From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2011)|
Court dress is worn at hearings in open court in all Senior Courts of England and Wales and in county courts. However, court dress may be dispensed with at the option of the judge, e.g. in very hot weather, and invariably where it may intimidate children, e.g. in the Family Division and at the trials of minors. In the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council counsel need not wear court dress if all advocates in a case agree on this. The judges dress in conventional business attire.
Court dress is not worn at hearings in chambers and in the magistrates' courts.
English advocates (whether barristers or solicitors) who appear before a judge who is robed, or before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom or Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, must themselves be robed.
All male advocates wear a white stiff wing collar with bands (two strips of linen about 5"/13 cm by 1"/25 mm hanging down the front of the neck). They also wear either a dark double-breasted suit (or with waistcoat if single-breasted) or a black coat and waistcoat and black or grey morning dress striped trousers. The black coat and waistcoat can be combined into a single garment, which is simply a waistcoat with sleeves, known as a bar jacket or court waistcoat. Female advocates also wear a dark suit, but often wear bands attached to a collarette rather than a wing collar.
Junior barristers wear an open-fronted black gown with open sleeves, gathered and decorated with buttons and ribbons, and a gathered yoke, over a black or dark suit, hence the term stuffgownsman for juniors. In addition barristers wear a short horsehair wig with curls at the side and ties down the back.
Solicitors wear the same wing collar with bands, or collarette, as barristers. Their gowns are of a slightly different style, with a square collar and without gathered sleeves. By virtue of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction at I.1.1 (as amended by Practice Direction (Court Dress) (No4)  1 WLR 257), "Solicitors and other advocates authorised under the Courts and Legal Servcies Act 1990...may wear short wigs in circumstances where they would be worn by Queen's Counsel or junior counsel."
Barristers or solicitors who have been appointed Queen's Counsel, or QCs, wear a silk gown with a flap collar and long closed sleeves (the arm opening is half-way up the sleeve). The QC's black coat, known as a court coat, is cut like 18th-century court dress and the sleeve of the QC's court coat or bar jacket has a turned back cuff with three buttons across.
On ceremonial occasions QCs wear ceremonial dress (see below).
Until 2008, judges in the Family and Chancery divisions of the courts wore the same black silk gown and court coat or bar jacket as QCs, as did judges in the Court of Appeal. All judges wore a short bench wig when working in criminal court, reserving the long wig for ceremonial occasions, and a wing collar and bands.
From autumn 2008, judges in all civil and family cases began to wear a newly designed robe with no wig, collar or bands, over an ordinary business suit and tie, with the exception of circuit judges in the county court, who opted to retain their former style or robe, but without wig, wing collar and bands.
Members of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (or "Law Lords") and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have never worn court dress at all (although advocates appearing before them do). Instead they were dressed in ordinary business clothing. Since the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Justices of that Court, being former Law Lords, have retained the Law Lords' tradition of sitting unrobed.
Before autumn 2008, when dealing with first-instance criminal business in the winter, a High Court judge of the Queen's Bench Division wore a scarlet robe with fur facings, a black scarf and girdle (waistband) and a scarlet casting-hood or tippet. When dealing with criminal business in the summer, the judge wore a similar scarlet robe, but with silk rather than fur facings. In both cases, the judge wore a wing collar, bands, and a short wig. Since autumn 2008, only the winter style remains.
In civil cases before 2008, the judge wore in winter a black robe faced with fur, a black scarf and girdle and a scarlet tippet; in summer, a violet robe faced with silk, with the black scarf and girdle and scarlet tippet. However, from autumn 2008, in civil and family cases, the prescribed dress consists only of a robe of modern design over ordinary business clothing, with no wig, collar or bands.
Circuit judges (in the County Courts or the Crown Court) wear a violet robe with lilac facings. As well as a girdle, the judges wear a tippet (sash) over the left shoulder - lilac when dealing with civil business and red when dealing with crime. Since autumn 2008, circuit judges in the County Court have not worn wigs, wing collars or bands; however, circuit judges in the Crown Court retain the wig, wing collars and bands.
Since autumn 2008, district judges in the county courts have worn a robe of modern design of a similar style to those worn by High Court judges sitting in civil proceedings. The rank of district judge is indicated by blue tabs on the facings of the robe by the collar; High Court judges have red tabs. On ceremonial occasions, district judges wear their ordinary robe, together with a short, bar wig.
