Fashion Dos-and-Don’ts, Brought To You By the Seventh Circuit
Fashion is always a hot topic here at Above The Law. Last year, a partner at Winston & Strawn got females’ panties in a bunch by questioning the length of their skirts. In the fall, our post on suitable interview suits generated quite the long thread.
We seldom tire of talking about short shorts and see-through blouses, and we’re not the only ones. The judges and lawyers of the Seventh Circuit weighed in on fashion faux pas at a conference in Indianapolis this past week, reports the New York Times:
The topic was first raised by a United States district court judge, Joan H. Lefkow, of the Northern District of Illinois as the panel discussed good and bad trends in courtroom practice. Judge Lefkow said some women should dress more appropriately in court. According to an article in the National Law Journal and from the accounts of others in the room, she said one lawyer had shown up for a jury trial in a velour outfit that looked for all the world as if she was “on her way home from the gym.”While the lawyer won her case, Judge Lefkow suggested to the judges and lawyers in the room that unseemly clothing in court was the kind of issue that should be the subject of quiet conversation in law firms.
What? Winning isn’t all that matters?
Judge Lefkow’s remarks led to some not-so quiet conversation during the rest of the panel. The judges voiced their disdain for loud ties, short skirts, and other titillating attire.
Read about their opinions, and share your own, after the jump.
Apparently, law students in moot court competitions are especially clueless when it comes to the laws of fashion. The male judges were excited to vent about inappropriate dress by female legal types:
Judge Michael P. McCuskey, chief judge of the federal district court for the Central District of Illinois and a member of the panel, said that at moot court competitions in law schools, he had seen participants wearing “skirts so short that there’s no way they can sit down, and blouses so short there’s no way the judges wouldn’t look.”
Short blouses? What does that mean? Were those moot court competitors baring their midriffs, or did Judge McCuskey get so flustered by the exposure talk that he said short when he meant low-cut?
Males didn’t bare the brunt of the criticism, though if you own a tie with smiley faces, don’t sport it in court:
A member of the audience, Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, joined the minicolloquy, saying that titillating attire was “a huge problem” and a distraction in the courtroom as well, and that “you don’t dress in court as if it’s Saturday night and you’re going out to a party.” In the spirit of sexual equity, Judge Goldgar added that he was also unhappy with lawyers who sport loud ties, some with designs like smiley faces.
The NYT was as amused by the judges’ remarks as by lawyers responding to them in comments around the Web:
At the Web site of the American Bar Association’s ABA Journal, one woman parodied the male judges’ comments: “I’m sorry, Sugar, I’d love to listen to what you’re saying, but I have a penis. As such, I am only able to use one sense at a time.”She added: “What garbage! Poor men can’t control themselves, so women have to respond.”
That sentiment was countered by a comment from a man: “Yes, please ladies, by all means use your sexuality to get what you want (after all, that’s the only excuse you have for dressing in the manner described in this article).”
We invite our male and female readers to battle it out in the comments over the weekend if you’re unlucky enough to be working. And if you are one of the poor fools working this holiday, you may want to check out our open thread on what to wear to the office on the weekends.
At a Symposium of Judges, a Debate on the Laws of Fashion [New York Times]
(184) 
Comments
hey, time won't wait, life goes by, every day's a brand new sky
first...
Know what's great about being laid-off (at least until the money runs out)? Boxers and t-shirts. That's it, except when the Chinese or groceries are delivered, when I throw on pj pants.
As to the substance of the article, I agree: Breasts, scrotums, penises, and montes pubis should be concealed.
#3-- i disagree. let it all hang looooooose !!
I take it that ripping out a slave boy's chest plug and buggering him while he dies does not meet fashion standards in the Seventh Circuit?
~Baron H.
To all the Ladies in Biglaw, especially the Summers:
Hammertoes. Hammer Hammer Hammertoes. I want to see your Hammertoes. Let me see your Hammertoes. Hammer Hammer Hammertoes. I love your Hammertoes. Hammertoes.
if you're hot, don't hide it - if you're ugly, everyone already knows it, so don't give us a better view - that is all...
I wonder what the correlation between those who think they have a right to criticize others clothing is with those who feel African Americans do not "look like lawyers"?
My guess is pretty high but what do I know?
Perhaps the best attire for all associates (whether male or female) are stillsuits. That way, associates can crap and pee without having to leave the desk and, best of all, their waste can be reprocessed for drinking so there's no lost time with coffee breaks or whatever else.
- Paul A.
"I wonder what the correlation between those who think they have a right to criticize others clothing is with those who feel African Americans do not "look like lawyers"?"
WTF?
10, I think the argument is that a lot of the clothing conservatives are also people who harbor antiquated ideas of what a lawyer should look like (i.e., a white male in his 50s).
When I go to court I wear the following:
-mini skirt
-go-go boots
-space helmet
After all, thats what career services said to wear.
-NYU Alum
What the hell is wrong with commenter number 8? What are you talking about? Why would there be a relationship between thinking women shouldn't dress provocatively in court and racism? Bizarre...
8 here. I consider anyone who seeks to uphold standards of any kind a racist. It allows me to complain and get attention and scapegoat others for my failures. Sorry if it is annoying but that is just how I choose to live.
13,
A lot of 8's point is in defining what counts as "dressing provocatively." If you're sexist, you can mentally contort anything someone's wearing into them dressing like a slut. And 8 is asserting racists are ld more likely to be sexist.
I guess bib overalls without a shirt would be out of the question for men, but not for women. What's wrong with letting folks wear what they want. Many judges are totally full of shit anyway. Many of them are losers, who couldn't hack it in private practice, so they gave some money to the right political type in exchange for a seat on the bench. Some of them fuck their clerks in chambers before going into court. Some take money from litigants. Some have politcal and social agendas that dictate everything they do in court. So, what's wrong with letting your tits hang out in court for all to see, even if the men have bulges in their pants. Everyone takes this way too seriously. The legal profession long ago lost the respect of most normal citizens. They can see through lawyers, regardless of what they're wearing.
