Tailor-made solution

Court dress is one of those emotive issues that triggers a debate hugely disproportionate to the issue's overall relevance.

The group most interested in the government's consultation paper on the reform of court dress is the small band of tailors in and around Chancery Lane who specialise in the twirling of horsehair and the stitching of gowns.

But even they have sufficiently diversified into ladies' and gentlemen's suits to the point where the consigning of traditional court dress to the history books will not mean financial ruin.

Of course, there are serious issues in the dress debate, such as safeguarding the solemnity of trials.

But most important is the question of parity between advocates.

Solicitor-advocates have reached the higher courts, but they are at a disadvantage because they cannot wear wigs.

Clients, juries and - dare we suggest it - even judges could subliminally, if not consciously, assume that the un-wigged lawyer is an inferior advocate.

That would be insulting to the solicitor-advocate, but more importantly, it could be damaging to the client.

If the government's consultation leads to the hanging up permanently of wigs and robes, there will undoubtedly be the sound of gnashing teeth and yelping indignation from the traditionalists.

But if it irons out the inequality of arms that exists between advocates, it is to be welcomed.