Although solicitors have achieved parity with the Bar in the courts, anomalies arising from the divided profession are still with us.

With goodwill and co-operation they should be capable of resolution quickly and without fuss.

Unfortunately, there are signs that this optimistic hope may not be fulfilled.Take the relatively trivial issue of court dress.

In the Crown Court and above, barristers have traditionally worn a wig.

It did not need a great deal of foresight to anticipate possible ill will if advocates performing the same task dressed differently.

Yet this simple question was not considered beforehand and has not been settled.The question of court dress generally has already been reviewed.

In 1993, responses to a consultation paper revealed what was described as 'strong support for the status quo'.

At that time the need for minor alterations to suit changed conditions was not contemplated or discussed.As solicitors began to appear in the higher courts a farcical situation arose.

Some sought and received permission from the presiding judge to wear a wig, others were content to remain wigless.

If continued, this absurd ritual would have exposed the whole profession to ridicule.

As a temporary measure it was stopped by a practice direction in July of this year ordering solicitors to remain wigless.The Lord Chancellor is now reviewing the position.

Unfortunately, the question posed is restricted to 'whether solicitors should be allowed to wear a wig in court'.

Presumably it has already been decided that this archaic form of head-dress is to be retained for barristers.Arguments in favour of keeping the wig, whoever the wearer may be, are sparse and unsubstantial.

One suspects that this particular item of dress is worn to retain the identity of the Bar and encourage the erroneous belief that its members are senior advocates.

As Blaise Pascal observed in the 17th century: 'We have only to see a lawyer in cap and gown to form a favourable opinion of his competence.'A key factor is whether wearing a wig enhances the quality of justice dispensed by the court.

Is a witness more likely to tell the truth, or a jury assisted in understanding a case, because an advocate wears a wig? Impartial views upon questions of this nature are needed.

Vague references to the 'value of tradition' and 'encouragement of respect for the court' are valueless when considering the effect of this particular item of dress.Some believe that a wig masks the identity of the trial judge and advocate.

In this way it is suggested that the personality of these individuals does not intrude upon the conduct of the trial.

Again, this is an assertion almost impossible to verify.

Then there is the argument based upon security, individuals being less recognisable without a wig and so less likely to be approached or attacked in the street.

As wigless judges and barrist ers are often named in press photographs this argument cannot be taken seriously.Although the Bar has said little in public, there is not much doubt that most barristers wish to keep the wig as what a member of the Bar Council has called 'a trade mark'.

The majority view of the Bar is probably summed up in the words of Robert Seabrook QC who said: 'I do think it quite reasonable that we should retain our distinct uniform of the wig and gown that we are known for and I do not see why solicitors should pass themselves off as what we are,' The Times, 20 July 1994.Whether intentional or otherwise, any obvious difference in advocates' court dress may be seen to be an infringement of the principle of equality of representation.

There is a close social and professional relationship between judges and barristers through chambers and the inns of court.

The public could be forgiven for thinking that it was an advantage to employ a barrister as someone belonging to a select group of lawyers.This misunderstanding can at least be minimised by ensuring that advocates, regardless of the part of the profession to which they belong, are indistinguishable by dress.For solicitors, the way out of this difficulty has been expressed clearly by Charles Elly, President of the Law Society: 'A sensible solution introducing modern dress for all advocates should be found as quickly as possible.'It would indeed be folly to perpetuate a distinction between solicitor and barrister advocates where none exists.

This would merely prolong a controversy to the detriment of the whole profession.