Barristers wear wigs because a 17th-century fashion hardened into a professional uniform, and that uniform now carries a specific meaning: the person underneath is acting as an officer of the court rather than as a private individual. The wig depersonalises the barrister, signals the formality of the proceedings, and ties the modern courtroom to centuries of common law practice. That is the short answer to why do barristers wear wigs, and the longer answer is mostly a story about how a style outlived its moment and acquired a job.
A Fashion That Stayed After Fashion Moved On
Wigs entered English courtrooms the same way they entered every other polite setting in the 1660s: they were in style. During the reign of Charles II, elaborate wigs became standard dress for anyone with social standing, following a trend already established in continental European courts.
Judges held out longer than most. Portraits from the early 1680s still show them in their natural hair, and the wig does not appear to have been adopted across the judiciary until around 1685.1Judiciary of England and Wales. History of the Judiciary in England and Wales Once the judges wore them, the barristers followed.
Then fashion moved on. By the late 18th century, powdered wigs had disappeared from everyday dress for everyone else in society. Lawyers kept wearing them. Partly that was inertia, and partly it was that the wig had quietly changed meaning. It no longer announced that the wearer was fashionable. It announced that the wearer was in a legal role.
What the Wig Is Meant to Do
The modern justification has nothing to do with style. The main argument is anonymity and depersonalisation. A barrister in a wig looks much like every other barrister in a wig, and the attention stays on the legal argument rather than the individual making it.
That matters most in criminal work. A defence barrister may represent someone accused of a crime the public finds repellent, and the wig creates distance between the person and the role. The barrister is appearing as an advocate, not as themselves. For some, putting the wig on is a deliberate psychological switch into professional mode.
There is a second argument that is simpler. Uniform dress lends weight to proceedings that carry serious consequences, and the wig connects a Crown Court sitting today to the long tradition of common law practice behind it. Supporters also point to surveys suggesting that clients in the Crown Court actually prefer their barristers to appear in wigs.
Where Barristers Still Wear Them
The practice is narrower than it used to be, even in England and Wales. In July 2007 the Lord Chief Justice announced reforms to simplify court dress, and from October 2008 judges and barristers in civil and family proceedings stopped wearing wigs.2Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Modern Court Dress Magistrates’ courts and youth courts also sit without wigs. In practice, the wig is now mostly a Crown Court feature, worn for criminal work.
Two styles survive. The short bar wig, with tight curls at the crown and a small tail at the back, is the one worn for ordinary court days. The full-bottomed wig, with long curls past the shoulders, is reserved for ceremonial occasions such as the opening of the legal year, and is worn by judges and King’s Counsel.
Elsewhere in the Commonwealth the picture is mixed. In Australia some Supreme Courts still expect wigs for criminal trials and appeals, while the Family Court, the Fair Work Commission, and various tribunals have abandoned them; the New South Wales District Court dropped wigs for civil matters, though individual judges occasionally still wear them.3NSW Barristers Clerks Association. Robing and Court Attire New Zealand retired wigs entirely: Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum decided in the mid-1990s that they would no longer be worn, and by early 2018 all senior court judges had transitioned to new robes without them.4Courts of New Zealand. Judicial Ceremonial Robes Canadian provinces largely abandoned wigs during the 19th and 20th centuries. In the Caribbean practice varies by country, with the Bahamas Court of Appeals dropping the wig for regular appearances in 2018 while keeping it for special sittings.
One boundary worth noting: American lawyers do not wear wigs and never adopted the practice. US courts settled on the plain black robe instead.
The Reform Debate
Even where wigs survive, they are regularly contested, and the arguments on each side have barely shifted in decades.
Critics call the wig anachronistic, physically uncomfortable in warm weather, and expensive for junior barristers at the start of their careers. They also point out that magistrates handle the bulk of criminal work without wigs and without any security consequences, which weakens the argument that wigs are necessary for anonymity. Supporters reply that clients prefer the formality, that the wig serves a real psychological function in separating the professional from the personal, and that discarding a tradition purely because it is old is not in itself a reason to discard it.
Inclusivity and the 2025 Guidance
A sharper line of criticism has focused on fit. Traditional bar wigs were designed around European hair types, and barristers with Afro-textured hair have long reported that the wigs are uncomfortable, impractical, or impossible to wear properly. Exemptions for religious head coverings such as turbans and headscarves already existed, but there was no equivalent accommodation on grounds of race or hair texture.
In July 2025 the Bar Council published revised court dress guidance extending dispensations to race, sex, and disability for a three-year trial period, with the updated guidance also covering pregnancy and menopause.5Bar Council. Update on Court Dress and Wigs Guidance Barristers who find a wig uncomfortable or impractical on any of those grounds can request a dispensation without having to justify it case by case. Whether that resolves the tension or simply draws attention to it is the open question the tradition now faces.