Bar NecessitiesBrian Kennedy's campaign for solicitor-advocates to be allowed to wear wigs misses the point.

So does the response from Roy Amlot QC, Chairman of the Bar Council (see [2001] Gazette, 15 February, 3).Wigs are part of the uniform of the Bar.

Solicitor-advocates have their own separate uniform.

Wigs command such respect as is due to the Bar.

Solicitors' robes command the respect due to the solicitors.

Increasingly, there is a high degree of mutual respect between barristers and solicitor-advocates.Mr Amlot is right to argue that wigs should continue to identify members of the Bar, but not because 'solicitors don't have the same level of training or constant experience in advocacy', as he suggests.In truth, some barristers venture into court very rarely - and, as with solicitors, levels of training vary considerably.

Indeed, the training offered by leading law firms compares well with that provided by the Bar.Separate uniforms recognise the distinct qualities and traditions of the two professions.

They also alert the judge to the advocate's strengths and weaknesses.

In some cases, an in-depth knowledge of the lay-client's business may be a strength; in others the judge may be looking for a fresh look from self-employed counsel.It is true that the Bar's uniform does not distinguish between employed and self-employed barristers, but in practice the position is made clear to the judge.

Even if there were confusion between types of barrister, that would not support a case for confusing barristers with solicitors.If there is unhelpful discrimination, it is in the tradition maintained in some courts, of requiring solicitors to advocate from a position behind that occupied by barristers.

This may leave the client with a perception of prejudice, and a clear court direction is overdue.Patrick Walker, barrister and director for advocacy, Hammond Suddards Edge solicitors