Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times
Judges are to end centuries of tradition and abolish wigs and gowns for civil and family cases, the Lord Chief Justice announced this morning.
The 300-year old horsehair headgear is to go in large numbers of trials from next year, along with wing collars and bands, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said.
But in a compromise that ends one of the most hotly-disputed and lengthy debates in legal circles, judges sitting in criminal courts will keep their wigs on.
And solicitor-advocates, who have long fought for parity with barristers, will be allowed to don the same traditional costume that is the hallmark of the Bar.
The issue of what judges and advocates should wear has split the profession and been the subject of several lengthy consultation exercises.
Lord Phillips, Britain’s most senior judge, acknowledged there is still dissent. He said: “While there will never be unanimity of view about court dress, the desirability of these changes has a broad measure of agreement.”
The reforms, to take effect on January 1, will see all 1,300 judges from the High Court down to the rank of deputy district judge who sit in civil and family cases wearing a new simple gown.
There is still no agreement on design. One suggestion is for a dressing-gown style of robe with a simple sash coloured according to rank; another is for a European-style gown buttoning up to the neck.
In most family cases judges already dispense with wigs and gowns and also in commercial cases where the litigants, often from foreign jurisdictions, are not used to legal costume.
But the change will be noticeable in other civil cases, particularly in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
One casualty of the changes will be the full-bottomed wig, worn on ceremonial occasions. The allowance for newly-appointed circuit judges of £2,595 to buy this wig will be scrapped.
Advocates will follow the dress code of the judges in the courts in which they appear, the statement from Lord Phillips’office said.
Lord Phillips also announced the scrapping of the five different costumes worn by High Court judges - his own particular bug-bear.
He said: “At present High Court judges have not less than five different sets of working dress, depending on the jurisdiction in which they are sitting and the season of the year.
“After widespread consultation it has been decided to simplify this and to cease wearing wigs, wing collars and bands in the civil and family jurisdictions.”
The cost of supplying the new civil gown is estimated at some £200,000 but annual savings of some £300,000 are expected from the other changes.
Michael Caplan, QC, one of the few solicitor-advocates who has also been made a Queen’s Counsel, welcomed the announcement.
“This is very good news. Although court dress will not be compulsory, it will be the expectation that everyone will be similarly dressed; and this has to be right.”
Solicitor-advocates had fought for some time to be treated the same as barristers: at present they cannot wear wigs and argue that they are perceived as an inferior class of advocate.
Defendants, are also said to favour a “proper lawyer with a wig”; and there was concern that juries would be likely to favour a bewigged barrister to a solicitor.
Judges’ reactions were mixed. One circuit judge said that although criminal circuit judges would be pleased to be keeping their wigs and gowns, some in civil cases would “refuse to wear anything foistered on them.”
“Views are divided: Others will reluctantly accept the ‘Strasbourg’ gown (yet to be designed ), some will be quietly pleased and some may find the preoccupation over a long period with this issue to be disproportionate.”
Court fashion
* Until the 17th century, a lawyer was expected to appear in court with short hair and a beard
* Wigs first worn in court when, in Charles II's reign, they became essential in polite society
* Judges formally adopted wigs in 1685
* Wigs out of fashion in the reign of George III, but still worn by bishops, coachmen and the legal profession
* Judges wore full-bottomed wigs until the 1780s when the "bob-wig", with frizzed sides and a short tail at the back, was adopted for civil trials
* The full-bottomed wig, used for criminal trials until the 1840s, is now only for ceremonial dress
* Pros: worldwide emblem of UK legal profession; anonymity from criminals; liked by public and defendants.
* Cons: Itchy, dirty (often), hot and old-fashioned - add to perception of judges as out-of-touch and fuddy duddy
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
See the best entries in this year's competition
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget

Overseas contacts and local business information
2002/02
£59,995
The Midlands
2008/08
£169,950
Scotland
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
Circa £82,000 per annum
Birmingham Women's Hospital
Birmingham
To £28k
Barclaycard
Various (outside London)
£
Up to £66,000 per annum
Hertfordshire County Council
South East
To £38k
Barclaycard
Northampton/Liverpool
2 Bathrooms, Balcony and Garden
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Apts From £249,950
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Too much has come & gone in the disposable society of today. Some traditions are lovely & precious & I truly believe we need to keep them. Good grief, can't something stay the same. I live in the US & I take great pride in my British heritage & its long history - lets preserve as much as we can.