8 is correct.
The attitude that there is some "objective" clothing standard to uphold correalates (in my experience) strongly with racism, believing that Catholics are "workers" to be abused, and assorted other ridiculous - yet oddly prevalent - beliefs.
8 here. 17's comment about "correlation" reveals an objectivist, rationalist approach common to the Eurocentrist. Please aplogize for being a racist douche.
god, i wish some of the summers at my firm would ignore this advice.
-- creepy mid-level
Although some here are attempting (and failing) to make a joke of this, there really is a problem: those who criticize the style choices of other lawyers are potentially also racist scum.
Dont fucking worry about what others are wearing, and try to focus on the legal arguments.
SluTTTs
HarloTTTs
I've got to hand it to 6, for being an awesome foot-fetishist. You can suck on my hammertoes all you want.
~V50 Summer Associate
17 (and 8),
Correlation (spelled correctly), does not imply causation. God, I wish lawyers would study something other then English in undergrad. Living in a warm, humid climate in the U.S. also correlates with racism. Guess why.
Women who get their panties in a bunch over this are no different then a Richard Simmon's who gets hysterical because he can't where his short shorts into the court room. Most men don't have this problem and aren't tempted to expose their hairy chest or ripped legs to the judge.
Ladies, if you are tempted to flaunt it... keep your beautiful (but distracting) body parts clothed when we do Justice in court. When we're doing other things, perhaps back at the bar after the hearing, flaunt it then if you must.
I previously expressed my opinion on what appropriate office attire is for men. As for women, these are the golden rules for professional dress:
1) Never wear skirts that exposes skin above your knees;
2) Ankle bracelets are prohibitted (the firm does not need to know that are available);
3) No ponytails (you are not at home and this is not a gym);
4) Two to Three inch pumps are suitable. Absolutely no sandals, clear shoes or open toe shoes as I find most female attorneys have unsightly feet (e.g., hammerhead toes, second toe awkwardly longer than the big toe, etc.);
5) No heavy makeup (e.g., eye shadow, mascara, lipstick). We are a law firm and you are certainly not model material because if you were, you would be at Vogue photo shoot and not suffering the wrath of my types;
6) Wear stockings (nude or black, absolutely no other colors or fashionable patterns). I do not want to see bare legs that expose your shaving cuts or hairs. Refrain from the victoria secrets thigh highs collection (you are not a leg model either);
7) Leave your gym or yoga attire in your car or at home. Never come to the office wearing anything that is suitable for a gym or yoga studio;
8) Always wear a bra. I don't care how firm you believe your breasts are, they will sag (exception is the three month post--op breast enhancement job);
9) If you are an older women and want to look younger, invest in restilyn or botox to get rid of those wrinkles and crow's feet;
10) No hair coloring or streaks. It makes you look like a cheap hooker;
11) Keep your hands nicely manicured. I don't want to see your cannibalistic tendencies that are exposed by your raw chewed fingertips;
12) Do not wear couture or anything from bebe or forever 21 to the office. You are neither hip nor are you 21;
13)Straigthen your hair if it is uncontrollably curly. You don't need to stand out as a sideshow if your hair blocks my view;
14) One pair of earrings at the most. No other piercings are permitted;
15) Do not wear anything (e.g. white blouse, etc.) that will expose tattoos on your body. The firm is not interested in your lack of moral fiber or your sexual promiscuity; and,
16) Only and only if you are a 10 (and I have only seen eight 10s in my 42 year legal career), the above rules do not apply to you. If you have to wonder whether you are a 10, I regret to inform you that you are not a 10 and you are to adhere to the first 15 rules of this list.
Lastly, if you are a female summer associate that is expected to be at work on Monday, Memorial Day, the rules mentioned herein cannot be compromised. No flip flops or bikinis underneath your suits as there will be no early dismissal. If you break any of the first 15 rules, you will be no offered.
wear. oh, and Simmons. shit.
I have yet to meet a female lawyer who wasn't a cock-hungry whore, so who cares what they dress like? You could put them in full-length bodysuits and they'd still be on their knees with a fist full of man meat after a couple martinis.
If you want to be treated like a professional, then dress like a professional.
Just had a court hearing where the 50'ish attorney for the other side was awkwardly tottering around in high heels, and wearing a too-tight and too-short dress. Drag queens walk and look better than she did, alas.
I like women's boobs and think it is very appropriate for them to show it off.
Unless I can see a woman's pussy, I ain't deciding in her favor.
-HORNY JUDGE.
And this is why I love being a public interest attorney... yeah, maybe I don't make 6 figures, but I can come to the office in flip flops, jeans and a t-shirt, and only have to throw on a suit when I'm going to court. Plus I still have a job... and job security.
31 - when you list as one of the "perks" of your job what you can wear, you are doing the wrong thing.
Sometimes when I depose the other side's clients or witnesses, I dress down, and in summer I even wear shorts-- just to fuck with their perceptions and see how they react.
It's simple really, if the judges have to get past your outfit (whether miniskirt or weird tie) to concentrate on your argument, you have failed in your duty. Your duty is to represent your client, not make a fashion statement. You want the judges to remember what a good lawyer you are, not how big your breasts are, or what bad taste in ties you have.
Dressing professionally is part of the deal. You don't want to do it, go find another damn job.
Did Latham Madoff its first years or did Madoff Latham its investors. There are scary parallels between the two.
For instance, Latham held it self out as a collegial, not-about-to-collapse kind of firm to lure in students. It provided repeated assurances once they started, only to pull a madoff and layoff more than half the first years in NY alone.