District judges (magistrates' courts) continue to sit without robes.
On special ceremonial occasions (such as the opening of the legal year), circuit judges and QCs wear long wigs, black breeches and silk stockings, and wear lace jabots instead of bands. High court judges in addition have a scarlet and fur mantle. The Lord Chief Justice also wears the scarlet and fur mantle with a gold chain of office. The Lord Chancellor and judges of the Court of Appeal have black silk damask gowns heavily embellished with gold embroidery.
In July 2007, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales announced the changes that would be made to court working dress in the English and Welsh courts. The reforms were due to take effect on 1 January 2008. However, following reports of strong opposition to the proposed changes, they were put on hold. They took effect as of autumn 2008.
Judges in the civil and family courts no longer wear traditional dress; however, Circuit Judges continue to wear their current gown in the county court. The array of robes worn by High Court Judges has been abolished and replaced by a modernised and significantly simplified robe. The wearing of wigs in the civil and family courts has been completely abolished. High Court judges presiding over criminal trials in the Crown Court now appear in the robes they currently wear in the winter. No further changes are planned for the working dress of judges in the criminal courts, save possibly for the Divisional Court.
These changes will be reflected in the dress allowances made to judges. Furthermore, newly appointed Circuit Judges will no longer receive an allowance to buy full-bottomed wigs. While the one-off cost of supplying the new civil gown is estimated at about £200,000, annual savings in the region of £300,000 are expected.
The Chairman of the Bar announced in April 2008 that, as a result of a survey of the profession, the Bar would recommend that advocates should retain their existing formal robes (including wigs) in all cases, civil and criminal, with possible exceptions in the County Court. In a letter to the profession, he said (in part):
Criminal barristers will keep wigs and gowns, as the Lord Chief Justice intends to keep the current court dress in criminal proceedings. The Bar is a single advocacy profession with specialisation in particular practice areas. There is logic in having the same formal court dress, where formality and robes are required, for criminal and civil barristers... There is strong identification of the Bar of England and Wales in the public's mind and its formal dress nationally and internationally.
New robes for judges were designed by Betty Jackson and unveiled in May 2008, although a survey of judges published in March 2009 revealed substantial opposition to the new designs, as well as widespread annoyance at the lack of consultation prior to the change.
Scottish court dress is very similar to English court dress, but there are notable differences. For example, Scottish advocates wear tail coats under their gowns, and wear white bow ties instead of bands. QCs and judges wear long scarf-like ties (known as falls) instead of bands.
Scottish judicial robes are very different from English ones. Senators of the College of Justice are Scotland's senior judges; they sit in both the Court of Session (Scotland's top civil court) and the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland's top criminal court). Judicial robes in the Court of Session are dark red, faced with red crosses. Judicial robes in the High Court of Justiciary are predominantly white and red, faced with red crosses over the white. Sheriffs (who preside over Sheriff Courts) wear the black gowns which they formerly used in practice (silk gowns for QCs; stuff gowns for advocates and solicitor-advocates), with falls in place of the bow-tie.
In Australia, court dress varies according to the jurisdiction.
In the High Court of Australia, justices wear plain black robes with zippered fronts over normal attire. They do not wear wigs, collars, bands or jabots. The robes are similar in appearance to those worn by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, although they are more elaborately tailored. These robes have been worn since 1988, when the High Court abandoned the previous court dress of black silk robes, bar jackets, jabots or bands and full-bottomed wigs and lace cuffs on formal occasions and bench wigs for ordinary business
In the Federal Court of Australia, judges no longer wear traditional court dress, but wear black wool robes with a black trim for ‘first instance’ work, and black wool robes with a red trim for appeal cases. These robes were adopted in 1997 and were designed by Bill Haycock. The robes have seven horizontal tucks or "ombres" on one side, representing the six Australian States and the territories. They also serve to symbolise Australia’s federal constitution and the federal jurisdiction of the Court. The robes also include a vertical band of black silk made up or of seven equal parts, also symbolizing Australia’s federal system and equality before the law.
Judges and judicial registrars of the Family Court of Australia wear a black silk gown, a bar jacket with either bands or a jabot and a bench wig. On formal occasions, judges wear full-bottomed wigs.
Judges of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia wear a plain black gown in court without a wig.
