London ? In horsehair wigs of tight white curls, Britain’s judges and lawyers have stalked oak-paneled courtrooms since the 17th century. But the head of the judiciary is considering scrapping the historical uniform.

Baron Nicholas Phillips, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, is expected to decide soon, following a study intended to examine concerns that wigs and gowns intimidate the public.

His office confirmed Friday that he may ditch the traditional costume altogether – meaning red and black silk gowns, gold braided waistcoats, wigs and colored ceremonial sashes could be consigned to history.

Lawyers think the latest review will conclude that a less formal style should be adopted for most cases.

John Cooper, a London criminal lawyer and a member of the Bar Council – the authority representing senior lawyers – said lawyers expect the wig and gown to be preserved only for criminal matters.

“The weight of opinion among barristers is to see the attire retained for criminal cases, and the public agree – it is one of the only things they actually like about the legal profession,” he said.

Lawyers in Britain have worn gowns and wigs in court since the late 17th century, though they stopped wearing perukes – a long, shoulder-length style – on a daily basis in the 1840s, opting for a shorter, less elaborate version.

Strict rules govern the color of gowns, with senior judges using red for criminal cases and black for civil or family court work. In summer, some judges can dress in blue or violet, but all must wear scarlet on Red Letter Days, which include the monarch’s birthday and some religious festivals.

To pay for the opulent wardrobe, a High Court judge is given an allowance of about $30,000, and a circuit judge gets about $20,000. Wigs can cost as much as $1,600, while long perukes cost about $4,000 each.

Judges wearing wigs and robes leave Westminster Abbey after a religious service in a procession to the Houses of Parliament. The traditional ceremony marks the start of the first of four terms of the legal year. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is considering whether the horsehair wigs - deemed by some to be too arcane for modern justice - should be scrapped.

Before his appointment, Phillips described courtroom dress as ridiculous, suggesting Britain should follow France in adopting a simple black gown and dispensing with wigs.

In 2002, a government-ordered Opinion Research Corporation poll of 2,000 people found 42 percent favored retaining traditional dress for all lawyers and judges.

Support for wigs in criminal cases was stronger: Only 27 percent said judges in such cases should go bareheaded. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Wigs have disappeared from other arenas. The speaker of the House of Commons dispensed with a peruke in 1992, and the Lord Chancellor stopped wearing a wig when presiding in the House of Lords in 1998. The Law Lords, Britain’s supreme appeal judges, do not wear wigs.

Cooper said many lawyers think their attire has a practical purpose. Some lawyers in serious criminal cases, he said, welcomed the partial disguise provided by a wig and gown in the belief they were unlikely to be recognized by a defendant outside court.

Traditional dress also ensures jurors will not be influenced by a lawyer’s clothing, Cooper said.

“In America, for example, a trial advocate will take a look at a jury and, if they are dressed in suits and ties, the advocate will dress in a suit and tie – in an attempt to win favor,” he said. “Our system maintains parity between barristers.”