Latham and Madoff shared a building for so many years so it's no surprise that the two would learn from each other.
25 is actually really good advice.
24, had you studied English, you would have learned when to use "then" and when to us "than."
If I remember my crossword puzzle clues, a gar is a fish. So the judge's name is Goldfish. And a very pervy goldfish at that.
So when these two judges take a "recess," are they really going to beat the meat after staring at boobies and legs instead of paying attention to the case?
Why is PE's picture different? Did the real owner of the prior picture assert a copyright claim against him?
An excerpt from Latham's wiki:
Latham has recently been in the news for its financial difficulties, prompting employee layoffs for which it has been sharply criticized. Given Latham's heavy reliance on transactional work for its revenues, it saw major declines in 2008. In 2008, revenue fell by $100,000,000, approximately 4%.[9] Profits per partner fell by 21%.[10]
This prompted management to freeze associate salaries in December 2008, a move designed to prevent the need for layoffs.[11] But on February 27, 2009, Latham engaged in significant layoffs, announcing that it was laying off 190 associates, and 250 staff members.[12] This is one of the largest layoffs by any major law firm in history.
The February layoffs were particularly focused on first year associates in the New York office, where Latham laid-off more than half the first year class. From all class years, Latham New York laid-off 90 associates in February. Combined with the January layoffs in New York, a total of 130 associates were cut from the New York office in 2009. That number represents 45% of associates in New York. This move followed a "no layoffs" promise in 2008.[13]
Additionally, Latham made Vault surveys due on February 26, 2009, the day before the February 27, 2009 mass layoffs, in what some have criticized as an attempt to prevent the enormous layoffs from influencing their Vault ranking.
Are you aware of the fact that Latham made vault surveys due the day BEFORE the mass layoffs?
25 is sound advice.
40 - Not a copyright claim, but I think it was some sort promissory estoppel claim.
35 - you fucking idiot, the answer is neither. Whereas Madoff stole money, Latham gave its fired employees 6 months severance, something NO other law firm has come near matching. I am so sick of these fucking Latham trolls - no wonder Latham fired you, asshole.
Canada is the new black. American courts should adopt our courtroom attire. Counsel must appear before Canadian courts in full court apparel, which consists of:
- black shoes
- black or dark grey socks or black, dark grey or natural hose
- black, dark grey or dark grey striped trousers or skirt
- black gown vest
- black gown
- white shirt with stiff wing collar and white tabs
Problem solved.
25 - is good advice for attorneys sure. But secretaries can slut it up a little right?
B-b-b-but without loud ties how will I express my creative individualism?
~ millennial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q7mjoxHzm4&feature=related
40 -- you are right. I read Section 90 of the Restatement again and it applies exactly to the situtation involving PE's picture. Sorry I missed that.
45, Latham stole our other opportunities. The dozens and dozens of first years could have gone elsewhere. Most places have NOT fired first years, and definitely not to the same extent as Latham. Latham laid off 33 first years in NY alone.
I don't give a fuck about the shitty severance. 6 months of pay does not compensate for a fucked career, and we all know getting laid off as a first year fucks the shit out of your career.
I work at a midsize firm and cannot imagine being Lathamed.
Most Latham first year associates will not recover from this blow.
good question 35. It's really hard to say which phrase is more appropriate, but either way, I can't really see a difference between Latham and Madoff.
I guess that's why Latham and Madoff room together at the Lipstick building.
50 - As a result of your missing that, you probably have a claim against your law school and/or the ABA assuming you've already graduated, passed the bar and been licensed.
25 is clearly written by a man with no fashion sense. For example, skirt suits a few inches above the knee are fine (hard to find any that hit knee length in some seasons), miniskirts are not. A neat well-styled low ponytail is fine, a high messy one is not. Open toed heels are fine for everything except court as long as you have nice looking feet and a pedicure. Same with bare legs: if they look good, fine; if not, cover them up. Eye shadow, mascara, etc., are good things assuming you're not wearing stage makeup. A good highlighting job is a must. Etc.
Wait, so Latham NY's OMP Dave Gordon and Bernie Madoff have been rubbing elbows at the lipstick building all these years?
55 -- I read Section 90 of the Restatement (Second) for a third time. You are soooo right. It applies exactly to a suit against the law school. But just in case that does not work out, would I have a promissory estoppel claim based on your post??
Are any summer associates besides me working in the office today?
Women attorneys,
There is no need to “advertise” what you are willing to do for me to rule in your favor. I already know. Everyone knows. Nobody thinks you got where you’re at because of your brain. If I like what I see, you’ll have plenty of opportunity to make your assets available to me. All I ask is a little discretion within the courtroom. I have a reputation, and the court has a decorum, to maintain.
Sincerely,
Illinois Judge
58 - Yes I believe so.
Sartorial stupidity knows no bounds. Who knows what is beneath a judge's robes? It could be a fashion faux pas for all we know.
Of course these district court judges are complaining about ghetto fashion. Everyone knows real lawyers only do appellate work.
51 - Lathan NEVER promised you it would hire for you a specified period of time. Employment at will mean anything to you? Also, Latham never forced you to accept a job with it.
And incidentally, while Latham may have fired many of its first years, it is definitely not the only firm to have done so (it did more a lot more admittedly), and at least it had the balls to be upfront about it (which many, many firms have not been given) and gave a fantastic severance to boot.
-Not 45.
And with that, it's PUSSY FAR TIME, BITCHES!!!
For what it may be worth, I had a reasonably attractive female classmate in law school who wore rather short skirts to interviews. When she sat down, you could see her panties. She didn't get any callback interviews.
If it were up to me, I would have given her a job. I think all reasonably attractive female lawyers should wear skirts of that length. It's attractive but not obscene in any way, as long as they wear nice panties.