Judges of the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories of Australia wear court dress similar to that worn by judges of the High Court of England and Wales. On formal occasions, judges wear red scarlet robe with white fur facings, bands or a jabot, a black scarf and girdle and a scarlet casting-hood, with a full-bottomed wig. Unlike judges in the United Kingdom, judges in Australia never wear breeches, hose and buckled shoes. When sitting in criminal proceedings, judges wear scarlet robes with grey silk facings, bands or a jabot and a bench wig. When sitting in appeal or in civil proceedings, judges and masters wear a black silk gown, a bar jacket with either bands or a jabot and a bench wig. In some jurisdictions, the wearing of wigs has been abandoned for other than formal occasions. Wigs were abolished in Western Australia for both judges and lawyers in all courts in 2010.
Judges of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales and judges sitting in the Workers' Compensation Court of NSW and the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales wear the same court dress as a judge of the Supreme Court sitting civilly.
Judges of the District or County Courts of the States of Australia wear court dress similar to that worn by judges of the County Court of England and Wales.
Judges in all Australian courts will not usually wear court dress for procedural or chambers proceedings.
Stipendiary Magistrates and justices of the peace do not robe, other than in NSW where they have worn a black robe over normal business attire since 2005.
Barristers in all Australian jurisdictions, when required to do so, wear court dress similar to that worn in the United Kingdom. Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel wear a black silk gown, a bar jacket, bands or a jabot and a horsehair wig with curls at the side and ties down the back. On formal occasions, they wear full-bottomed wigs. In addition Victorian Senior Counsel wear a black rosette hanging from the back of their gown. Junior Counsel wear an open-fronted black stuff gown with open sleeves and a gathered yoke, and otherwise wear the same outfit as Senior Counsel (other than full-bottomed wigs). Counsel usually wear dark trousers or striped trousers, or a dark skirt for female barristers. Barristers will not usually robe for procedural hearings (which are called 'directions hearings' in South Australia).
Solicitors, in those jurisdictions where the legal profession is not fused (such as New South Wales and Queensland) do not robe when appearing in court, even before superior courts. In those States and Territories with fused professions, solicitors robe in situations where barristers would normally wear robes.
In 2010, the Chief Justice of Western Australia, Wayne Martin, introduced major reforms for Western Australian Courts; in the District Court, wigs were abolished for both lawyers and judges. District Court judges and lawyers maintained their robes. In the Supreme Court Criminal Jurisdiction, traditional judges' red robes were replaced with American-style plain black robes; this also applied to all appeal courts. Wigs were abolished in all Supreme Courts for both judges and lawyers. This change was met with a great deal of sadness by many members of the legal fraternity in the state, as it ended over 180 years of tradition in Western Australia.
In the High Court of Australia, barristers wear the same dress as is required by the Supreme Court in their jurisdiction.
For a matter heard in the Federal Court of Australia, barristers robe (but without a wig) if it is the usual practice to robe in the Supreme Court of the state or territory in which the matter is being heard.
Prior to 2010, counsel did not robe before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Barristers are now expected to robe for most hearings, but not for interlocutory or interim matters. Wigs are not worn on any occasion.
In Canada, court dress is identical to that previously (pre-2008) in use in England, except that wigs are not worn. Bar jackets are worn under the gown, though QCs and judges have more elaborate cuffs than other lawyers. Barristers are required to gown for the Courts of Appeal and Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories, unless appearing on applications in chambers (most interlocutory applications, all originating applications, and all applications for summary judgment are generally heard in chambers).
The Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada at the general procedure level require barristers to gown. As well, gowns are required at the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. The donning of business attire is acceptable by barristers appearing in chambers and in inferior (puisne) provincial and territorial courts; court dress is also permitted, though rarely worn. Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada wear red robes with white fur trim on ceremonial occasions together with tricorne hats; however, they wear black gowns when hearing cases. Judges of all other federal and provincial courts wear black gowns, sometimes adorned with various sashes and crests which depend on the level of court and the province in which the case is heard. All Canadian judges also wear black court waistcoats with white collar and tabs.
As a common law jurisdiction, court dress in Hong Kong is practically the same as court dress in England and Wales. Under the auspices of the one country, two systems policy after 1997, when sovereignty of the former British crown colony was transferred to the People's Republic of China, the territory has continued to be common law jurisdiction, and English legal traditions have been preserved. Judges in the Court of Final Appeal, however, do not wear wigs but only gowns with lace jabot, similar to those of International Court of Justice.
