'Keep wigs for civil cases,' says Bar study
Wigs and gowns should continue to be worn in civil and family cases, according to the findings of a Bar Council consultation. Almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents to a poll launched by the Bar regulator in October thought the formal court dress currently worn should be retained in full.
December 04, 2007 at 06:05 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents to a poll launched by the Bar regulator in October thought the formal court dress currently worn should be retained in full.
The body launched the study earlier this year following an announcement in July by the Lord Chief Justice that the court dress worn by judges sitting in civil and family cases would be changed from the start of 2008. Under the proposals, judges sitting in such cases would wear a simplified gown and no wig.
Sixty-six percent were in favour of maintaining the status quo in the Court of Appeal - although that proportion drops to 61% for the High Court and less than half (47%) in the County Court. Support for retaining wigs was particularly strong in serious cases where a loss of liberty was at stake.
The Bar Council will continue to consult with the profession before passing its final recommendations to the Lord Chief Justice by 1 March, 2008, with any changes likely to take place after Easter.
Bar chairman Geoffrey Vos QC commented: "It is quite clear from the large number of responses to the consultation that there are strong views on both sides about the retention of wigs and gowns. However, our consultation indicates a desire to maintain the status quo and for our historic traditions to continue to play a part in the civil justice system."
Bar chairman-elect Tim Dutton QC added: "Our court dress is a hallmark the world over of the Bar of England and Wales. We must... be very careful to maintain the dignity of the process, but also to provide greater clarity to the system where different practices have begun to develop in different courts."
The Government expects to save £300,000 a year by removing the £2,595 allowance granted to newly-appointed judges to buy full-bottom wigs, which are largely for ceremonial use, although there will be a one-off cost of £200,000 for supplying the new civil gown.
For thousands of the best legal jobs, click here.
Almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents to a poll launched by the Bar regulator in October thought the formal court dress currently worn should be retained in full.
The body launched the study earlier this year following an announcement in July by the Lord Chief Justice that the court dress worn by judges sitting in civil and family cases would be changed from the start of 2008. Under the proposals, judges sitting in such cases would wear a simplified gown and no wig.
Sixty-six percent were in favour of maintaining the status quo in the Court of Appeal - although that proportion drops to 61% for the High Court and less than half (47%) in the County Court. Support for retaining wigs was particularly strong in serious cases where a loss of liberty was at stake.
The Bar Council will continue to consult with the profession before passing its final recommendations to the Lord Chief Justice by 1 March, 2008, with any changes likely to take place after Easter.
Bar chairman Geoffrey Vos QC commented: "It is quite clear from the large number of responses to the consultation that there are strong views on both sides about the retention of wigs and gowns. However, our consultation indicates a desire to maintain the status quo and for our historic traditions to continue to play a part in the civil justice system."
Bar chairman-elect Tim Dutton QC added: "Our court dress is a hallmark the world over of the Bar of England and Wales. We must... be very careful to maintain the dignity of the process, but also to provide greater clarity to the system where different practices have begun to develop in different courts."
The Government expects to save £300,000 a year by removing the £2,595 allowance granted to newly-appointed judges to buy full-bottom wigs, which are largely for ceremonial use, although there will be a one-off cost of £200,000 for supplying the new civil gown.
For thousands of the best legal jobs, click here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readCanadian Appeal Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250