I guess the world doesn't agree with me.
As the King of the Trolls, I rule that commenter 8 wins this thread! Generating sincere flames is a must for a successful troll, and 8 manages that with aplomb.
~His Royal Highness, Garthunk II
As the king of not being a douche bag, I rule that commenter 67 loses at life.
66 - read between the lines. She's didn't get any callbacks because she was wearing panties.
56 is clearly written by a woman who considers herself "trendy" and "stylish" and somehow better equipped to make proclamations on such things because she happens to have a vagina (though say that someone is better equipped to do something because he happens to have a penis, and whoaboy!). On the other hand, if she considers her opinions (open-toes shoes, etc.) to be "classic" or "acceptable" office fashion in a business formal lw firm, she's mistaken.
Anyway, there are plenty of us (including some--gasp!--under 40) who know that 25 is right, including, in my experience, most everyone actually making decisions.
To anyone who might be reading this and is still impressionable: Blend in. That's it. Don't get noticed for your tan legs, big boobs, jiggly ass (with obvious thong), etc. Get noticed for your work product and dedication.
--31-year-old
41 -- who wrote Latham's "wiki"? A disgruntled Lathamite? What happened to impartial sources.
41 -- who wrote Latham's "wiki"? A disgruntled Lathamite? What happened to impartial sources.
Guaranteed that 70 is a ugly board. GUARANTEED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqg_ceFM30I&feature=related
74 - That video is the funniest thing I've ever seen. Also you're a racist.
As opposed to how impartial Latham's wiki was when only Latham was writing it.
Speaking of wikipedia edits, can someone with knowledge update the Lipstick Building entry with information on the protest on May 1? It's been out of date for nearly a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_Building
LawShucks anyone? Did "The Week in Layoffs" get laid off?
27- i am cock-hungry- but for my husband's wang...not for any of the cheese dicks w/ whom I work.
BOTTOM LINE; no cleavage in court. Seriously, does this even require a post? Don't dress like you're looking for scrum at work.
This comment is addressed to the insolent poster who authored no. 56.
I do not know you and I do not care to know you. You obviously have no common sense when it comes to looking like a professional that works for a peer firm. Perhaps your suggested fashions are more suited for if you worked for Anna Wintour or a non-peer firm. If you work for me, you are here to make me money while looking the professional part. Leave your "Sex in the City" or "Ally McBeal" visions of grandeur for your easily impressionable friends during the holidays or the few weekends you will have off during your career. I don't care that you spent $600 on a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes, I don't want to see them on my firm's floor. Male associates (1st through 4th years) cannot afford the types of suits I wear and I don't expect them to emulate my style. Stick with basic Brooks Brothers and leave Dolce & Gabbana and Thomas Pink for your simpleton friends and family. As far as I am concerned, you should own 10 shirts, 8 white, 2 light blue. I already addressed the issue with men's attire months ago on ATL so I won't repeat myself. Female associates and partners at my firm must adhere to my professional dress rules. Anyone who doesn't, will be sent home and I may, just may dock the day's pay against your salary. Remember, you are here to work for me, not to meet a bloke for a cheap sexual liaison or your future husband. You already should know fraternizing at the firm is strictly forbidden. Most male associates are hideous looking anyway.
34 is the only rational person on here.
78 - I'm not entirely sure that Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks.
To: Partner Emeritus
From: Anon. Woman Lawyer
Date: May 23, 2009
Re: Your Posts Regarding Women Lawyer's Clothing and Grooming
Partner Emeritus -
I have reviewed your posts regarding the attire of women attorneys at your Firm.
As an initial issue, you are attempting to impose a dress code for women attorneys that is substantially different than that for male attorneys. For example, the directive that women wear pantyhose, but not men, has a disparate impact on female employees. Pantyhose are both expensive and extraordinarily uncomfortable. If those are a required for employment and advancement within your firm, your women employees must be given a uniform allowance.
Second, there is the issue of "curly hair." I would like to respectfully point out that "curly hair" is particularly an issue with Black employees, while it often is not with members of other races. Would you really direct minority employees to straighten their hair to meet your grooming standards? Presumably, you would not - so you should not issue such a directive that would only impact non-Black employees.
Third, under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, you may not dock a salaried employee's pay as punishment for failing to comply with your standards (which are a "uniform") unless you are complying with federal regulations and reimbursing your employees the cost of that "uniform."
Respectfully, it appears that the standards you have outlined are intended not to assist women in your firm from advancing, but rather, to impose a series of arbitrary standards about their appearance, based on your own personal tastes. In the interests of ensuring that you comply with both the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, I urge you to reconsider your position.
Best regards,
Anon.
To: Partner Emeritus
From: Anon. Woman Lawyer
Date: May 23, 2009
Re: Your Posts Regarding Women Lawyer's Clothing and Grooming
Partner Emeritus -
I have reviewed your posts regarding the attire of women attorneys at your Firm.
As an initial issue, you are attempting to impose a dress code for women attorneys that is substantially different than that for male attorneys. For example, the directive that women wear pantyhose, but not men, has a disparate impact on female employees. Pantyhose are both expensive and extraordinarily uncomfortable. If those are a required for employment and advancement within your firm, your women employees must be given a uniform allowance.
Second, there is the issue of "curly hair." I would like to respectfully point out that "curly hair" is particularly an issue with Black employees, while it often is not with members of other races. Would you really direct minority employees to straighten their hair to meet your grooming standards? Presumably, you would not - so you should not issue such a directive that would only impact non-Black employees.
Third, under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, you may not dock a salaried employee's pay as punishment for failing to comply with your standards (which are a "uniform") unless you are complying with federal regulations and reimbursing your employees the cost of that "uniform."