Some judges do wear wigs as part of the ceremonies during the opening address of the legal year in Hong Kong.
In India, the courts have upheld the traditions of wearing black and white.
Male Judges wear white shirts and trousers with a white neck band and a black coat, whilst female Judges normally choose to wear the traditional Sari, and team it with a white neck band and a black coat.
Male Lawyers are required to wear either -
Female Lawyers are required to wear either -
Court dress in Malaysia is based on English court dress, with some modifications. Since the 1980s, judges no longer wear wigs, wing collars and bands but instead wear a waterfall cravat with court coat and black silk gown. Ceremonial robes for judicial office-bearers are generally black with gold lace, and include a Malay songkok.
Counsel in Malaysia dress as English junior barristers do, but do not wear wigs. Prior to the 1980s, counsel serving in the government legal service wore wigs. Counsel in private practice have never done so.
In New Zealand, court dress was simplified in 1996. Judges wear black gowns in the Employment Court, District Court and High Court, while counsel are only required to wear black gowns for jury trials in the District Court, and all the time in the Employment Court, High Court and Court of Appeal.Scarlet gowns and long wigs are worn by Supreme Court judges at the annual Opening of Parliament ceremonies.
Wigs (for counsel) are only worn on ceremonial occasions such as when newly qualified barristers are called to the Bar. Traditional "Bar jackets" may be worn as ordinary court dress in the higher Courts, but are uncommon. No gowns are worn by the Judges of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand or Supreme Court of New Zealand.
After independence, in Pakistan, the courts have continued to uphold the pre-independence (British-Raj traditions) of lawyers wearing white shirt and black coat, trouser and tie. However, in 1980s, judges modified their dress to do away with wig and to allowed (optional) the usage of a Black Sherwand, a long traditional Pakistani coat worn over white Shalwar & Qamiz (trouser and shirt).
In Pakistan, the dress code for Lawyers/legal practitioners varies with the season. During the Winter months, a formal black suit and tie are worn. During the hot Summer months, white shirt & trousers and a white neck band may be worn. In addition, judges wear a black robe over their other garments. Wigs are no longer worn. Dress codes are rigorously enforced within the Superior Courts of the country.
In Sri Lanka, court dress is worn by both judges and counsels. Judges wear black gowns in the District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka while counsel only wear black gowns in the latter three courts. Both judges and counsel dress in white and black, white shirt, black coat, tie and toruses for men and white saree for women. Wigs are only worn on ceremonial occasions by judges of the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court and President's Counsel.
Court dress in many jurisdictions with legal systems derived from England's, including Caribbean and African countries[which?] have court dress identical to that in England and Wales.
Recent changes to Chinese courts have led to more formal dress code. Business suits or black gowns (with red stripe on the front) are replacing the military look of the Chinese court system.
Judges of the supreme court wear black robes with a red stip with buttons. The buttons are gold with the top button with the seal of the People's Republic of China.
The Irish Free State, established in 1922, continued largely with the courts and court system inherited from the United Kingdom, albeit pared down and shorn of some of its imperial grandeur. To fit with the reorganization of the courts, the judiciary all but abandoned the wearing of their former ceremonial costumes. Prior to Independence, the Lord Chancellor, Master of the Rolls and the Lords Justice of Appeal in Ireland would have worn full ceremonial dress identical to their English equivalents, viz. long black damask robes with wide bands of gold lace and ornaments. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chief Baron (up to the extinction of the office on the retirement of Christopher Palles in 1916) and other puisne judges of the High Court would likewise have worn scarlet robes with ermine hood and ermine-trimmed mantle. Many fine examples of these robes can be seen in portraits of Irish judges in the King's Inns.
Upon the passing of the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) Act 1922, the office of Lord Chancellor immediately became defunct. Then in 1924 the Court of Appeal was refashioned into the Supreme Court; the Lord Chief Justice became simply Chief Justice and head of the judiciary; and the Master of the Rolls was replaced with a President of the High Court. The judges of the new superior courts, including the Chief Justice and President, adopted for all occasions - ceremonial or otherwise - the ordinary working judicial dress of the austere type previously worn by members of the old Court of Appeal, that is, as Order 119 rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 originally read:
A black coat and vest of uniform make and material of the kind worn by Senior Counsel, a black Irish poplin gown of uniform make and material, white bands and a wig of the kind known as the small or bobbed wig.
