Casual Practice
Christina Binkley has commented on how the casual workplace has affected legal practice.
But she claims once they go casual, it’s difficult to get them to dress up again.
According to her,
…in lawyering, half the battle is the posturing. Many experienced lawyers see their wardrobe as a tool to win the trust of clients, juries and judges. Legal associates who aren’t sartorially prepared may not be invited along to a new-client pitch or to take a leading role in court, regardless of the office’s stated “business casual” dress code.
Wardrobe Justice
We would hate to think that justice is dispensed through such superficialities as counsel’s attire.
But as a result, Binkely reports that some firms actually turn down more talented associates during job interviews based on their grooming and appearance.
Binkley cites Rosemarie Arnold, a trial lawyer that attempts to justify the practice by saying it’s all about control.
Does power suit mean power presentation? Arnold says,
Trying a case is like a movie. Wardrobe is everything.
But does a $150,000 a year on clothing then indicate greater problems in access to justice? Pro Bono clients are probably not funding Arnold’s Gucci or Dolce & Gabbana.
And we suspect most clients would prefer a dishevelled but genius lawyer that accomplishes their goals, rather than a pretty face that provides some eye candy.
Some Dissenters
One commentor inquired,
Well… what about the west coast where you have to interact with dot com executives that have a different take on fashion. Showing up in a suit at a tech firm may be frowned upon.
Another points out,
Who cares?! If the job is done with precision, then who cares?! A moron in a suit is still a moron.
And are things different now?
Old fogey partners get over it. Times have changed.
Even Canadians get hot. Isn’t body odour worse than not wearing a jacket?
I’m always in court so I don’t really have a choice. I wear a suit every day. Its not too bad during the winter but wearing a suit in 90 degree weather in the summer really sucks.
…and the debate continues…
“But as a result, Binkely reports that some firms actually turn down less talented associates during job interviews based on their grooming and appearance.”
Is this really a big concern? If they are less talented, should they not be turned down despite their attire?
Daniel, I think the “less talented associates” is a typo it should be “more talented associates”.
I don’t think that people should have to spend $150,000 on clothes or that clothing are “everything”. But I think that clothing certainly matters. Yes, maybe it’s superficial but superficialities are very important– not the least of which is that people will judge on superficial traits (like all people, even babies). How you present yourself is a way of signaling to the world. If you go to meet a client in jeans and a t-shirt you are signaling to them that they’re not worth the time for you to put on a suit. And just try waltzing into court in that garb, the Judge will not amused.
So I don’t buy the dichotomy between good dresser, mediocre lawyer / bad dresser, good layer. Lawyering is about persuading people, by dressing down you’re going in with one arm tied behind your back.
One of the commentators brought up the example of t-shirt clad billionaires from silicon valley. However, those billionaires dress like that to signal that they are so rich and so brilliant they don’t need to conform to society’s dress code. If I was their lawyer I’d feel like a poseur to do the same thing, my job would to give them legal advice not to copy their geek chic.
I think we can all agree that no matter where we come down on this issue lawyers should not be wearing Uggs in the office (Or even outside the office for that matter).
(Yes, it was a typo, one of many that slip through the editing process)
I agree with Jacob in that it’s important to present professional. But the views expressed here seem simply obscene. Professionalism does not have to mean extravagent or flashy.
I personally find it inappropriate for either educational institutions or firms to justify recruitment based on superficialities. It inadvertently promotes conformity, and would exclude many based on their SES background prior to law school, or even cultural or religious presentation in attire and style.
Peyot, Sikh turbans and hijabs all seem scarce enough on Bay St., and this could explain why.
I totally agree with the article in that ability and potential should not be based on the tag behind one’s neck. I am of the view that laywers, as professionals, should adhere to a certain standard of dress that is a reflection of the profession and by extension, the system they represent. This does not mean spending absurd amounts of money to showcase the latest fashion trend.
With the outrageous cost of law school tuition fees, a large percentage of the population is already excluded from the profession. We definitely don’t need practices that further impede the progression of the hard working and talented merely because they aren’t stylish. Hard work pays off, narcissism rarely does.