Lawyers wear wigs in court because a 17th-century fashion caught on in the legal profession and never left. When Charles II took the English throne in 1660, elaborate wigs became essential wear for anyone with social standing, and lawyers adopted them to signal their status. The rest of society eventually moved on; the courts did not. Today the horsehair wig survives as professional dress mainly in criminal proceedings in England and Wales and in a handful of other common law countries, kept alive by arguments about anonymity, formality, and the authority of the court.
A Fashion That Outlived Its Era
Before the 1660s, English lawyers were expected to appear in court with clean, short hair and beards. Wigs had nothing to do with the law. That changed with Charles II, who imported the fashion from the French court of Louis XIV. Barristers adopted wigs quickly to mark their standing both inside and outside the courtroom. Judges held out longer. Portraits from the early 1680s still show them in their natural hair, but by 1685 the bench had fallen into line.1Judiciary of England and Wales. History of the Judiciary in England and Wales
Then everyone else stopped. During the reign of George III, between 1760 and 1820, wigs gradually fell out of everyday fashion. By the early 1800s only bishops, coachmen, and lawyers still wore them, and bishops were given permission to abandon theirs by the 1830s. The legal profession made no formal decision to keep going. The wig simply calcified into the uniform of the courts, outlasting the social world that produced it.
The Modern Arguments for Keeping Them
The reasons lawyers give today have little to do with Restoration fashion. Three justifications tend to come up.
The first is anonymity. Criminal barristers argue that identical headgear makes them harder to recognize outside the courtroom. A prosecutor who has just helped convict someone for a serious offense has a practical interest in not being spotted on the street afterward. This is one of the main reasons criminal practitioners pushed back when abolition was proposed.
The second is a leveling effect. A 25-year-old advocate fresh out of pupillage looks more credible standing next to a 60-year-old silk when both are wearing the same wig and gown. The uniform flattens visible differences in age, experience, and personal style, which can matter when a jury is deciding whom to trust.
The third is the authority of the court itself. Wigs visually separate a courtroom from any other room, signaling that ordinary social dynamics are suspended and a different set of rules applies. Whether that effect is genuine or merely theatrical is the heart of the ongoing debate, but it is the reason most often offered by traditionalists.
What the Wig Actually Is
Two styles do most of the work. The full-bottomed wig, with long curls past the shoulders, is the dramatic original from the late 1600s and now appears only at ceremonial events such as the formal opening of the legal year or a judge’s swearing-in.1Judiciary of England and Wales. History of the Judiciary in England and Wales The smaller bench wig, sometimes called a tie wig, is the one worn in everyday court work. It sits close to the scalp with two or three rows of tightly buckled horizontal curls, a shape that has barely changed since the 1700s.
Traditional wigs are made from horsehair taken from the mane, which produces finer strands than tail hair. The 17th-century versions were black. A wig maker named Humphrey Ravenscroft later developed a white horsehair version that needed less upkeep, and the firm he helped found, Ede & Ravenscroft, has been making legal wigs since 1689. A standard horsehair bar wig runs around £580. Hemp-fiber, agave, and synthetic alternatives now exist for barristers who object to animal products, though traditionalists view them skeptically.
Who Still Has to Wear One
The rules in England and Wales are more specific than most people assume. The general principle, settled by reforms that took effect on 1 October 2008, is that wigs stayed in criminal proceedings and left civil and family work. Court of Appeal and High Court judges stopped wearing wigs, wing collars, and bands in civil and family sittings, replaced by a simpler civil robe. Circuit judges kept their gown and tippet but dropped the wig and bands for the same work.2Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Modern Court Dress Barristers followed: wigs became optional in all proceedings except criminal trials.3Judiciaries Worldwide. Judicial Attire
Court by court, the picture looks like this:
- Crown Court: barristers and judges wear wigs during criminal trials and hearings, though not during bail applications heard in chambers.
- Court of Appeal: wigs are worn in criminal appeals but not in civil or family appeals.
- High Court: it depends on the division. The Administrative Court wears wigs; the Chancery Division wears them only for trials and appeals, not routine hearings.
- Magistrates’ Court: no wigs.
- Supreme Court: no wigs or gowns are required. Since 2011, advocates appearing there may dispense with traditional attire if all parties agree.
Solicitor-advocates, who gained the right to appear in higher courts in the 1990s, have historically not worn wigs, which produced the odd sight of two lawyers doing the same job in the same courtroom with one wigged and one not.3Judiciaries Worldwide. Judicial Attire There is also an unwritten rule against wearing a wig outside court when not on the way to or from a hearing. You will not see barristers eating lunch in theirs.
The United States Never Adopted the Practice
American judges and lawyers do not wear wigs, and never really have. The decision traces to the founding era, when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reportedly argued over judicial attire. Adams wanted American judges to dress exactly like their English counterparts. Jefferson objected to what he called “the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum.” They compromised on robes without wigs.4Harvard Law Record. Of Powdered Wigs and Black Coats That compromise has held for more than two centuries, and the plain black robe became the symbol of American judicial authority on its own.
Elsewhere
Wigs are found almost exclusively in countries whose legal systems descend from English common law, and the trend abroad is one of gradual retreat. Hong Kong kept the tradition after its 1997 handover as a deliberate signal of legal continuity. Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya still require wigs in their higher courts. New Zealand abolished them in 1996, Victoria banned them across all courtrooms in 2020, and South Africa dropped judicial wigs as part of post-apartheid reforms to decolonize its justice system.5The Africa Report. Africa’s Last Wigs: Colonial Fashion in Modern Courts
Exemptions and the Ongoing Debate
The rules have had to make room for people who cannot or should not wear a wig. In 2003, the first Sikh judge sat in the High Court wearing a turban instead, without controversy. In July 2025, the Bar Council updated its court dress guidance to formally extend dispensations for a three-year trial period, allowing barristers to request exemptions on grounds of disability, pregnancy, menopause, race, and sex.6Bar Council. Update on Court Dress and Wigs Guidance A barrister undergoing chemotherapy, experiencing menopausal hot flashes, or wearing a hijab or turban can now seek a formal dispensation rather than making an ad hoc request to the judge.
The broader question of whether wigs should go entirely has not been resolved. Critics point to cost, discomfort, the yellowing horsehair, and the way the uniform can make courtrooms feel like historical reenactments to ordinary people already intimidated by the system. Defenders fall back on anonymity, the leveling effect for junior advocates, and the view that formality itself has value in a courtroom. Where a lawyer lands tends to track with what kind of law they practice. Criminal barristers, who face defendants and the public daily, mostly want to keep wigs. Commercial and civil practitioners are readier to see them as pointless theater. The 2008 reforms split the difference, and that compromise has held so far.