Respectfully, it appears that the standards you have outlined are intended not to assist women in your firm from advancing, but rather, to impose a series of arbitrary standards about their appearance, based on your own personal tastes. In the interests of ensuring that you comply with both the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, I urge you to reconsider your position.
Best regards,
Anon.
First.
Wow I can't decide if, A) 83/84 actually bit on PE's annoying trolling, and therefore is obviously one of the uptight black females who goes through her life allowing herself to feel victimized, or; B) 83/84 is someone who crafted a beautifully witty and comedic response to PE's annoying trolling, and therefore is obviously a law school student with way to much time on his, or her black, or white hands.
86 - I'm guessing A. In fact, I'd bet my severance on it.
In the event that 83/84 is serious: grow up. Unwritten rules exist, and your law school knowledge of employment law isn't going to change anything. And how about this: I'll pay for your pantyhose if you pay for my socks, ties, and belts. Deal?
87 - even ebay makes the purchase of used pantyhose illegal, you sick bastard.
it is clear that believing someone "just doesn't LOOK like an attorney" correlates DIRECTLY with racism. multiple studies that i have performed have proven this beyond any reasonable doubt.
88 - Is the used pantyhose thing supposed to be as trolly as the second part, or no? I don't see anything in 87 about used pantyhose.
In any event, while eBay could "prohibit" the sale of used pantyhose; it certainly could not make it "illegal." Let me guess, you're both a T4 1L _and_ a shitty troll? Drop out and take any GS-7 job you can find.
(T4 = Tier 4, not HYSC.)
20 years ago the sentiment was "wear lipstick if you want to get ahead" (PriceWaterhouse). 10 years ago it was "dress like a man if you want to be taken seriously". Now we're confused b/c we were sick of abandoning all sense of femininity (It's not like I want to give birth or woo men at the office, i'd just like to feel like I'm my gender, thanks). Clearly there's attire that is inappropriate at the office and in the courtroom. I guess it's the in between wardrobe issues that people have problems with? It's not like dressing yourself is rocket science, so this is a bit confusing all around.
Stop biting on PE, he's a 2L somewhere and barely feigns an old school partner.
To all the Ladies in Biglaw, especially the Summers:
Hammertoes. Hammer Hammer Hammertoes. I want to see your Hammertoes. Let me see your Hammertoes. Hammer Hammer Hammertoes. I love your Hammertoes. Hammertoes.
Partner Emeritus would not tolerate male employees wearing pantyhose in the workplace.
Make love to me Dave Gordon (Latham NY layoff strategist)
-73 year old woman in wheel chair
89 is teh rigor!!!
teh rigor will serve you well sonnnnnnnn
Let's have a referendum on whether Partner Emeritus should return to using his prior picture. The new picture diminishes his credibility.
89 - yrfuckingstupidwgi
Does anyone know whether LawShucks has teamed up with anyone?
"Although some here are attempting (and failing) to make a joke of this, there really is a problem: those who criticize the style choices of other lawyers are potentially also racist scum.
Dont fucking worry about what others are wearing, and try to focus on the legal arguments."
LOL good one #20. "Legal arguments" - I love it.
I think the rules should be age-specific, and hotness-specific. Under no circumstances should a woman wear track suits to court, but a hot 28 yr old with great legs? Sure, wear a slightly shorter skirt, and if you have a great chest, maybe a lower cut blouse. Give the "50 year old white males" some joy in their days besides having to look at their old ass wives. If you're over 35, please cover up as much as possible. Nobody wants to see your shit.
Again - hot females under 35 - dress sexy within reason.
Everyone else - cover it all up.
91: I agree. Not sure why this is so difficult. My experience is that dressing in a feminine and professional manner serves women well both in court and at the office. Look sharp. It's really not that hard.
Those who espouse these ridiculous rigid rules are merely looking for something to criticize, especially in women. On the other hand, women without any understanding for the boundaries really baffle me as well.
If you can't ever recall another woman at your firm wearing a skirt comparable to yours, despite their proximity in age, your skirt is probably too short. Try to fit in with the culture of your office and you'll likely be safe. Common sense, people.
83/84 - Those are some complex concepts and awfully big words for someone... well you know... like you.
I remember when PE was actually funny....now I am just annoyed by his posts. Shouldn't you be taking finals or something?
93 - Yes he would. He's funny like that.
102 - Did you see 83 & 84? That was so funny it almost made me hate PE a little less. Almost.
8 for most retarded comment ever.
Whiny race-baiter.
Before I address comments 83 & 84, let me clarify the change of my photo. I value my identity as most assuredly my sanity at the firm would be called into question by not only participating in this forum, but by actually thinking that I can knock some sense into the current generation of lawyers (those that read the comments on ATL).
The current picture posted is in fact a picture of me taken in 1989. The pixels have been slightly blurred to protect my anonimity. The prior picture was the source of much confusion as I explained previously, my persona was brought to life in the big screen in the 1991 film "Regarding Henry" (aptly portrayed by Donald Moffat). Mr. Moffat is a terrific actor who uses the method acting system of understanding and getting into character. He was my shadow for six weeks in 1989, mimicking everything from my gesticular motions to facial expressions. Moreover, Mr. Moffat has the same facial bone structure that I do (square jaw alpha male); hence, the reason for much confusion (i.e., striking resemblance). I have no problem posting the prior photo, however, a few impudent curs have misappropriated the prior photo and created puerile characters in an attempt to mock me. Let them waste their miserable lives impersonating someone they dreamed of being but can never be.
Now, with relation to post nos. 83 & 84, let me retort in a manner in which you can understand. Judging by your post, you are probably an African American woman. You are probably young and have heard of the hip hop "phenomenon." My response to you is simply the lyrics to NAS's "Hate Me Now." Go read them. By the way, I hope you never make an appearance before the NLRB as you will be laughed out of the building.
