Comments on: solicitor advocates may not wear wigs

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:42:44 +0000

I think it very much depends on the the venue. When Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are arguing about the agreed contractural price of beans in the county court, frankly the lawyers could turn up naked and I’m sure the parties wouldn’t give a toss as long as they thought the lawyers were doing their job. I think robes in the context of commercial law are pointless and dated. In family law there are good reasons to lose the fancy dress to avoid traumatising the parties any more than strictly necessary. I do think there is an argument for retaining the gear for jury trials, which are theatre of a sort, and merit the wearing of fancy dress. I take the view that 12 people have got lumbered with jury service and don’t really want to be there. I like to try and make it as painless and entertaining as possible. That way they might also pay some attention to what I’ve got to say.

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:35:45 +0000

But you haven’t tried any more sets. You are correct: to be a failure you have to at first try to succeed. If you don’t try to suceed you will never be a failure, but then again, you’ll never be a success either… Better not to take the risk eh?

By: Liadnan

Liadnan — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 09:21:07 +0000

Having read through the report, all however many turgid pages of it, the BBC’s version of the story seems a tad biased:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6736543.stm

For what it’s worth, I still argue for the middle course: lose the wig but keep the rest.

By: Geeklawyer

Geeklawyer — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:26:24 +0000

I wouldn’t know; I’ve only applied to one set so far. There are plenty more sets to try for before I’d consider myself such a failure that I’d stoop to even considering becoming a solicitor inadequate. Even then I’d rather remain an in-house barrister.

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:24:29 +0000

As opposed to “can’t get chambers”

By: Geeklawyer

Geeklawyer — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:37:21 +0000

It’s a bloody poor disguise …

And when you say “see the light”, I take that as a Solicitor-Inadequate euphemism for “didn’t get a pupillage”.

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:19:37 +0000

What a lot of people seem to forget is that a lot of solicitor-advocates are in fact former barristers who have seen the light, and are therefore switching one form of fancy dress for another. Since simply changing ones regulatory body presumably does not affect ones ability to do the job, the idea that solicitor-advocates need to be marked out like plague victims with their absence of wigs seems ludicrous.The bar would do well to overcome its traditional contempt of solicitors: we aren’t actually a lower form of humanity, indeed in some instances we are actually barristers in disguise…

By: Geeklawyer

Geeklawyer — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:25:02 +0000

Yes, that is/was one of he classic justifications. Indeed I once spoke to a judge, while I was a tender faced pupil, who claimed this had actually happened to him. naturally I swallowed every word in fulsome belief. Even though he was bullshitting like mad.

I was tempted to ask him: “well, then, why not wear a paper bag over your head in court?” but that would have been ill-mannered.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:17:24 +0000

I always thought the point of wigs was to disguise lawyers in court so defendents and/or defendent’s heavies wouldn’t recognise you on the clapham omnibus and wreak revenge.

Not to imply that geeklawyer or ruthie ever have unhappy or vengeful clients (or witnesses - or blog readers).