I read somewhere they are in mourning for Mary, Queen of Scots, though I am not sure for what reason. Does anyone?
Lawyers wear black in order to appear suitably sombre when presenting bills to clients.
American attorneys usually don’t wear black. Are you British?
The claim is that English barristers wear black gowns because they are still in mourning for a long-deceased monarch. The story has been variously attributed to mourning for the death of, among others, Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen Anne and Queen Caroline. The Mary, Queen of Scots variation seems particularly improbable. Similarly, the schoolboys of Eton are always said to wear mourning black for George III. I would treat all such stories with a degree of scepticism.
We just like wearing togas. Brings back memories of great toga parties in the frats at university.
More seriously, the present day robes of estate associated with upper class persons and professions (e.g. royalty, scholars, lawyers) are simply continuations of similar garb worn in the late Roman period and early medeval period, when robes were standard attire the way a business suit is today.
Why black? It’s basic. Higher classes get more colourful and more accessorized regalia, and as we know, lawyers are scum sucking bottom dwellers.
Here are a few of links:
http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2000/09/spitzer.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12713a.htm
http://www.tamiu.edu/~slunce/regalia.htm
As has already been stated, American lawyers do not wear “black,” if by black you mean court robes. Nor do we wear wigs. As a practical matter American lawyers going to court wear a lot of black, brown, and navy blue because those are considered “professional-looking” colors that indicante a seriousness of purpose. But they are not required to wear any particular uniform or color. The only people who wear robes in the American judicial system are the judges.
I read somewhere that black is a symbol for “professionalism”, and that’s why cameras are black. Or at least they were. Now they’re silver alot, too.
It probably applies here, too.
thanks all, I should have made it more clearer that I was referring to the British ones… I also read that the intent is to convey that are disjoint from the case and have nothing personal for or against the person they are defending/prosecuting…
However, what really was bothering me was the Mary, Queen of Scots version, I was wondering whether they were mourning because if they were around they could have delivered justice or they were mourning because they failed to prevent her execution…anyway, thanks for the pointers muffin, the links really helped.
It is not required that one be a mourning person to become a lawyer.
One of the reasons for keeping the robes (and keeping them basic black) is that it prevents peacocks from swaying juries. You don’t run into the problem of a $200 suit of clothes being compared against a $2,000 suit of clothes and inappropriately affecting the decision in a legal suit. All lawyers’ bat suits within a jurisdiction look the same, so cases are not affected by clothing.
BTW, I spend a fair bit of time in high court where I have to robe, and also time in low court where I do not have to robe. I prefer the more formal dress, for I find that the great unwashed tend to behave a lot better. Same goes for court architecture. There is a lot to be said for formality when it comes to maintaining a decorous court. When I speak, I don’t want anything to distract the judge – no talking in the peanut gallery, and no wandering in and out. I do not have a bombastic style – I say relatively little and I say it without raising my voice. The judges listen very closely to what I say, and appreciate that I do not drone on, obsfucate, or interrupt. They just nod after each and every point, and I move on to the next. This style works very well for me. In the low court, where the judge has to keep an eye on the room the way a teacher does a class, I have to speak more loudly, and keep a closer watch for when the judge is distracted by the great unwashed. It’s like having static on the line. As silly as the black robes look, they play a significant part in maintaining a courtroom environment which works well for me.
I don’t buy the toga argument. Sixth-century Byzantine lawyers may have used that word to describe their outfits, but that doesn’t mean that there was any connection with what English barristers were wearing during the Middle Ages or later. The arguments in the third link about the practical advantages of robes make much more sense.
There was doubtless a specific reason why barristers originally wore black, as opposed to some other colour, but my guess would be that there is now no way of knowing. The mourning theory sounds like the sort of explanation that gets invented to fill such gaps in people’s knowledge. For all we know, they might have worn black just so they didn’t clash with the reds of the judges’ robes. Black can always go with anything. The important thing was that they all wore the same thing. Wearing a uniform showed that they were a separate group, different from any other lawyers who might be hanging about the courts.
Actually, one could have gone further and distinguished between English barristers and Scottish advocates. As it happens, Scottish advocates also wear black robes. This further weakens the mourning black theory, as it seems most unlikely that the two groups would both have forgotten to come out of mourning.
The only bad thing about wigs and robes is that the wigs itch like hell. Wearing of wigs in the Federal and Supreme Courts in Australia was recently abolished in civil matters, but are still required in criminal matters.
The robes themselves aren’t too uncomfortable.
Judges in criminal trials in Anglo-Australian jurisdcitions wear red. I had heard that this is because they have the potential to sentence the accused to death - the red represents blood: but I’m not sure on the truth of this.