Differential dress code standards may violate Title VII, as No. 83 suggested, but there needs to be specific proof that the burden is greater on women than men.
Look at the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Jesperson v. Harrah's, 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) which suggested that there could be such a burden, but found that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence:
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1139266
. . . The three-judge panel affirmed, but on somewhat different grounds. Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.2004). The panel majority held that Jespersen, on this record, failed to show that the appearance policy imposed a greater burden on women than on men. Id. at 1081-82. It pointed to the lack of any affidavit in this record to support a claim that the burdens of the policy fell unequally on men and women. Accordingly, the panel did not agree with the district court that grooming policies could never discriminate as a matter of law. On the basis of Nichols and Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), the panel also held that Price Waterhouse could apply to grooming or appearance standards only if the policy amounted to sexual harassment, which would require a showing that the employee suffered harassment for failure to conform to commonly-accepted gender stereotypes. Id. at 1082-83. The dissent would have denied summary judgment on both theories. Id. at 1083-88.
We agree with the district court and the panel majority that on this record, Jespersen has failed to present evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment on her claim that the policy imposes an unequal burden on women. With respect to sex stereotyping, we hold that appearance standards, including makeup requirements, may well be the subject of a Title VII claim for sexual stereotyping, but that on this record Jespersen has failed to create any triable issue of fact that the challenged policy was part of a policy motivated by sex stereotyping. We therefore affirm. . . .
107 - Way to tern this into a respectful intelligent discussion, jerk.
Retired partner here: Over the past 24 hours, I've received 5 e-mails about the underlying story regarding appropriate dress for court. They were from former partners, plus a couple wives of former partners. This seems to have gained a lot of interest. Personally, I think folks have a consitutional right to appear naked in court. The judge has a job, the lawyers have a job, and the jury has a job. If a trial attorney wants to waste his/her shot at winning by going naked or inappropriately dressed, then that's their right to do so.
Has Latham ever laid off first year associates?
110, yes
33, or a majority of their first years in the NY office
1/3 of the first year class in LA.
and then some throughout the other offices.
the partners couldn't care less about what they've done to these peoples' careers. they just shrug at the thought of destroying these 20 somethings.
I think we're all missing the bigger news story here: the Illinois courts have apparently begun letting women in the courtroom - as ATTORNEYS, no less. Oy. Soon we'll hear that they're allowed to vote and attend college.
111 - That's very interesting, its the first I've heard about Latham Laying off first years.
Oh and 111, the partners cared enough to give the laid off associates 6 months severance, when they didn't need to give them more than 3 months, which is market...
111, the partners didn't care, they just knew they needed to pay enough to preempt a bunch of law suits. they knew they were firing a whole lot of people without any explanation or rationale for their decisions. the first years had nothing in the way of written reviews.
114, the partners didn't care, they just knew they needed to pay enough to preempt a bunch of law suits. they knew they were firing a whole lot of people without any explanation or rationale for their decisions. the first years had nothing in the way of written reviews.
111 - and right after laying off the poor first years, the partners went on an exclusive, all expenses paid retreat to Alaska where they were killing baby seals on the ice.
In retrospect, many first years considered themselves lucky...
117, please. the first years could easily overpower some frail old partners.
The rumor I heard was that Latham only laid off the associates, 1st years primarily, that they knew were such betas that they could never be anything other than BigLaw cogs and would never have the balls to start up their own SmallLaw practices to challenge the BigLaw model.
Sounds like they probably made the right decision.
The rumor I heard was that Latham only laid off the associates, 1st years primarily, that they knew were such betas that they could never be anything other than BigLaw cogs and would never have the balls to start up their own SmallLaw practices to challenge the BigLaw model.
Sounds like they probably made the right decision.
116 - take your TTT 1L "wisdom" and go impress some fat high-school chicks. Preempt a bunch of lawsuits?? Yo moron, ever heard of at-will employment? Don't you if you're just that fucking dumb or that fucking entitled that you think you can sue companies that fire your retarded ass. Which is it douchebag?
can we get a post that discloses what biglaw firms drug test summer associates and first years?
Ah, posting both here and on the ABA Journal site...
As some (should be all!) seem to recognize, there's a difference between what one may or should have the right to do as a private individual (however stupid) and what one is obligated to do as an attorney given your duty to your clients.
If a private citizen wants to go to court e.g. wearing a bikini or t-shirt with a swastika, he or she may (and should, in my view in most contexts so long as it's nothing that would be illegal in public generally like total nudity) have the right to do so (possible restrictions if relevant to a fair trial e.g. the accused is wearing a KKK outfit or something to intimidate a witness).
It is certainly not advisable to do so, but I agree there should be an expressive right as there would be in public generally. Less extreme, an individual may choose to wear a sweatshirt and sweatpants, ripped jeans, super short skirts, whatever.
As an attorney, however, one would if minimally competent (1) advise one's clients to dress a certain way when appearing in court; and (2) dress a certain way yourself when appearing before a judge and jury BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DUTY TO YOUR CLIENT THAT IS NOT MET IF YOU ANNOY THE JUDGE AND JURY BY YOUR CHOICE OF ATTIRE. Indeed, my recollection (I haven't practiced criminal law) is that lawyers make an effort to get their jailed clients who are appearing in court an opportunity to change into e.g. a suit rather than showing up in prison garb, because how they're dressed makes a difference to perceptions.
Contrariwise, there have been some situations in which as I recall attorneys have had restrictions on wearing certain pins or whatever as being improper attempts to influence the jury (I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just pointing out it happens).
