The evolution of judicial dress is a story of fashion, power, empire and reform. From the powdered, elaborate wigs of the 17th and 18th centuries to the streamlined gowns and bare heads of many modern courts, courtroom attire changed over time for reasons that mix symbolism, practicality and changing ideas about authority. If you have ever typed when did judges stop wearing wigs into a search engine, you are tapping into a question that spans jurisdictions and centuries. This article explores the when, the why and the where of that transition, with practical examples from Britain and many Commonwealth countries, as well as the cultural forces that drove change.
Wigs entered legal dress during the Restoration era in England. Originally a fashionable accessory among aristocrats, the wig soon became a marker of status and professionalism. Judges, barristers and other officials adopted them to signal authority and continuity with established institutions. Over time the wig itself developed conventions: full-bottomed wigs for formal ceremonial wear, and shorter, horsehair 'bench' or 'barrister' wigs for everyday courtroom use. Wigs were part of a larger ensemble—robes, bands, and other accoutrements—that communicated the dignity of the law.
There is no single global date that answers when did judges stop wearing wigs. The change happened in waves. In many countries that inherited British legal traditions, the practice was scaled back gradually throughout the 20th century. Some key patterns are helpful to understand:
Many former colonies began phasing out wigs in the early to mid-20th century, often completing reforms in the post-war decades; however, practices vary by province, state and court level. Some jurisdictions kept wigs for appellate or ceremonial hearings while removing them from routine trials.Instead of a single year, think in terms of waves: the first wave was a slow decline in regular use through the early 1900s; the second wave accelerated after World War II as legal systems modernized; the third wave — a targeted set of reforms — happened in the 1980s–2010s when many jurisdictions examined remaining formal wear and removed wigs from civil and family courts while sometimes preserving them for criminal trials or ceremonies. So, if you search for when did judges stop wearing wigs you will get different answers depending on whether the query focuses on civil courts, criminal courts, or ceremonial dress.
The reasons for change are multifaceted and often connected:
When addressing when did judges stop wearing wigs it's important to separate judges from barristers or advocates. In many systems, judges have distinct ceremonial robes that might retain wigs or special headgear while lawyers no longer wear them in day-to-day practice. Conversely, some reforms removed wigs for judges but retained them for barristers, or vice versa. This unevenness explains why the question rarely has a single neat answer.
England & Wales:
Key reform — In the late 2000s a set of procedural changes removed wigs from most civil and family hearings, keeping them for criminal jury trials and some ceremonial events. The stated goals included modernizing the appearance of the legal profession and making courts less intimidating.
Australia:
A staggered approach unfolded across states and territories, with many jurisdictions eliminating wigs for routine hearings by the mid-20th century and keeping ceremonial dress for special occasions.
Canada:
Canada's evolution varied by province. Federal and Supreme Court proceedings tended to move away from wigs earlier, while some provincial traditions persisted before finally being relaxed.
Other former colonies:
Reform timelines were diverse. Some kept wigs longer as a symbol of continuity; others discarded them quickly as part of a broader cultural shift.
Even where wigs disappeared from everyday courtrooms, they often remained for ceremonial uses. Ceremonial wigs and robes continue to function as institutional symbols—markers of the office rather than common practice. Some jurisdictions retained certain forms of traditional dress precisely because they carry historical and constitutional significance.
Both sides of the debate make reasonable points. Arguments for keeping wigs include continuity with legal history, symbolism of impartiality and authority, and the role of ceremonial dress in formal occasions. Arguments for removing them include accessibility, modern professionalism, gender inclusivity, cost and comfort. The balance of these arguments has shifted in many places toward removal for everyday use but retention for special events.
Practical takeaway: If your question is when did judges stop wearing wigs you must specify which country and which kind of court to get a precise date; otherwise expect a range of answers tied to historical waves of reform.
When you want a definitive local answer, check: (1) statutory or procedural rules for that jurisdiction, (2) announcements from ministries of justice or judicial councils, and (3) historical accounts or law journal articles that document reforms and their dates. Many jurisdictions publish guidance notes about court dress that set out when wigs are required or optional. Court websites and archived news releases often record the moment of formal change—helpful if you are trying to answer when did judges stop wearing wigs for a specific place.
Judicial systems usually attempt to balance respect for tradition with the need to adapt. This often produces hybrid solutions: wigs kept for ceremonial sittings, bench wigs for older judges at certain appeals, plain robes for everyday hearings. These compromises reflect the institutional value placed on continuity while acknowledging social change.
Removing wigs and modernizing robes often alters how participants and publics perceive courtrooms. Studies in legal sociology suggest that the presence of highly formal dress increases perceptions of distance and authority, while simpler attire can increase perceptions of openness and fairness. Whether that actually changes outcomes is debated, but the symbolic effect is real, which helps explain why many reforms have been undertaken.
Policy makers, judges and bar associations typically justify reforms on the grounds of access to justice and modern professionalism. Those justifications gained traction as legal systems sought to demystify procedures and encourage broader public engagement.
The simple answer to when did judges stop wearing wigs is: it depends. Across the Anglophone world, the transition unfolded over decades, peaking in the mid-to-late 20th century and accelerating in targeted reforms in the early 2000s. The reasons were a mix of modernization, practicality, cultural change and politics. Wigs often remain in ceremonial contexts, while everyday courtroom dress has been simplified to reflect contemporary values. If you need a precise year for a particular jurisdiction, consult local procedural rules or authoritative legal histories for the most accurate date.
To go deeper, search for country-specific terms like "court dress reform [country]" or "[jurisdiction] wigs abolished" and review judicial practice directions, historical legal journals and parliamentary debates. Primary sources—statutes and official guidance—are the best evidence for precise dates and scope of change. Secondary literature in legal history provides context for the cultural and symbolic reasons behind reforms.
No. Changes were incremental and depended on local rules; some types of hearings kept wigs longer than others.
Ceremonial dress preserves institutional history and signals continuity; judges and legal systems often retain these symbols for special occasions even after removing wigs from everyday practice.
In some places, particularly in certain criminal courts and in specific countries with conservative dress traditions, wigs are still worn in daily proceedings; however, this is increasingly rare and shrinking in scope.
