ONE of Scotland's longest-

serving Queen's Counsel has broken with hundreds of years of legal tradition by discarding his wig when he appears in court.

Colin McEachran, QC, who was called to the Scottish bar in 1968 and took silk 20 years ago, said yesterday: ''I just think they are old-fashioned and we should move ahead.''

Mr McEachran, 62, currently appearing before Lord Drummond Young in a (pounds) 3.5m medical negligence case at the Court of Session, added: ''I have had no reaction from the bench and a number of advocates have said: 'Yes, why not?' I have raised it with various deans of the faculty of advocates and nothing has happened. The only way to get change is to take the step.''

The QC's bold move seems to have divided the bar between the ''cavaliers and roundheads'' - those who support what he has done and the traditionalists who want to see the historic ''badge of office'' remain firmly in place on counsels' head.

Times seem to have moved from attitudes of 20 years or so ago when Edgar Prais, QC, appeared before Lord Jauncey with his waistcoat not fully buttoned only to be told by the judge: ''Can I hear you Mr Prais?'' His lordship intended to convey that the advocate was improperly dressed rather than inaudible.

Colin Campbell, QC, dean of the faculty of advocates, said: ''It has been brought to my attention that in recent days a member of the faculty has dispensed with his wig during court proceedings.

''I was not informed of this in advance. It is established practice that counsel should wear wig and gown although this is a matter in which the court, faculty, and the public at large have an interest.

''Speaking personally, I would have no difficulty with an open debate on the issue. However, if the matter of court dress is to be considered I would wish this to be in an ordered manner in consultation with the judiciary.''

Gordon Jackson, QC, said: ''I would do away with the dress code. I think the argument for it - that it gives majesty to the laws and makes witnesses not tell lies - is untrue.

''Our witnesses are no more reliable and honest than in other countries because I am standing up there dressed like that.

''I think there is a perception of the law being out of touch and antiquated. I do not see how we address that by still wearing an outfit which was normal only at the time it started to be worn.''

Another leading QC told the Herald: ''I think Colin Mc-Eachran is entirely sensible, speaking on behalf of those who are not follically challenged. It is slightly ludicrous in this day and age to go around dressed up like this in this 18th century garb. It adds nothing to the administration of justice.''

However, a supporter of the status quo said: ''In the same way that Coca-Cola has maintained an image for over a century, the wig is a mark that means something to the public. It may indeed be old-fashioned but most uniforms are.

''No doubt, by the same token, at the next changing of the guards they will be turning up in baseball caps rather than busbies.''

Donald Findlay, QC, adopted a neutral stance. ''It's a matter of total indifference to me. It's part of court dress and if I'm told to wear it I will.''

In the past some advocates, the most notable being Sir Walter Scott, have been allowed to appear wigless in court because of some medical condition, but Mr McEachran appears to be the first in recent times to have made the deliberate decision to discard the headwear on a point of principle.

Currently, lawyers and judges do remove their wigs in cases involving child witnesses to make the proceedings less intimidating.

Mr McEachran, a shooting silver medallist at the Commonwealth Games at Christchurch in 1974, has appeared for pursuers in some of Scotland's biggest medical negligence cases and has championed the right of juries to award higher damages than judges.

In Scotland's first right-to-die case, he appeared for the curator appointed to looked after the interests of Janet Johnston, who was in a persistent vegetative state, and made an impassioned plea to the court not to end her life.

''In an uncertain world where frontiers of medical science are never closed the curator suggests that the court should prefer a situation where life continues to the certainty of death if treatment is removed.''

Mr McEachran has a distinguished supporter in Cherie Blair, QC, who has said in the past that she would give up her wig tomorrow if the rules allowed it.

One of the keys to the future of Mr McEachran's bold initiative will be the attitude of the individual judge before whom he appears. What will happen if Mr McEachran appears bare-headed before one of his lordships of the Lord Jauncey tendency remains to be seen.

'It is slightly ludicrous in this day and age to go around dressed up like this in 18th century garb'

history of wigs

l The periwig was introduced into England from France in 1663 and was quickly adopted by the legal profession as fashionable court dress.

l After 1720, smaller wigs came into fashion although judges kept the larger variety for a time as a sign of their superior rank and dignity.

l Between 1720 and 1760, the judicial wig was retained after falling out of fashion outside the courts and became part of official court garb.

l In Scotland, white full-bottomed wigs were worn by judges in the early eighteenth century but from about 1750 both judges and advocates began sporting short wigs of the kind still worn today.

l The full-bottomed variety is normally worn now only for ceremonial occasions.Wigs are still made of horsehair, or sometimes nylon, and today cost upwards of (pounds) 300.