Gail G. Williams, Philadelphia, USA
I don't understand why the traditional court dress is being abolished when it seems to me, from reading the above comments, there is great support for the attire from both the legal and public community.
Nick, newcastle, Australia
If we are going to do away with tradition on the basis that it is out of date, maybe we ought to get all that drab wood panelling ripped out of the Houses of Parliament and get Ikea in to give the place a facelift while we're at it. We could knock down Buckingham Palace to make way for a skateboarding park and do away with Christmas also - after all - that's over 2000 years old and frightfully out of date. Barristers wear wigs and gowns to provide a degree of anonimity in a sometimes hostile environment where the decisions that affect custody of children, prison sentences and huge sums of people's money are made. Solicitor advocates who are bitter not to have their own legal dress should contact the Law Society for reforms within their own profession rather than trying to erode the traditions of the Bar. Solicitor advocates make a mockery of the Bar and a solicitor's identity crisis should not warrant stripping us of our legal costume because they ticked the LPC box rather than BVC.
Stephanie, Manchester,
The abondoning of whig and gown will have a negative effect. They are externals that symbolise a legal system rather than individuals in it. When these are abandoned authority is lost and decisons made seem personal and biased.
In Australia where these changes have taken place in civil courts and family law courts violence against the legal profession have increased. In the family law courts judges have been murdered and attacked. Why? Because it has been all seen as personal. I believe the family law courts were forced to reintroduce some form of legal attire in order to try and remove the idenification of individuals with rulings made.
Chris, Hobart, Australia
I'm really disappointed to hear that changes to legal dress are being made. I'm a barrister, and I know the dress is expensive, but that is not a reason to abolish it. It represents hundreds of years of tradition, and, as has been recognised by other readers, commands the respect of the public.
The fact that it is unchanged for centuries despite repeated changes in government, policy and the like, is a good symbol of the relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
The dress also renders the advocates a little more anonymous so that its clear to all court users that the advocate is performing a public function (of advocacy), rather than speaking for him/herself.
I'm quite young (29), and otherwise quite liberal, so this is an unusual position for me to take. Well, I look forward to the abolition of the monarchy and the demolition of the palace of westminster to make way for a modern steel/glass megalith.
Thanks Labour.
Jahangir, Buckinghamshire, UK
I have been in the profession for nearly 30 years and this is the latest of our distinct traditions to be abolished. Virtually all legal ceremonial (once an integral part of the admin istration of justice) has been stealthily eroded during that time, which is not in my opinion a good thing. The pomp and circumstance of the law was invaluable for its symbolism of impartiality and continuity through political change. It inspired respect for the rule of law, something that is now on the decline. If there was any evidence that these changes improved the quality of justice I would favour them, but there is none. This is change for its own sake and yet another example of the liberal elite's determination to eradicate all English tradition. These cultural vandals should spend more time in court - in the dock.
James Blair, Buckinghamshire, England
It is folly to get rid of wigs and gowns; they are badges of honour and marks of excellence. The government fails to understand that uniforms are a necessary part of removing the identity of the individual from the performance of the office - it depersonalises something which should be impersonal and objective. Where will this mania for change for change's sake end? Perhaps the Guards would be more comfortable in jeans and T-shirt. Why stop there? I hear the Crown is heavy and uncomfortable. Likewise ties are an unnecessary smartness. Perhaps when we are all wearing "dress down" casual clothes that too will be seen as a uniform and will have to be abolished. It's all very silly.
Todd, London, UK
I am appauled at this continuing dumbing down of our society and traditions. I remember this issue being put to the public by Lord Mackay some years ago. The idea of abolishing traditional legal dress was roundly rejected. Who are these people who feel they can uproot our traditions with impunity? It conveys a sickening arrogance from an Establishment which couldn't give a toss for the people it is supposed to represent.
