Debate rages on the new Betty Jackson-designed robe. Verdicts are mixed, although in The Times' letters page today, Professor Sir John Baker expresses alarm to find “our judges wanting to look like warlords from outer space”, while one Times Online contributor says the new garb is “a cross between a Star Trek costume and a fascist storm-trooper's uniform”.

Another says that the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, looked like a “Catholic bishop” when he modelled the new gown earlier this week. One described the new robe as “like a dressing gown that Noel Coward might have worn, wholly inapppropriate for judicial office”. Lord Phillips' personal taste in clothing, the reader adds, “should not be permitted to destroy centuries of tradition of judicial dignity”.

Wigs, another said, “should be worn at all times and in all courts. This nicey-softy-fluffy-be-friendly with the public is crap”. Madness, over-reformist and should be scrapped with immediate effect, said a third.

But there are some (minority) crumbs of comfort. “Reminds me of the symbolism and costume of V for Vendetta. Nice.” And: "Tradition is important but some are just silly. Wigs in 21st century is one."

Lawyers and judges are equally split, but a straw poll of The Times law panel seems also to favour a majority against, unless it is just the critics who are speaking out. Women seem pleased. Kirsty Brimelow, a criminal barrister, says: "Modernising court dress is long overdue and I am all in favour. Would I wear it? Yes, but I am speaking as somebody who has suffered wearing a horsehair wig for 16 years." Similarly, Catherine Hallam, a family law solicitor in Bristol with Burges Salmon, says: "I am greatly in favour. It is ludicrous to expect judges to wear 18th-century dress in this century. This is a significant improvement." And Keir Starmer, QC, of Doughty Chambers, says: "I would much rather wear the new outfits than the current ridiculous, outdated wig and gown." Robert Elliott, head of banking at Linklaters, is also taken with the design."Very civil law, very continental."

But equally the new look has drawn plenty of complaints. The Lord Chief Justice looks like a giant pause button, quips one panellist, while another says it’s merely a dated version of a Star Trek costume. “Vile and pretentious,” says one QC who does not wish to be named in case he has to appear in front of the LCJ. Tim Plews of Clifford Chance wonders whether the judges will have to appear on catwalks every Spring now that the fashionistas have got hold of them. Maninder Gill, general counsel of Harvey Nichols, asked one of the department store’s buyers for an opinion: “It has an air of fancy dress about it.”

The barrage of dissent is not just on design grounds. Some question the need for change at all. James Turner, QC, a matrimonial silk, says: “I understand the argument that NO robes should be worn - although I do not agree with it - but once it is accepted that some sort of robe or uniform is appropriate I simply do not understand why there is any need for a change from the present kit. Surveys have shown that the Bar and the public do not want change.”

He also questions the move on grounds of cost. “If members of the Bar are required to have a new outfit for civil cases and retain the old outfit for criminal cases, they will have to purchase two separate outfits.”

So what will happen? Judges are more circumspect in their response,but the word is that commercial judges argue the move is retrospective - because they currently do not wear robes at all. And Chancery judges have given a resounding “thumbs down”. A hint of their mood can be detected in the comments of Michael Todd, QC, chairman of the Chancery Bar Association, who is speaking for barristers, many of whom are also part-time judges. “Why it is considered necessary to replace existing robes, I simply cannot think. It certainly was not as a result of any consultation with the Bar.”

He adds: “The argument that robes should not be worn at all in civil matters has much to commend it. Others at the Bar think otherwise. But whether or not you subscribe to that view, why incur the costs of replacing them? Existing robes will become redundant, when replaced by the new robes; unnecessary costs will be incurred. It has been suggested that the new robes will have a life expectancy of only some five years. Existing gowns are expected to last a lifetime, if not longer.”

The new outfits will also create confusion, he argues. “Irrespective of whether or not the Judge is robed in his or her new gown, the Bar may or may not be wearing their existing robes depending on the nature of the case, the nature of the particular application, and the Division of the High Court in which the application is brought.”

The wigs debate has raged for some years and Lord Phillips seems to have reached a sensible compromise in keeping them for criminal courts and ditching them for family and civil cases. What is clearly far more contentious is the new gown. Keeping the old robe would have retained the link with tradition; met arguments about cost (although officials say the new robes will be cheaper in the long run than present outfits) and enabled judges to switch from case to case or - if part-timers - from the bench to the Bar. It would also have put paid to fears of “going continental or American”. But it would not have met Lord Phillips' long-held wish to modernise the way judges dress.

He is moving off soon to the House or Lords to be senior law lord and will not have to enforce the new uniform. But it seems likely there could be insurrection in some quarters, at least.

The Bar has has already published its own survey which found a majority wanting wigs and gowns to be retained - and not just for criminal courts, as is proposed. So barristers are not likely to be going wigless come the new era of modern dress this autumn, whatever the judges do.

As for the judges, a spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office says that “all the comments so far have been very positive”. But it's possible, in theory, for individual judges to refuse to wear the new outfits if they object strongly enough, although arm-twisting might well go on behind the scenes. Watch this space. Meanwhile, has anyone a use for a few hundred moth-eaten judicial robes and wigs?

Times Recommends

• Future Stars of the Bar 2008
• Lawyer of the Week: Julie Morris
• Charging suspects - why it's a job for prosecutors