When Judith Naylor proudly stepped into a Crown Court as a solicitor advocate for the first time in 1994, she was mistaken for the court usher because she was not wearing a wig.

Last year, a judge apologised in open court to Ms Naylor, a criminal practitioner with Yorkshire firm Orsborn Naylor and one of the first three women to be granted rights of audience in the higher courts, because he had told a defendant that he need not 'stoop so low' as to be represented by a solicitor advocate.Incidents like these might explain the still depressingly low numbers of solicitors attaining their higher court rights of audience.

After an initial rush of solicitors taking advantage of the new rules, which came into force in December 1993, interest has dwindled.

The last meeting of the Law Society's higher courts qualification casework committee on 7 May put the total number of solicitor advocates at just 409.

The Bar's original fear of ov erwhelming competition has simply not materialised.But Ms Naylor, who has gone on to appear as junior counsel in two murder cases, says the occasional prejudice she has encountered in court is not the reason why so few solicitors are gaining higher rights of audience.

While the case for and against the wig has become a symbol of the problems facing solicitor advocates, these solicitors generally feel court dress is a distraction and not the major issue.This month a Law Society survey of the effect of court dress on solicitor advocates will be published.The Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) says that either both branches of the profession should wear wigs or they should be dispensed with altogether.

The secretary to the SAHCA, Michael Caplan, says the public is now more aware that solicitors come to court without wigs and that he has not encountered any obstacles due to prejudice as an advocate in the Crown Court.Mr Caplan suggests that it is the overall cost in time and money of being away from the office which acts as a disincentive to many solicitors doing advocacy.Mr Caplan, a crime specialist at Kingsley Napley who is also an assistant recorder at Harrow Crown Court, predicts: 'The organisation of the solicitor's practice has to change if the solicitor is going to be out at court for vast amounts of time.'Ms Naylor blames the expense and rigour of the advocacy course and examinations.A survey soon to be published by the City of London Law Society will show City lawyers are split on the subject of whether the criteria necessary to gain higher rights of audience are correct.

The convener of the working party undertaking the survey, John Abramson, says that those who have been granted advocate status are more positive about the criteria.

The negative responses tended to come from those solicitors still waiting to qualify.

Those critical of the current criteria believe something should be done to help City solicitors obtain their required hours of court experience.

Non-City solicitors tend to have more opportunity to appear in contested county court and magistrate's court hearings.Mr Abramson, a senior associate solicitor with Warner Cranston, is still trying to clock up his requisite flying hours.

He is a commercial lawyer whose work involves almost exclusively High Court and Commercial Court hearings.

Mr Abramson is the victim of a catch-22.

'I simply can't get the required experience because of the sort of work I do,' he says.

'In order to achieve it quickly you would have to do unprofitable or pro bono work.' Mr Abramson would like to see more attention paid to non-contested interlocutory hearings.

The advocacy rules currently make a distinction between contested and non-contested hearings.

'I have appeared many times in front of masters and judges in interlocutory hearings,' he says.

'A junior barrister doesn't even have to worry about this distinction.

He's a qualified advocate as soon as he's finished his pupillage.

'Mr Abramson says solicitors can find the stiff criteria off-putting, causing some to lose impetus in their efforts to qualify.Many City firms now offer in-house advocacy training programmes.

Warner Cranston's programme recently won an award.A one-stop service is certainly something which more and more large firms believe their clients are finding very attractive.

Even the smaller criminal practices are benefiting.

Ms Naylor says one of her first cases after qualifying as a solicitor advocate involved attending at the police station, making the appearance in court the next day and following the case through to its final disposal in the Crown Court.

'Clients are reassured if, when they arrive at court feeling anxious and nervous, they know they will be represented by someone with a familiar face, who has been running the case from the outset,' she says.

Other firms have styled themselves as solicitors' chambers or have independent advocates associated with them.Meanwhile, the Law Society has been monitoring the situation closely and will soon be making formal approaches to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct with the aim of having the qualification criteria relaxed.

Although the Law Society sets the criteria it is the Lord Chancellor, on the advice of the committee, who finally approves them.

Russell Wallman, head of professional policy at the Law Society, suggests that one way to encourage more solicitors to take up their higher rights is by replacing the number of 'flying hours' with more general experience in advocacy and training.