Plan B Forum

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/loca ... -courtroom

I was surprised to learn that you have rules that are that detail oriented about what you can or can't wear in court.

I would sort of get the tie thing, but socks?

That judge needs to focus more on the cases before him and less on the lawyers' feet. I haven't worn panty hose in court in years (I'm usually bare-legged in a skirt suit) and it has neither impacted my professionalism nor the excellent results I get for my clients.

I also hate socks. So what....

The order says that during a break in proceedings, the court advised Glickfield that he wasn't appropriately dressed as required by court rules, and that Glickfield replied, "I hate socks."

Then maybe he should just paint his ankles and lower leg, and nobody would know...

The article doesn't say, but I'm assuming that this is something that this guy is doing in court appearances only involving the counsels and the judge, and not during a trial in front of a jury...

It doesn't seem to me that a male attorney would be doing their client any favors by showing up in front of a jury with no socks...

It sounds to me as if the Judge is and old school control freak and this atty has pissed him off in some way.
Many years ago a judge I knew made a woman keep her married name, in spite of the fact that there were no children born of the marriage, because he said then she would remember her mistake.

It doesn't seem to me that a male attorney would be doing their client any favors by showing up in front of a jury with no socks...

Nor is he doing his client any favors by showing up in front of this judge without a tie or socks. The judge might be a jerk (indeed, it seems pretty certain that he is), but he is the person who is hearing his client's case and it does no good to piss him off (unless that's what his client wants like in the Chicago 7 or Manson trials). Maybe his client is Bierkenstock?

I can't imagine appearing in court in anything less than full proper business attire, even if I were only appearing for a status conference. I wouldn't even wear a casual shoe. If there was ever a place that demanded formality, it is the courtroom -- if nothing else as a sign of respect for both the institution and the law. Here in the States we have already dispensed with the wigs and robes and collars and such; is it really too much to ask counsel to adhere to some minimal standards of decorum?

Sue U wrote:I can't imagine appearing in court in anything less than full proper business attire, even if I were only appearing for a status conference. I wouldn't even wear a casual shoe. If there was ever a place that demanded formality, it is the courtroom -- if nothing else as a sign of respect for both the institution and the law. Here in the States we have already dispensed with the wigs and robes and collars and such; is it really too much to ask counsel to adhere to some minimal standards of decorum?

I agree with you but isn't that a somewhat subjective standard? Does it apply to socks? Do they have to be socks that match the pants or the shoes, or could they be bright red socks, because they are "lucky" or somehow meaningful to that particular lawyer?

I was in court this morning, and as I waited in various lines to check in with various clerks, I observed the feet and ankles of the counsel present. I didn't notice a single female lawyer wearing hose, and I could not tell whether most of the male lawyers were wearing socks or not because most of them need the services of a good tailor (i.e., the pant legs were too long). Those that were sitting (and I could see their ankles) were far enough away from the judge that he couldn't possibly tell if they were wearing socks or not, because the benches and tables would have blocked his view.

Now, if the guy was wearing sandals or flip flops or some other inappropriate footwear, I get it. But if it was loafers without socks, I really don't see the problem.

Sue, do you have an opinion on open-toed shoes? What about fingernail polish? Jewelry? Makeup?

Guinevere wrote:I agree with you but isn't that a somewhat subjective standard? Does it apply to socks? Do they have to be socks that match the pants or the shoes, or could they be bright red socks, because they are "lucky" or somehow meaningful to that particular lawyer?

Yes, it is a subjective standard, one that you just applied yourself:

Guinevere wrote:Now, if the guy was wearing sandals or flip flops or some other inappropriate footwear, I get it.

So where do you draw the line on what's "inappropriate"?

Guinevere wrote:Sue, do you have an opinion on open-toed shoes? What about fingernail polish? Jewelry? Makeup?

Oh sure I have opinions, and as with anything that's a matter of opinion I think these things are both on a sliding scale and have to take into account an individual attorney's personal style. There's a pretty wide spectrum running from "fitting and proper" to "unacceptable" in my book. I'm generally against open-toed shoes in court but I certainly wouldn't be scandalized by them, although sandals clearly cross the line. Similarly, low-key nail polish and make-up are always fine, and while bright red polish and lipstick might generally be considered tacky under the circumstances, I think that falls more into "personal style" than "clearly inappropriate." (Tacky is a style, right? )

I'm with you Sue; stick to the tried and true. Don't gamble with anything that might even piss the judge off or make him/her think you're showing a lack of respect--you're there to represent your client, not to express you individuality.

Guin--I could not tell whether most of the male lawyers were wearing socks or not because most of them need the services of a good tailor (i.e., the pant legs were too long).

A question, how long is too long for you. I like a break at the bottom of my suit pants, with the back end extending down to the top of the heel. I imagine some more recent styles discourage this (just like they di with sleeves), but I prefer both sleeves and pant legs slightly longer as I think it looks better.

I'm generally against open-toed shoes in court but I certainly wouldn't be scandalized by them although sandals clearly cross the line.

What about six inch stilettos?

Lord Jim wrote:

I'm generally against open-toed shoes in court but I certainly wouldn't be scandalized by them although sandals clearly cross the line.

What about six inch stilettos?

With or without socks?

One somewhat amusing anecdote; a few years back I found myself in Federal Court in San Diego; the lawyers on the other side were from a white shoe firm in NY. At the first hearing (because it was California) I wore my traditional suit with Jerry Garcia tie (someone gave me it as a gift; apparently he had a long line of them). At the hearing, the judge asked me if that was a Jerry Garcia tie and I told her yes; she then went on about how she loved those ties and the Dead for a couple of minutes (we weren't on the record yet). At the next hearing all of the attorneys for the other side sported Jerry Garcia ties, even the 70+ senior partner.

Sue U wrote:I can't imagine appearing in court in anything less than full proper business attire,

And sexy specs? The whole "sexy lawyer" outfit would be my guess.

Yeah, I saw that on ATL last year, when they had a caption contest. Winner: "Because Justice is blind, but you're not."

Great caption.

Mine: "We make you wish you were getting screwed by your lawyers."

Not sure if he was wearing socks

Long Run wrote:Not sure if he was wearing socks

Probably wore them balled up in his pants by his zipper.

I suppose we can all agree that it would be inappropriate for a lawyer to show up in court completely starkers...


(I point that out, just in case a lawyer should happen by here who might not think there would be anything wrong with that...)