map was pink, every good British pupil -- and many Bermudians too -- spent their schooldays declining Latin nouns and memorising the great classical authors.

In that very British tradition of education, a solid grounding in the classics was supposedly all a bright young man (women were hardly in the picture) needed to get ahead and rise to the very top of business and politics.

Clearly, those days are long over. But within many institutions, classical traditions have carried on, even though few people nowadays learn much Latin.

There are few places where reverence for tradition is maintained as fiercely as it is in the courts, where bewigged and gowned advocates hurl around Latin phrases such as "mareva'', "prima facie'', "interlocutory'' and "sub judice'' along with middle English phrases such as "plaintiff'' and "writ'' as a matter of course.

Now, as we report in today's newspaper, the British legal system is proposing to dump all that in order to make the language of the courts more accessible.

Many people will welcome the move. To the layperson, "pro bono'' (free) and "in camera'' (privately) can seem to be only so much gobbledygook and a way for lawyers to cloak their business in mysterious jargon known only to them.

This, the cynic will argue, makes the lawyer more expensive. But it also makes courts more inaccessible and intimidating to the ordinary person.

But there are also arguments in favour of retaining the traditions of the courts. Wigs and gowns may look outmoded, but they add dignity and serve as a reminder that legal systems are not created on the spur of the moment but are built on the decisions and lawmaking of past generations.

Language is important too. It adds dignity and in some cases can be lyrical.

Anglicans who recall the soaring language of the James I Bible and Book of Common Prayer and compare them to modern English Bibles and orders of service may agree that the new ones are easier to read. But many will also admit that "something has been lost in the translation''.

More importantly, Latin terms can be more precise in conyeying meaning than their English equivalents. "Quid pro quo'' is more concise than its Oxford English Dictionary translation, "thing given in compensation'', and more dignified than "tit for tat''.

Britain's lawyers have decided that accessibility counts more than tradition and they may well be right. By force of circumstance, Bermuda, where many lawyers are trained in the British system, will no doubt have to change too.

But we should spare a thought for the traditions of the courts and decide first if a claim is any more meaningful than a writ. And we should also remember that jargon will grow willy-nilly. Is the legal system's Bar really any worse than the computer industry's byte?