British lawyers build case vs. wigs

Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan Washington Post Apr. 16, 2006 12:00 AM

LONDON - Lawyer John Baldwin stood in Courtroom 61 of the Royal Courts of Justice last week, holding his curly white wig in his hands.

"Some people think it gives them more authority," Baldwin said of his traditional horsehair headpiece, which trial lawyers are required to wear in British courtrooms. "But most of us just think they're itchy."

The wigs are drawing increasing criticism from lawyers who say they are as quaint and outdated as quill pens or suits of armor. As the country's legal system undergoes a raft of changes, including the creation of a Supreme Court modeled after the U.S. high court, the call to cast off wigs is growing louder in courtroom hallways and lawyers' chambers.

"It is an ancient practice that many of us don't think has a place in the modern world," said Kevin Martin, president of the Law Society, a national group representing 120,000 lawyers.

Martin said he was hopeful that change is near because in April the judiciary will get a new leader, Nicholas Phillips, who is considered a modernizer not wedded to the 17th-century adornments.

Phillips is not ready to comment on court dress, a spokesman in his office said, but in 2003 he was quoted as saying that in civil cases, "I would like to see wigs go."

An air of solemnity

More than 300 years ago, wigs were worn by the learned and well-to-do in all walks of life. But after they went out of fashion among the general public, the judiciary retained them, with the argument that wigs lend an air of solemnity, impartiality and anonymity. Critics say wigs are fusty, if not ridiculous.

In recent decades, various surveys have reached conflicting conclusions about the profession's and public's view on wigs. "If you were to make a significant decision to get rid of them, I would like to see overwhelming public support for their abolition," said Tom Little, chairman of the Young Barristers Committee of the Bar Council.

Little said many young lawyers like the wigs because they serve as a "leveler" against those who have much more experience. The profession should focus on more important issues such as legal aid for poor defendants, he said, rather than worrying about wigs.

"Just because something is old, you shouldn't get rid of it. If that were the case, we would knock down all our old buildings."

An expensive practice

As the debate continues, so does the traditional craft of turning horsehair into a headpiece by hand. Ede and Ravenscroft, a company dating to 1689, sells the typical bar wig for more than $800. The more elaborate bench wig for high court judges, with hair teased high in front, can cost $2,000, while the ceremonial full-bottom wig with long curls reaching to the shoulders goes for more than $4,000.

"I had to take a bank loan out to get my wig and gown," said Kirsty Brimelow, a criminal lawyer in London who thinks it's time to toss off the wigs.

Lawyers typically buy one wig to last a career; many complain that they yellow and smell bad as the years go by.

At a time when the judiciary is trying to show the public it is in touch and modern, she said, onlookers enter courtrooms only "to step back to the 17th century."

"I think it has a more negative effect," she said, adding wigs can be intimidating to witnesses.

English judges can look plain silly at international courts in The Hague when, seated amid colleagues from other European countries, they struggle to fasten headphones over fake curls to listen to translations, she said.

Another rap against wigs is that only certain types of lawyers can wear them. Barristers can, while solicitor advocates, who perform similar functions, cannot.