Having a problem with an attorney because of his or her height, or weight, or race, or bust size, or whatever, is objectionable. Having a problem because an attorney wears religiously-mandated (or encouraged) garb is objectionable. But having a problem because an attorney chooses to assert his or her "right" to dress however he or she wants, is not objectionable. I once saw a (small claims court) judge object to a lawyer who showed up in court wearing a short-sleeved casual shirt, no tie, and shorts (and it was not hot weather or anything like that, I was wearing a suit comfortably). I agreed with her. Although she merely made her displeasure known, nothing else, don't tell me that lawyer was adequately serving his client. Unless of course you think the (white) judge was being racist because the lawyer dressed that way was black?!
121, ever hear of discrimination?
124 - where is the slightest suggestion (or proof) that Latham fired associates based on discriminatory practices???
125, look at who was affected
126 and who was that and what characteristics did they have in common except for their status as first-year associates in slow practice groups?
127 - you know you can't fire black people without it somehow being "racist." get with the post-1965 program of white guilt and black exploitation thereof.
128 - them's fighting words nigga!
Another thread hijacked by the Latham haters...
Here's a story that should make the laid off Lathamites feel better:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-mon-burns-column-jobs-may25,0,3420969.column
127
here's just one example of possible. 4 first years in the NY office failed the bar. two were minorities, one was white but from another country, and another was a white american male. out of the four, the only bar failer who didn't get laid off was the white american male.
now, do you see why Latham wouldn't want to have to explain that shit in court? and this is just one example.
132 - I thought you same annoying former Lathams said that they drew names out of a hat to decided who to lay off. How do you prove discrimination on that?
133, simple: See 128.
133 when did i ever say they drew names out of a hat? i simply said most first years had no meaningful written reviews. now, explain to me why latham laid off the minority and foreign bar failers, but not the white male bar failer. i'm waiting.
Oh good lord... how many associates were laid off from Latham? 190? How many would have ever made partner? Maybe 5 of those 190? Get a life. It wasn't going to work out anyway. You are just getting an early start on the real world.
There are far more young attorneys that the market can support. Most of those slots aren't being filled by BigLaw.
If you are ambitious enough you can do very well, but if you spend your 6 month severance feeling sorry for yourself, you have an uphill battle.
Latham first year associate reviews literally only said "welcome to the firm." i would hate to be latham trying to explain the disparate impact using those. lulz.
racism and racists suck.
go to hell, all you dress code loving swine!!!!!!!!
135 - Maybe not you, but one of the others that manages to post something about Latham on every thread said that they drew names, and the peoples who's names were drawn were fired.
Maybe you guys should get your story straight before you file that suit...
139, my point, which you seem to have forgotten, is that latham paid the severance not because they cared, but because it was cheaper than defending against a bunch of lawsuits. the bar failure story was just one of many.
140 - And the premise on which you claim the "one of many" possible law suits could succeed appears to be questionable. You seem to have forgotten not to be an idiot.
Ok, but I wear thigh-highs in the summer b/c it is cooler, and then thongs to avoid having a huge panty line. What's the diff?
142 - there is NEVER anything wrong with a girl wearing a thong UNLESS she's ugly.
Can somebody please tell me what business casual is for men? Or at least provide me a link to an article that does...
144 = Trousers with shirt (NOT t-shirt) tucked in and dress shoes. No tie.
Latham is a meritocracy? How come the only bar failer in NY who didn't get laid off was a retired partner's son? Someone who passed the bar could have survived.
oh yeah... titillating lawyer attires with the glasses sexy corporate attire and a whip... mmmm ( dreaming ) come on judge it makes it worth going in the court...
Charles
Web CMS | Cleardocs
The appearance of the judge and of the courtroom is completely inappropriate, and may violate the Establishment Clause.
Briefly reviewed here:
http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2009/01/indicia-of-church-origin-of-common-law.html
142 - I am a man who happens to hate thongs. Boyshorts all the way.
144 - 145 is correct. Maybe bring a jacket at first to be sure you're not out of place (some of the old dudes take "business casual" to mean "1970's Saturday-at-the-office wear").
146 - Um, that's life. I have no knowledge of the situation, but the only reason he may have gotten the offer in the first place was of that connection. Even if that's not the case here, there are plenty of people getting ahead because of who they are. Again, it's life.
149. and should we say "hey, that's life" to racism, sexism, and anti-gay discrimination also? i can't say i know why this guy got his offer or kept his job after failing the bar. but if it's because of who his dad is, then it is wrong. nepotism is no better than any other form of discrimination. i believe that sometime in the not-too-distant future nepotism will be illegal.
150 - Hello, hyperbole!
144/145--first meeting, always wear a jacket unless you are in Silicon Valley--and there it depends. You can always take the jacket off if it is out of place. Trousers (preferably light weight wool), dress shirt, no tie, jacket, belt, dress shoes and socks. Pretty simple. Go to a place that sells at least decent suits (Brooks Brothers, Nordstroms) or a place that sells nice suits. Tell the sales person you want business casual. Bring credit card.
151, there was a time when people thought it was hyperbole to make sex discrimination illegal. a southern senator added it to an anti-race discrimination bill with the intent of killing it. now, it just seems like a no brainer.
fact is, nepotism is bad for the economy because less qualified people take jobs they don't deserve. it also encourages laziness among these people, and is demoralizing to the victims of nepotism.
153 is correct. nepotism lead to the last bush president, and we can all agree that this cokeheaded piece of shit was a disaster for one and all.
am i right?
Yes 131 ==> that article is better than hope alone:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-mon-burns-column-jobs-may25,0,3420969.column
154, yes, you are right. bush was a legacy EVERYTHING and he completely fucked our country because like most legacies he's a lazy, incompetent idiot.
the cream should rise from each generation. who your daddy is should have nothing to do with your success.
I believe that the entire issue about courtroom attire can be resolved by consulting Section 90 of the Restatement. It could not be more on point.
157- slight correction. Be sure to look at Restatement SECOND. Restatement (First) appears to be irrelevant to this.
