Dressing down While it is always nice to have the benefit of the judiciary's thinking, I cannot help but think that District Judge Lancaster is missing the mark somewhat (see [2000] Gazette, 14 April, 15).His objections to any change in court dress seem to be that [a] the public expect us to dress that way, and [b] some people might be badly dressed.

Yet there is ample evidence to show that not giving the public what they want does not mean that they are not going to like it - for years people thought that cricket had to be played by men dressed in white, yet now the one-day matches in coloured clothes are the most popular of all.

And what does he think that people must think of him, sitting as an unrobed District Judge for 90% of his time in court? My experience of ten years in practice is that people tend to be relieved that there are no robes, wigs, etcetera, not disappointed.As for the second point, what a feeble reason to resist much needed change.

If someone is inappropriately dressed, then surely it is for him as a judge to say so, rather than suffer in silence and then try to condemn the whole profession for it.Surely the more we can do to create a level playing field, where barristers and solicitors look alike in court and are distinguished only by their ability as advocates, the better.Richard O'Hagan, Rowberry Morris, Reading