With Britain set to drop the use of "archaic'' terminology in its courts, Bermuda's legal world has been left speculating as to whether the Island will follow suit.

And lawyers from both sides of the fence have offered mixed opinions on whether traditions, including the use of certain legal jargon, wigs and gowns, should be scrapped in favour of bringing the justice system more up-to-date.

A story in the UK's Times newspaper announced that a review looking at modernising the courts would be conducted in Britain over the next few weeks.

Due next year, the review is the result of an agreement between Home Secretary Jack Straw and Lord Irvine, the lord chancellor.

It will look at doing away with Latin phrases such as "prima facie'' (on first impression) and "res gestae'' (the event in question), the importance of which lawyers practising in Bermuda were split down the middle over.

The article also suggested that "another target of the review would be to replace the different terms used to address judges with a single, as yet uncoined, term''.

And the British Attorney General Lord Williams of Mostyn even suggested that the long tradition of wearing wigs was "an irrelevance'' that should also be gotten rid of.

Local Attorney General Dame Lois Brown Evans said: "I haven't heard anything about the changes but I have been saying for years that we must learn to draught legal documents in way so that ordinary people can understand them.'' She continued: "We're entering a new Millennium and I would agree with any changes of that nature if they were proposed here.'' Bermuda Bar Council chairman and veteran attorney Richard Hector said he felt some aspects of Bermudian legal traditions could be modernised.

"I don't know what they're proposing in Britain but I certainly think that they could do away with the use of certain Latin phrases, such as `prima facie' and `res gestae','' he said.

"I find that most people in the court don't know what they mean,'' he continued, "and when they are used its not because there's any real reason for it except that it sounds good.'' But Mr. Hector said he did not feel wigs should be done away with.

"Personally, I like wearing my wig. Partly because I don't have any hair and also because I think it goes well with the practice of law.

"The wig helps people understand the respect of the profession and it also serves to tell others something about the person wearing it. If its old and tattered it shows the wearer has been in the profession for quite some time and that he has quite a lot of experience.'' Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Bill Pearce said that, having attended law school in Canada, he did not have any particularly strong views on the matter.

However he said: "I certainly wouldn't be opposed to those changes if they came along but I think that some form of title should be preserved for the judge to show that they have a position of authority and respect.

"But I wholeheartedly support the removal of Latin terms in court,'' he continued, "It needs to be changed to plain English just so that everyone can understand what's being said.'' Taking a more traditional viewpoint was Crown counsel Leighton Rochester, who took a firm stance against any such "modernisation'' taking place.

"The Latin phrases used in court are excellent because they encapsulate the meaning behind them so well and much more specifically than in English,'' he said.

"They have such a long heritage of usage in the courts and they lend the proceedings a certain solemnity and dignity,'' Mr. Rochester added.

"It's likewise with the wigs and gown,'' he added, "They give everything a sense of respect and awe and make one realise that they're in a hallowed place of justice.'' In agreement was defence attorney Mark Pettingill, who said: "Although I see the arguments behind the changes, I am something of a traditionalist. To my mind, phrases like `res gestae' conjure up a whole conceptual meaning that couldn't be replaced by other terms.

"The Latin has worked in the past and I don't see any reason to get rid of them,'' he continued.

Mr. Pettingill was also opposed to the abolition of wigs in court and explained: "I worked hard for my wig and I see it as a symbol of all the effort I put in to get here. I wouldn't want to give it up.'' Archaic or dignified? Lawyer Julian Hall, in traditional garb, and Crown counsel Leighton Rochester in what could be lawyer's garb in the future.

Accessible language: Dame Lois Brown Evans Worked hard for his wig: Sen. Mark Pettingill