[ChrisSD]

The wearing of wigs has been greatly reduced in most English court settings but it does seem to still have support in the areas it's still used: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/16/it-is-helpful-to...

tl;dr it's argued that having a recognisable uniform, no matter how bizarre, levels the playing field and provides a sense of professionalism.

[davidwritesbugs]

My take on legal wigs, as an ex-barrister, is that they are an anachronistic historical decoration. They mean nothing, they are not "Asimovian" or other twaddle like that. They are the vestiages of Office that were never modernised, nor was there any good reason to do so other than a desire to appear modern. Those who use the Bar would understand that the competence, or otherwise, of barristers was unrelated to whether or not they wore a clump of horse-hair on their head. I never minded, and quite liked, it as it separated us from other lesser legal wamabees like solicitor advocates.

[dalbasal]

I get that tldr in principle. You can definitely go too far. At some point in the bizarreness scale, uniforms do the opposite. Makes it seem like these people probably don't know what they're doing.

Still in England, think of queens guards. Those red bear hat uniforms make them seem like silly tourist attractions that you can tickle for a selfie, not professional soldiers that you shouldn't mess with. In that case, maybe that's OK. For barristers, that's not what you want.

There's a case for uniforms, but it's doesn't extend indefinitely.