What happened in Amnerica to the dress common (still) in courts in other countries such as England and France? I’ve seen old pictures. I think, of american lawyers and judges wearing similar getups. Judges usually wear robes here, but that’s about it.
I think it looks kinda cool, personally. I see on Canadian TV that they still wear the garb, but maybe not the wigs. I’ve been watching “DaVinci’s Inquest”, an excallent show in my opinion.
Peace,
mangeorge
That’s right - we don’t wear the wigs up here, but we do wear the rest of the traditional English barrister garb.
The pictures of the US judges that I’ve seen don’t seem very close to the traditional English judges robes - they look like they’re just robes that go over the judge’s regular suit and tie, and a zip up the front.
The traditional English/Canadian judicial garb is composed of several layers:
-
a white shirt with a winged collar and french cuffs;
-
white tabs or bands, not a tie;
-
a black waistcoast with sleeves and heavy cuffs;
-
a black robe (sometimes with coloured facings), traditionally silk for judges, but nowadays some modern substitute fabric.
As for why judges and lawyers went away from this garb, I remember reading that Tom Jefferson was opposed to the wigs, because he thought they made the judges look like “rats peering through oakum.” I would guess that the more general reason was a rejection of things British; emphasis on democratic/republican modes; jacksonian democrat ideas about every citizen being able to perform public offices; etc. And that we continue to wear them up north because Canadians didn’t have those ideological motives, having rejected the American revolution and stayed with Britain.
Two old threads on related issues:
Thanks for those, NP.
You answered my questions. I personally think the garb is cool, and adds, uh, stateliness to the court. Of course, were I a lawyer…
Hey, it’s loads of fun putting on the bat-suit - gets me pumped for the court appearence. 
Most American judges wear a black robe over business garb - for men, either a jacket, shirt and tie, or (particularly in warmer weather), just over the shirt and tie. Or for women, over a blouse or shirt. Most magistrates (like me) don’t wear robes. In the relatively few courts that permit it, a magistrate’s robes are often a different color (I’ve seen light gray or navy blue, which look more like choir robes IMHO) to differentiate them from judges.
American judicial garb used to be quite a bit more elaborate - behold John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States: File:John Jay (Gilbert Stuart portrait).jpg - Wikipedia
.jpg){kind=link}
I think Northern Piper is right about that kind of garb falling by the wayside as Americans emphasized the democratic (with a little “d”) nature of our government and came to see elaborate judicial robes as a European affectation. You may recall that Chief Justice William Rehnquist came in for some teasing a decade ago when he added gold stripes, based on the British Lord Chancellor’s robes, to his robes: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/KappaJota/3959619619.jpg
From the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States:
What exactly are “morning clothes”?
Wow, now I’m even more confused. Thanks for the link, but I’m the kind of guy who thinks a polo shirt, jeans, and clean sneakers are appropriate wear for school, lab, church, travel, dining, shopping, and so on. Who spent their time coming up with this stuff?
Morning dress was (still is, I suppose, to the extent it is relevant) the formal outfit one would wear during the day, comparable to white tie worn in the evening. Now it is almost only seen during daytime weddings.
When I was sworn into the Supreme Court bar, William Suter, the Clerk of the Court wore morning dress. (FYI, being the Supreme Court bar is known as the easiest bar in the country to get admitted to. You pretty much just have to be admitted to any state bar for five years and find a Supreme Court bar member to sponsor you.)
Booorrriiinnng!
Actually, me too. Except t-shirts for polo. And no church.
But if I were involved in law, I think I’d prefer the formal stuff.
(People still wear polo shirts?)
Why don’t you wear the robe, Elendil’s Heir? Would it make a difference if you were running a jury trial?
Have you been to the Supreme Court much, Billdo? what kind of case?
Once, for my ceremonial swearing in (and it was on a day when there weren’t even any arguments). I haven’t been involved in any cases that went up to the Court.
It’s not customary in our court for magistrates to wear robes at any time. I’ve never heard of our judges flatly prohibiting it, but “it’s just not done.” Oddly enough, the state bar issued an ethical ruling not long ago that a magistrate may wear a robe in campaign ads if running for a judgeship, even if he or she would not routinely wear robes while in court. A colleague of mine took advantage of this ruling, wore robes in his campaign literature, and was elected (for many reasons other than what he was wearing, I’m sure). I don’t mind not wearing robes; it’s less trouble not to.
Billdo, I was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court bar in 1997. My law fraternity, Phi Alpha Delta, has one day each year when its members may be admitted to the USSC bar en masse. I got to meet Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who were both very nice, at a reception afterwards (they’re both PAD members too). It was close to the end of the term and they were obviously working hard. I heard Ginsburg mutter after she’d made the rounds, “Now back to work!” Like you and most other members of the USSC bar, I’ve never been back since, alas. Looks nice on the resume, though.
Sounds like mine, except it was with my law school and we didn’t have a reception with any of the justices (we had a luncheon at a Congressional office building nearby). There was another law school there as well as a group of Navy and Marine Corps JAG lawyers. I understand the JAG lawyers had lunch with Justice O’Connor.
Now I’m curious - what do the women DoJ advocates wear?
The Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts wears men’s morning dress (or at least did at my swearing-in), although the post is currently held by a woman.
I’m puzzled by this - why do you get sworn in at the bar of the Supreme Court if you don’t have a case on?
For fun, for the sense of history, for an appreciation of the majesty of the law, for something impressive on your resume… and on the very slight off-chance that you might someday have a case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court and you’re gonna be the lawyer who argues it.