Ah, dear readers, Ruthie is back from her sojourn in the cyber wilderness, following receipt of some rough discipline from Geeklawyer about what she is and is not permitted to post. (To be borne in mind the next time he starts ranting about the right to free speech.) Geeklawyer’s view is that it is the site is his ball and therefore strangers only get to play according to his rules, and if I don’t like it I can bugger off and write a blog called Ruthie.org, which in his opinion no-one will read….
So. I have made my point. Read on.
Ruthie was recently asked her opinion on the wearing of wigs and gowns. (In court, rather than just generally). Ruthie, being a solicitor-advocate is not permitted to wear a wig, but instead gets to appear against barristers dressed in a gown not dissimilar to the Court usher.
Ruthie has no particularly strong views about the retention of wigs and gowns, but feels that she should at least look the same as other advocates. Similarly solicitor-advocates are technically referred to in court by other lawyers as “my friend” as opposed to “my learned friend” for barristers, although Ruthie notes that all but the most patronising members of the Bar extend the “learned friend” courtesy.
Ruthie feels that court dress is just one more thing to pay for and worse, forget, producing the phenomena of “forensic dreams”, where you turn up for for your big day at the Court of Appeal only to discover that in your haste your wig and gown remain on the train…
Top tip: Rover biscuit tins make an excellent substitute for expensive wig tins.
- Stupid bot! - I try to...
“… write a blog called Ruthie.org, which in his opinion no-one will read…”
Bloody liar! I never said any such thing. Anyway, if you have a look at ruthie.org you’ll see that had I said it I would have been right. And totalitarianism is not objectionable when it’s inflicted by me.
As for wigs they’re an expensive pain in the arse. Mine was second hand and cost me £400 and I’m not entirely sure its previous head didn’t have lice.
That said, I like all the dressing up but I’d accept that the justifications are a bit thin and no more than the maintenance of tradition. I did once speak to a rather crusty judge who swore blind that they enabled safety for the judiciary and the Bar by disguising them. Not a terribly convincing argument.
I’m sure that if I had to oppose Ruthie I would be too terrified to speak, let alone call her “my friend”.
Even if she is just a solicitor
Ruthie got it all wrong!