Wigs have caused a spat the likes of which has not been seen since the wrestling over higher court audience rights following the Courts and Legal Services Green Paper, White Paper and Bill.Last week, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, finally acted to quash what they viewed as increasing confusion regarding the horsehair bonnets.

A practice directive was issued by the Lord Chancellor's Depart-ment, confirming what it described as the status quo for court dress.'Notwithstanding extensions to rights of audience under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,' it began, 'there having been no change to the rule concerning court dress, the current practice governing the dress requirements for advocates appearing in the Supreme Court, and in the county courts continues to apply'.What that means in practice, is that solicitors who are approved to appear in the High Court are banned from wearing wigs.

'Queens Counsel wear a short wig and silk (or stuff) gown over a court coat,' confirmed the LCD.

'Junior counsel wear a short wig and stuff gown with bands.' Solicitors, those newcomer upstarts, 'wear a black stuff gown with bands but no wig'.Some would maintain, however, that there had not been much confusion to begin with.

Since solicitors started appearing in the higher courts, they have been applying to judges to wear wigs in court on a case-by-case basis.

In the vast majority of cases those requests have been granted.

Indeed, there have been many reports of judges actually requesting that solicitor advocates wear wigs in order to reduce confusion.In issuing the practice directive, Lord Mackay indicated that the wig question was still open for further debate.

He would 'consult further with a view to reaching a long-term decision'.Ultimately, that may spell the end for wigs, as Lord Taylor is already on record as opposing their continued use.

At a press briefing last week, the LCJ referred to wigs as 'outdated', giving the courts 'an 18th-century look'.But although wigs might be deeply uncomfortable Georgian fashion accessories, most advocates do not currently want to be without them.

At the core is an argument over courtroom status.

Members of the Bar view wigs as their trademark - a last strand of individuality to cling to in an increasingly fused legal world.Solicitor advocates, on the other hand, see wigs as another example of barrister snobbery.

Those solicitors appearing in the High Court since this spring might not be keen on the item itself, but they are reluctant to give up wigs on a point of principle.'We might be lukewarm on wigs but we're burning hot on the issue of parity,' said London-based Jo Cooper, one of a new breed of freelance solicitor advocates (see interview page 10).'This is a kick in the teeth for those of us who thought the higher courts qualification would let us practise on equal terms with counsel.

Like it or not, the wig is a feature of the higher courts.

If the Bar loses its monopoly of higher court advocacy it should not retain its monopoly over wearing wigs.'And there is more than principle at stake.

Solicitor advocates maintain that significant practical problems will ensue if advocates can be distinguished physically, especially in Crown Court trials.'There are very sound reasons why a solicitor advocate would feel that it is in the client's interest to wear a wig in front of a jury,' said Paul Hampton, chairman of the recently formed Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates.

'The lawyer would want to avoid the client having the feeling that he was in some way an inferior advocate.'Mr Hampton also maintained that differently coutured advocates might create confusion in the minds of the jury, which would have to be dispelled by some sort of judicial direction.

The LCD practice direction, therefore, was entirely 'unwelcome', according to Mr Hampton.The Bar, not surprisingly, takes a different view.

In an opinion commissioned by the Bar Council, Robert Owen QC attempted to debunk the suggestion that unwigged advocates would be seen as inferior.'A judge will decide a case on the evidence and argument, not the dress or appearance of the advocates,' he suggested.

'As for the client, he has chosen to be represented by solicitor rather than counsel.

Having made that choice it is difficult to see why he should perceive his advocate as inferior simply because he is not wearing a wig, although there may be other valid reasons for such a view.'In the Crown Court, wrote Mr Owen, it is again up to the client to choose whether or not to be represented by a solicitor advocate.

As for juries, 'it cannot be seriously suggested that a defendant is more likely to be acquitted if represented by a man wearing a wig'.In his opinion, Mr Owen relies heavily on the experience of lawyers in the south west, where solicitors have had higher court audience rights for many years.

And solicitors in that part of the country tend to support his view.John Boyle - a solicitor advocate in Cornwall who appears in the Crown Court - said he never wears a wig and neither do his colleagues.

Although he mostly finds himself appearing against counsel, Mr Boyle said: 'I never feel disadvantaged and my clients have never indicated that I was an inferior advocate because I didn't have a wig.