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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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.”
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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
Advertisement
* 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