British courts started wearing robes in the 14th century, but not just the standard black we often see in pictures. Medieval judges actually wore colors ranging from green, violet and red depending on the season; black became the standard color at the end of the 17th century when Britain went into mourning for King Charles II.
Today, judges and barristers are required to wear wigs and robes, though a barrister’s attire is less ornate. The courts didn’t officially add wigs to the legal dress code until the 18th century when they became culturally chic. Charles Yablon, a professor at Cardozo School of Law, says the wigs and robes melded into courtroom tradition for pretty simple reason: “In short, English judges and barristers began wearing wigs and robes because everybody in polite society was wearing wigs and robes in those days. They continue to wear them because nobody has ever told them to stop.”
As you can imagine, the horsehair wigs are scratchy, hot and uncomfortable, and robes just as much. The wigs and robes are also expensive, costing at least a couple hundred English pounds and up to the thousands for more ornate wigs and higher quality robes.
Those who support the traditional garb say there are a few great reasons for continuing wearing the wigs and gowns: it enforces a solemnity and authority of the law for criminals who otherwise devalue it; it keeps juries from favoritism based on a barrister’s dress, and it has the more practical benefit of helping disguise the courtroom players should any criminal try to find them for revenge.
However, in the past decade those who wish to move toward more 21st century-appropriate garb have been gaining ground, and there are now exceptions to the wig rule. Now, barristers need not wear the traditional wig and gown when they stand before the supreme court or in civil or family cases; officials in family court still wear robes, but they’re much more simplified. Wigs are now only required in criminal cases.