Wigs on the Bench

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1014/1224305758252.html

Are wigs now banned or simply not mandatory? What are people's thoughts on this? Personally, I don't see the need for wigs, they are a bit of a throwback.

Gowns I don't have a particular problem with, if only their wearing and design could be somewhat standardised such that lay people can better understand who is who - and whether thet are 'on duty'. I'm not so sure that they are so good at stopping the courts from being a fashion parade at times, with some older barristers going the whole hog with their morning suits and some young wans wearing little more than the gown. Separately, I wonder if solicitors should wear a standardised form of dress, if nothing else, it would make it easier for them to be told apart from auditors.

Whither, with the new Legal Services Bill, one will now see Ryanair-style barrister companies advertising on the back of their gowns. :pac:

nuac

1. At what court will I find young wans wearing little else but the gowns,please?

2. a DJ in the West did suggest about 40 years ago that solicitors wear gowns. Did not work.

3. Easy to distinquish solicitors from auditors. Auditors rarely in District Courts. When they are they sit quietly in a corner studying expensive looking laptops. Solicitors tend to be chatting with each other before court starts.

4. Circuit and High Courts will struggle on without the wigs - they have been optional for years.

Victor

nuac wrote: »

1. At what court will I find young wans wearing little else but the gowns,please?

Oh, the occassional dolly bird around the Four Courts. I realise that people are entitled to dress much as they like, but sometimes gravitas dictates otherwise. That said, a distinguishing appearance can sometimes be useful, both legally and commercially.

3. Easy to distinquish solicitors from auditors. Auditors rarely in District Courts. When they are they sit quietly in a corner studying expensive looking laptops. Solicitors tend to be chatting with each other before court starts.

Oh, it was a friend outside the district court who had enquiries made as to whether he would represent someone (cheap tracksuit brigade).

nuac

Thanks Victor

I believe many barristers especially young ladies like parading around the courts in gowns and wigs.

Most solicitors, apart from some extroverts, seem to seek to merge into the background.

Anyhow best of luck to all as the new legal year gets under way. Not getting any easier.

coylemj

On the radio today there was a vox pop and some people were suggesting that they wanted the barrister to wear a wig because they felt it marked him/her out from the solicitor and they felt that it was all part of the occasion.

I still can't figure how, when these people have a medical complaint, that they don't tell their GP that they won't engage with a medical consultant unless he turns up wearing an 18th century gown and powdered wig.

FreudianSlippers

Victor wrote: »

Gowns I don't have a particular problem with, if only their wearing and design could be somewhat standardised such that lay people can better understand who is who - and whether thet are 'on duty'. I'm not so sure that they are so good at stopping the courts from being a fashion parade at times, with some older barristers going the whole hog with their morning suits and some young wans wearing little more than the gown. Separately, I wonder if solicitors should wear a standardised form of dress, if nothing else, it would make it easier for them to be told apart from auditors.

Well, if a barrister is "on duty" they are wearing their gown (or wig and gown) a peaked collar and tabs (I think called bands in England).

As far as being a fashion parade, when a barrister is around the court and not "on duty" to use your phrase, they will usually still wear their suit and not the gown.
Personally, I often keep on my collar and tabs even if I'm not wearing a gown around the courts mainly because if it is a busy day I would be changing my collar a few times a day and it's a hassle more than anything else.
If I'm not going to be in court, I wear a normal collar with a tie.
It's way easier for women because they get a kind of bib with the tabs attached that just closes in the back with velcro.

For male Junior Counsel, they wear either a dark single breasted suit with a waistcoat or a double breasted suit (not in fashion at the moment). Females wear a variety of different dark things.
The JC gown is gathered with no flap in the back with an open sleeve and it is quite short (most people if worn on their shoulders it would come down to above the knee - some people wear it sort of around their elbows, this seems to be very "in" for people around 5-7 years down; I have no idea why. It does slide down often, but it's no bother really pulling it back up to your shoulders).

I think the "morning suit" you're referring to is the Senior Counsel suit which is quite long and more ornate.
Senior Counsel also have a different robe made of silk with a flap collar and long, closed sleeves that sort of drape down from the elbow. It's also far more plain than the JC gown.


I think it's important to keep the gown (I wear my wig too) because of the gravity of court situations and because I believe tradition is important. It causes no harm to anyone and I just cannot understand the logic behind people wanting to do away with it.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it's important to keep the gown (I wear my wig too) because of the gravity of court situations and because I believe tradition is important. It causes no harm to anyone and I just cannot understand the logic behind people wanting to do away with it.

I suppose that solicitor advocates feel that it marks them as an inferior brand of advocate.

GeorgeOrwell

I think it's important to keep the gown (I wear my wig too) because of the gravity of court situations and because I believe tradition is important. It causes no harm to anyone and I just cannot understand the logic behind people wanting to do away with it.

That's a good point.

With everything that's wrong with Ireland at the moment, it annoys me that the IMF, the Department of Justice and everyone else is giving a second thought to changing what barristers wear. They wore wigs during the last recession, they wore them through the Celtic Tiger, and in neither case did the sky fall in.

Courts are unique places, so why shouldn't the clothing that's worn there be unique?