Some Brit lawyers itchin' to ditch wigs

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

"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The wigs are drawing increasing criticism from lawyers who say they are as quaint and outdated as quill pens or suits of armor.

"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.

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, the judiciary retained them, with the argument that wigs lend an air of solemnity, impartiality and anonymity.

Tom Little, chairman of the Young Barristers Committee of the Bar Council, said many young lawyers like the wigs because they serve as a "leveler" against those who have much more experience.

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.

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