154 - You're completely wrong. And an idiot. Nepotism is when someone gives you a job because of who your daddy is, not when someone is elected to public office by tens of millions of people.
159, but for Bush's daddy, Bush never would have been president. Bush is a legacy.
daddy got bush into elite schools, jobs, and also connected him to his inner business and political circle. without these things bush would be sleeping it off in a gutter somewhere.
107,
Your reading of Jesperson lacks nuance. In Jesperson, the plaintiff failed to present any evidece of the differential cost of makeup and hair-care products required for women as opposed to the cost of grooming standards for me. The plaintiff thought the court would take it as a given, because if you read the facts of the case, it is effing obvious that the amount of makeup that their "makeover" consultant required of them was buckets and buckets, but the court refused to make that inference. If Jesperson had submitted a price list for the products she was required to wear, and submitted a similar pricelist for products men needed to meet the appearance standard, her ass would have WON.
I never realized that being GM of the Texas Rangers was an elite job until you just said so. Thanks! While I'm sure the name recognition helped W. become governor and president, he still had to convince millions of voters to elect him, and they didn't do that just because of his last name. Maybe you're too young to remember, but Bush was a one-term president who lost because he infuriated the Republicans (google "Ross Perot") and is not remembered as being particularly successful.
Since W. and John Kerry are distant relatives, if Kerry had won, would you still be screaming "nepotism"? I think not. My guess (and I'm a Democrat) is that you're just some idiot knee-jerk liberal who thinks all Repubs are evil and who spouts off whatever he just read on the Daily Kos. Try thinking for yourself once in a while. It can be liberating.
Clients pay Biglaw attorneys a ton of money. Clients expect their lawyers to appear professional in court. This whole "I can wear whatever I want to court" discussion is silly. As a client, if I hire a lawyer, pay $400+ per junior associate hour for his/her time, I expect the associate to look professional on the rare times they go to court. You can wear whatever your firm allows outside of court and I rarely meet with my counsel in person so I really do not care, but if your attire even slightly influences a jury or judge against my case or you look less than professional, I will fire your firm.
Junior and mid-level associates are generally document review and research minions on litigation anyway. I hire partners who litigate cases and the partners are expected to have quality associates. Associates can cost a firm business but never win it. You don't matter as much as you think you do. How many litigation associates who have been fired in the past year ever cost their firm a dollar of business? Very, very few.
142 totally agree
149 you happen to hate thongs doesn't mean we have to stop wearing them
If a judge comments on your attire, beyond polite drivel like "nice tie", you chose the wrong clothes.
this fashion stuff is ridiculous. it's women doing it to other women, of course. men lawyers are far more likely to dress like slobs anyway.
It's tacky. Don't dress like a ho in court. It may work to your benefit for horny partners and clients, but it probably won't work in federal court, and if it works in state court, you might have a stalker on your hands.
Short skirts in court are akin to muscle shirts. Simply inappropriate and trashy. It shows insecurity.
I am a dude, and wear buttless chaps to work.
Those of us brave enough to stand up to the racists and sexists are the modern day von Stauffenbergs - brave men and women fighting against the evil doers.
Partner Emeritus' picture not only looks familiar (it is Donald Moffat, but circa 1990), his character resonates. It took me a while, but I found it: PE is Ignatius J. Riley. We're not at John Kennedy Toole's level here, but it is a noteworthy effort to recast Ignatius in a new setting, 50 years later.
I prefer to match my shirt/pocket square to the tint of my sunglasses and the color of the car that I am driving/being driven in to the office on any particular day.
I expect nothing less from others.
I have appeared before male judges who are huge boob starers. I am in a suit and am not anywhere near a 10. Still they stare. So how much of this is blamed on the woman versus the man? And why do we have to change our attire but guys don't have to change their behavior. It is kinda like a thief blaming a shop owner for having something he wants to steal.
I love checking counsel's cankles.
153, replace "nepotism" with affirmative action and your statement would be more applicable 999 out of 1,000 times.
173: Agreed. Hey, your Honor, why don't you stop being such a dirtbag and I'll stop being...female. And as for being "distracted", isn't it a judge's job not to be distracted? I mean, how boring is your case load and how short is your attention span if you're distracted by a slightly short skirt? I thought federal court was supposed to be the intellectual be-all-end-all.
I also think the whole too-slutty-for-court thing is a red herring. I've seen people not formal enough for court and dressed very unfashionably, but I've actually never seen a woman dressed too provocatively - and I'm pretty critical of that kind of thing.
Dress like a lawyer and not as if you are either going to the grocery store or going to a club and you will be fine. I think what the judge was referring to is lawyers who show up wearing casual clothes with a scarf thrown on to dress it up. Men can get away with always wearing a suit and tie, why can't we expect the same from women? It's called a suit, they sell them, it is not that complicated. And if you show up in court showing cleavage or knee, shame on you.
It's simple...
Men: keep it in your pants.
Women: if you can order a drink in it, it's probably not appropriate for work/court.
177 - you're so male-normative...or something
*rolls eyes*
83/84 - Hmm, a piece of clothing that is mandated for one sex, is expensive and uncomfortable. Sounds like a necktie!! Being a professional includes some responsibilities that are not cheap or fun. Get over it.
Are these judges sex offenders who can't control their boners? Unless you've never seen tits before, concentrate on deciding the case you're being paid to resolve.
173: EXACTLY.
Remember this when judges tell you they work too hard and need big raises.
Most have too much time on their hands: we now have to DRESS for them too--oh! and AVOID dressing how the world dresses. Because-instead of doing their job, they're pondering the clothes of the lawyers,
The judges need MORE work and less free time!
Sometimes I put a pair of socks in my boxers if I'm arguing in front of a female judge. Using sex to get ahead works both ways.