Yes. English lawyers still wear wigs, but only some of them and only in some courts. Specifically, barristers and judges in criminal courts in England and Wales continue to wear horsehair wigs as part of their formal court dress, a practice that dates to the 1660s. Civil courts, family courts, and the UK Supreme Court dropped the wig years ago, and a July 2025 guidance update widened the grounds on which individual barristers can skip it. The tradition is intact in the Crown Court, but it is narrower today than at any point in its 340-year history.
Which Lawyers Actually Wear Wigs
The wig belongs to barristers and judges, not to every lawyer. English legal practice is split between two professions. Barristers are the specialist advocates who argue cases in court before judges and juries. Solicitors handle most client-facing work and rarely appear in the higher courts. Solicitors do not wear wigs. The costume follows the courtroom role.
Among barristers, the everyday item is the short “bar wig,” a compact piece of white horsehair that sits on top of the head. Judges in the Crown Court wear a similar style for routine proceedings. The larger full-bottomed wig that cascades past the shoulders is reserved for ceremonial occasions, such as the opening of the legal year or a judge’s swearing-in. King’s Counsel, the most senior barristers, may wear a slightly different style reflecting their rank.
Which Courts Still Require Them
The rules apply to courts in England and Wales. The short version is that criminal courts have kept the wig and most other courts have not.
- Crown Court (criminal cases): Wigs remain standard dress for barristers and judges. A common exception is bail applications heard in chambers, where wigs are typically not worn.
- Magistrates’ Court: No wigs. These courts handle lower-level criminal matters with less formal procedure.
- Civil and family courts: Wigs and other formal court dress have not been required since January 2008, following a 2007 announcement by Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips.
- UK Supreme Court: No wigs. The court adopted a deliberately modern approach when it was established in 2009.
Even in the Crown Court, the requirement bends. The Criminal Practice Directions state that when a vulnerable defendant or witness is involved, the judge should consider whether robes and wigs should be worn, taking into account the wishes of those individuals.1Judiciary of England and Wales. Criminal Practice Directions 2023 – As Amended Nov 2025 Judges overseeing cases involving children or distressed witnesses sometimes dispense with wigs to reduce the intimidation factor.
Why Wigs Have Lasted This Long
Wigs entered English courts because they were fashionable everywhere else during the reign of Charles II, and judges were actually among the last groups to adopt them, around 1685.2Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. History of Court Dress Fashion moved on by the early 1800s. The courts did not. Once the rest of society stopped wearing wigs, the legal wig stopped being about fashion and became a professional uniform.
The reason most often given for keeping it is anonymity. A barrister in a wig and gown looks like every other barrister in a wig and gown. The visual uniformity is deliberate: the court is meant to focus on the argument, not the person making it. Barristers who regularly handle contentious criminal cases also point to a practical benefit, which is that looking different in court than on the street provides a layer of personal separation from the people they prosecute or defend.
Formality is the other common justification. Criminal proceedings involve the state’s power to imprison people, and the wig and gown signal that what happens in the courtroom is categorically different from ordinary conversation. Supporters argue the visual gravity serves everyone in the room, including defendants, by reinforcing that the case is being taken seriously.
There is also institutional inertia, which deserves naming. The English legal system is deeply traditional, and many within it treat continuity as a value in itself. Barristers buy their wigs early in their careers, keep them for decades, and come to regard them as part of their professional identity. That attachment is a real force in the debate even when it is not the argument people lead with.
The 2025 Exemptions
The most significant recent change came from pressure by barristers whose hair does not fit comfortably under a standard wig. Several Black barristers raised formal concerns that the wig is designed for straight hair and does not accommodate natural Afro-textured hairstyles, effectively forcing a choice between professional compliance and cultural identity. Religious exemptions already existed for Sikh barristers wearing turbans and Muslim barristers wearing headscarves, which sharpened the question of why similar accommodations were not available on cultural or racial grounds.
The Bar Council established a working group to review court dress in the context of all protected characteristics under equality law. That review produced updated guidance in July 2025, which for the first time extended dispensations to race, sex, and disability on a three-year trial basis.3Bar Council. Update on Court Dress and Wigs Guidance Barristers whose ethnic hairstyle traditions make wearing a wig uncomfortable or impractical may simply not wear one. No application is required.4Bar Council. Court Dress Guidance – July 2025
Dispensations on grounds of disability, pregnancy, or menopause run through a slightly different route. A barrister completes a short Bar Council application form, without having to disclose personal medical details, and receives a dispensation certificate valid for 12 months. No notice to the judge or opposing counsel is required, and the guidance is explicit that all professional court users are expected to accept another barrister’s adjusted dress without comment.4Bar Council. Court Dress Guidance – July 2025
Whether the three-year trial leads to broader abolition or to a permanent patchwork of exceptions is unresolved. The Bar Council guidance notes that managing courtroom proceedings, including questions of dignity and dress, remains a matter for each individual judge.4Bar Council. Court Dress Guidance – July 2025
Scotland and the Wider Picture
Scotland runs its own legal system. Scottish advocates, the equivalent of barristers, still wear wigs for criminal business before the High Court of Justiciary, but the Lord President issued a directive dropping wigs for civil business in the Court of Session. The pattern mirrors England and Wales: criminal in, civil out.
Outside the UK, former British colonies have gone different ways. Australia and Canada have largely moved away from courtroom wigs. Several African countries, including Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, have kept them to varying degrees, though the practice draws growing criticism as a holdover of colonial rule. The global trend is away from the wig. England’s attachment to it looks less like a universal legal convention and more like a specifically English choice.
What to Expect Going Forward
No one in authority has proposed abolishing wigs in English criminal courts outright. The direction of travel is continued narrowing: more categories of exemption, more proceedings where wigs are optional, and a growing share of barristers for whom wearing one is a choice rather than an expectation. For now, if you walk into a Crown Court in England, the horsehair is still very much on display.