duddies when they retain the old dress.

Many traditions of the bar could do with a change, what about that old stalwart of only having male, Oxbridge, white barristers? I'd like to see that go next...

Jinx, Chelsea, England

I wish Lord Philips would leave this issue alone and turn his attention to the sorts of issues he is supposed to be dealing with. The public are in favour of wigs and gowns and so are the bar and bench. Let the majority win Lord Philips and get on with your job.

Chis Deal, Cambridge,

Every time the public has been asked about this issue they have made clear that they want the traditional Court dress of the Bar and the Bench to be retained; surely it is the consumer whose views must take priority here?

It is not what the profession wears that leads to allegations of being out of touch but what is said by those wearing wigs, which is then gleefully misreported by the media.

The Family Division ushers reported an almost immediate deterioration in behaviour in those courts after the judges decided to do away with traditional Court dress in that division. There are already problems with discipline in the Courts, I see no reason to add to this difficulty.

Gladiatrix, London, England

How terribly sad. For the English Bar, the wig & gown is an internationally recognised uniform and valuable trade mark . I am sure that other wig - wearing jurisdictions will have more sense than to ditch their distinguishing court dress. I am also certain that the public will not love lawyers any more than they would without the ghastly 'trendy vicar' urge to trample on tradition. I prefer my lawyers properly attired.

Darren Webb, Devizes, UK

I think this is a mistake. The law is an artifice, lawyers are experts in the environment, and the general condition is well represented by wig and gown. It isn’t a normal process, lawyers aren’t normal people, and clients should adapt to these facts rather than vice versa. Of course, if English law were to progress into the 21st century . . .

Henry Percy, London, UK