OH, London, England
I think Mr Pineapples has gone bananas! True while solicitor advocate doesn't necessarily = barrister, many actually are qualified barristers who converted to the otherside by way of hte "Qualified Lawyer's Transfer Test". My boyfriend did and regularly anhiliates barristers who automatically assume he is*just* a solicitor advocate!
I did think that it was a shame wigs and bands were to go, but on reflection, it's probably a good thing. So, many barristers don't favour the chages? I do not know one who likes wearing it... It's also a massive ammount of money to shell out for a junior barrister - I remember my boyfriends wig alone (bought in 2002), cost us £400 we didn't have and meant we had to strugle financially for a long time to recover from the outlay...
Joanne Evans, LONDON, UK
As a criminal barrister practising daily in the Crown Court, I can give direct evidence as to the benefits of wigs and gowns. I am fed up with constant attacks on court dress by people who believe that change must inevitably mean improvement. It most definitely does not. If solicitor advocates want to wear wigs, why don't they become barristers? We are coming to the end of a great era when we had a high-quality, independent criminal bar, which has been destroyed by a foolish Labour Government and by inertia and collusion on the part of the judiciary. Shame on you all.
Robert Buckland, Cardiff , Wales
It is a real shame to see our traditions being kicked into touch in this way. The wig and gown gives an aura to the legal profession in Court and a distinction from the everyday and ordinary.
That the inferior Solicitor "Advocates" should declare that they have the skills and tenacity of those who qualify as Barristers is quite outrageous. How we have let the barbarians into the party Goodness only knows.
Mr Pineapples, Dorset, UK
Abolishing wigs and gowns is a really stupid decision, pushed by the New Labour oligarchy - who seem ashamed of everything that is British. Why do we have to ape everything American? This is change for the sake of change and greyness, reducing the authority of the courts.
A. Abilla, York,
Another step along the path to destroying our world-renowned split legal profession.The lack of distinction between Solicitors and Barristers will potentially end up so blurred that along with proposed regulatory reforms, the legal process will be a commodity- and one weighted in favour of the more financially well-to-do.
Chris, Corfe,
There was a time when "Great Britain" was great we had power, respect, our education was the best, people came from around the world to be educated, learn skills, become better soldiers and officers, etc.etc, now we are second rate and ignored in world affairs, blown up by who ever fancies having a go at us and pomp and ceremony in many aspects of our lives that helped to make us great is to be abolished in the " everyone must look the same and feel equal attitude" that we now live with. Good by " Greatness" for ever.
Terry Leigh, Southend-on-Sea, Essex
As a foreigner, I (and my fellow-citizens) always thought of English legal profession and judiciary as something worth taking example from. Wigs and gowns were a kind of positive external feature of this profession. It is very impressive and commands respect. I do not understand why this government is so keen to sweep away anything that seems old. Even if this "old" works perfectly well. Why barristers and judges of this country should look same as, say, French or Americans? There are no negatives in wigs and gowns, so why not to leave them where they are?
Alex Spak, Aberystwyth, UK
I have worked in the legal profession all my life, to suggest that solicitor-advocates can dress in the robe of the barristers is an insult! In recent years I have rarely seen a wig in the RCJ, and to keep it for the Central Criminal Court is quite right. What a happy day for all those solicitor-advocates who couldn't be bothered to go through the lengthy and difficult process of being called to the Bar, they can all pretend to be something they're not. had they wanted to be barristers they should have qualified as such and not now start being "dressing-up" to cover such inadequacies.
Miss S Harper-Lewis, London, UK
The traditional court dress is liked by defendants and public and provides protection to counsel. It is recognised worldwide as the emblem of the English legal profession.
Abolition of traditions in England has become a way for the Government to appeal to the European and international community. It is unnecessary as it is gradually erroding the identity of an elite profession respected worldwide.
Instead of abolishing court dress there should be a sense of pride about it within the legal system supported by the Lord Chief Justice.
Janan Al-Asady, High Wycombe, UK
Hmm, now all we need are Judges to give sensible decisions, but that might be pushing them a bit too far.
Simon, London, UK
once a tradition is lost it can never be gotten back ... a poorly made decision with scant respect for the wishes of the public and the profession ... very very saddening
Simon Lipert, Hobart, Tasmania