Via Lo-Fi Librarian.
A consultation on court dress indicates that the public largely favour the status quo while those in the profession and users of the courts prefer a traditional approach.
Have a go at guessing who said this:
“Solicitor advocates should not wear wigs. If wearing a wig is important to them then they should study for the degree of barrister”
Before Ruthie comes after him with her teaspoon, no, it was not Geeklawyer and in any event she also qualified as a barrister so an adverse change would not apply to her anyway one assumes.
The report concludes that the public are conservative and the profession modern. It then asks whose opinion matters more? Those who work in the system or those for who the system works? And crucially “is the dress fit for purpose?”
Disappointingly the conclusion and recommendation tails off on pages 55 & 56 in a rather wishy washy way by not expressing a view either way. It merely says� that it is unfortunate the debate has been dichotomised into traditional versus modern and that we should consider court users (witnesses victims jurors defendants and claimants) rather than the professionals or the man on the Clapham Omnibus who was never in court.
Geeklawyer will keep putting mothballs in his hat-box - the 400 year old horse hair is safe for now he suspects.
That phrase...
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).
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.
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…
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”.
As opposed to “can’t get chambers”
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.
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?
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.
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.