Judges of the Circuit Court also wear similar costume, pursuant to Order 3 rule 1 of the Circuit Court Rules, 2001. The prescribed dress of judges of the District Court (in Order 5 rule 1 of the District Court Rules, 1997) is the same, but does not include a wig.
Order 119 rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts was amended in 2012, and now stipulates that:
the Judges of the Supreme Court shall on all occasions during the sittings, including sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal, wear a black woollen gown of uniform make with sleeves bearing green double ribbon banding and a single white neck tab.
This new uniform is worn without a wig, and the single white neck tab is more reminiscent of European style court dress.
Barristers' dress in Ireland is almost unchanged since the pre-Independence era. Counsel may not exercise his right of audience unless he is properly attired. It is provided in Order 119 rule 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts as follows:
Senior and Junior Counsel shall appear, when in court, habited in a dark colour and in such robes and bands and with such wigs as have heretofore been worn by Senior and Junior Counsel respectively, and no Counsel shall be heard in any case during the sittings unless so habited.
While the forthcoming reforms to court dress will have profoundly altered matters in England by 2008, for the present it may be said that Irish barristers robe similarly to their English counterparts. Such robes are worn by barristers in all courts, including the District Court. Like Queen's Counsel in England, Senior Counsel generally wear a short bar wig and black silk or poplin gown with flap collar and long, closed sleeves over a buttoned and broad-cuffed court coat. Their shirts will have a detachable stiff wing collar, worn with bands. Junior Counsel wear a short bar wig and black poplin or stuff bar gown (which has a gathered yoke and short, open sleeves) over a dark three-piece suit with similar wing collar and bands. While it is not unknown for female barristers to wear a blouse with separate bands much like male colleagues, more commonly they would wear a starched white all-in-one collarette or bib covering their neckline that approximates in looks to a tall Mandarin collar and bands.
Section 49 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, however, did abolish the requirement that barristers should wear wigs in court. To this extent only, the wording of the Rules of Court above is somewhat out of date. (All counsel still must wear a gown and bands etc.) By affording individual barristers a discretion to wear the forensic wig in court, the new rule defused what had become an increasingly bitter debate in the profession whether it was appropriate to cleave to anachronistic modes of dress - even as a traditional and undoubtedly recognizable uniform - and avoided a more drastic solution, such as the abandonment of wigs or gowns altogether. Accordingly, there is little contemporary call for reform of court dress in Ireland.
Junior counsel are called to the Bar in three sittings in the year, one in Hilary term, one Trinity term, and the other in Michaelmas term. This ceremony takes place in the Supreme Court. All new barristers habit themselves in full court working dress.
Senior Counsel are appointed annually in the Call to the Inner Bar, a short ceremony in the Supreme Court towards the end of Michaelmas term. (Junior counsel are members of the Outer or Utter Bar.) On this occasion alone do the new Senior Counsel wear full-bottomed wigs, though with their working robes rather than with the breeches, stockings, patent court shoes and lace stock of former times. This is purely a matter of convention and is not, so it would seem, governed by any rule of court. Since 1922, the Chief Justice has presided over the ceremony in lieu of the departed Lord Chancellor. None has seen fit to alter the manner of the Call.
Judges and counsel are forbidden to wear wigs and gowns in proceedings in the District, Circuit and High Courts in respect of inter alia the following Acts:
It is arguable that the Oireachtas intended the ban on "wigs and gowns" should be read liberally to mean that judges and barristers should appear in ordinary suits in these cases. In practice, a literal interpretation of the rule has been preferred. Judges and counsel do not wear either wig or gown in the family courts but will dutifully don the court coat (if applicable) and a wing collar and bands nonetheless.
Full court working dress remains worn in the Supreme Court in any proceedings, including those under the foregoing statutes.
The Rules of Court oblige judges and barristers to wear court dress only "during the sittings" that is, during the four law terms of Michaelmas, Hilary, Easter and Trinity. In any hearing during the vacations, judges and counsel wear ordinary suits.
By virtue of Section 17 of the Courts Act 1971, all solicitors have full rights of audience in the superior courts of Ireland. When appearing as advocates, they wear ordinary suits and, unlike in England, are not required to wear gowns.
Both Israeli judges and lawyers (while appearing in court, especially in higher courts) wear black robes, generally worn open to show a white shirt, black necktie, and dark trousers or skirts, and a dark jacket in the winter, or a similar outfit for women. The robes and neckties may bear the logo of the Israel Bar Association. (Out of court, many lawyers will wear a Bar Association pin in their jacket lapel.) While the practice of lawyers wearing court dress is a legacy of the British Mandate that immediately preceded Israeli independence, the relatively simple outfit (and lack of wigs) shows American influence; both nations' systems of law have similarly influenced Israel's.
In Italy judges, prosecutors and lawyers wear black robes in higher courts or in criminal cases. Judges and prosecutors wear red, ermine-lined robes with golden striped hats on solemn occasions such as the opening of the judicial year.
In the Netherlands and Belgium, judges, lawyers and prosecutors dress identically in the form of a black robe and a white band. This is a symbolic act, as it is meant to convey the idea that the judge is merely the representative of Dutch or Belgian law, rather than an elevated individual with the power of sentencing people. This idea finds its origins in the time of the French revolution. However, there are some slight differences between the judge and the lawyer. The judge wears a black robe, with silk ties on the sleeves and on the closure of the robe. Lawyers just wear a simple black robe. The higher the rank in court, the fancier the robe becomes; the members of the 'Hoge Raad' (High Council) wear a velvet black robe with ermine ties.
Previously, Dutch judges shared no common dress as the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic, as the Netherlands were highly decentralised with only provincial and urban law and no federal law. Hence judges would dress as was the tradition in their own cities or towns.
In Sweden there is no official court dress for judges and judges do not wear gowns. Judges usually wear an ordinary suit.
|This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (April 2009)|
During the early history of the United States, the court dress of judges and practicing lawyers closely mirrored British court dress of the 18th century; both wore white powdered wigs and (typically) black robes in the lower courts, and in the higher ones, judges would wear red with black markings. The practice fell out of favor and died out by the mid-nineteenth century.
Today, generally judges of both state and federal courts are free to select their own courtroom attire. The most common choice is a plain black robe which covers the torso and legs, with sleeves. Female judges will sometimes add to the robe a plain white collar or lace jabot. Beneath the robes business attire is standard.
Until the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall, all Supreme Court justices wore red robes with ermine trim and full-bottomed wigs, reminiscent of British court dress. Marshall, however, eschewed this formality and began the practice of only wearing a black silk robe, with no wig. In 1994, Chief Justice William Rehnquist added four gold bars (similar in appearance to captain insignia in the US Navy) to each sleeve of his black robe, but the change in his attire (he had been Chief Justice since 1986) was his own innovation and was inspired by a production of the operetta Iolanthe, rather than any historical precedent. His successor, John G. Roberts, chose to stick with the traditional plain black robe.
Some Supreme Court justices (including Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Stephen Breyer) maintain the ancient legal practice of wearing large black skullcaps, in their case when wearing their robes outdoors in cold weather (for example, at presidential inaugurations in January.)
Many state supreme court justices wear unique styles of robes, the most notable being the Maryland Court of Appeals, where all judges wear red, and British-style tab collars. The judges of the Delaware Superior Court continue to wear the red sashes or baldrics of their British predecessors, albeit now only on ceremonial occasions.
Some judges eschew special dress entirely and preside over their courts in normal business wear. This is often seen among administrative law judges who preside over relatively informal administrative hearings.
Lawyers wear normal business attire in courts of all levels. During the second-wave feminism movement in the 1970s, some judges forbade female attorneys from wearing trousers when appearing in court, but pantsuits are now widely accepted. Like judges, American attorneys do not wear wigs.
Until the 1970s, morning dress was required of all attorneys appearing before the United States Supreme Court by the Court's rules. Even after the Court abolished the requirement, the Office of the Solicitor General maintained the practice. When the Solicitor General (or any of the deputies) appears before the U.S. Supreme Court, he wears morning dress, with striped trousers, grey ascot, waistcoat, and a cutaway morning coat. A feminized version is sometimes worn by female deputies, which consists of the same garments tailored to female measurements. Former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the only woman to hold the office to date, appeared before the Court in pantsuits in lieu of morning dress. The traditional female equivalent of morning dress (a formal gown) is strictly for social purposes, so it would be inappropriate attire for appearances before the nation's highest court.[broken citation] The Court's Marshal and Clerk of both genders also wear morning dress when the Court is in session.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Judicial dress.|