Old Lady Lawyer: Undress for Success?

Do clothes make the man or woman lawyer?

A bunch of us old lady lawyers get together for lunch from time to time, and yes, we may be old, but not addled, so we can figure out how to divide a lunch check without using fingers and/or toes. One of us has been practicing for almost fifty years, while the rest of us have at least thirty years. Another one of us ditched the practice of law some years ago and is now a well-known and highly respected legal recruiter.

I solicit column ideas from everyone, and then shamelessly rip them off, so I asked my lunch companions for any suggestion. The recruiter suggested this particular topic, and I was showered with various horror stories.

Way back, in dinosaur days, when we all started practicing and/or were newly in practice, specifically the 1980s (in the days before cell phones, Facebook, Instagram, Linked In, and the like) there was a book called Dress for Success, which offered tips on how professional women should dress. Suits (usually gray, black, or navy), button down shirts and little ribbon string ties or ties that looked like the ties my then-husband wore. Silk blouses with floppy ties, stick pins on lapels, panty hose (sigh) and heels. A leather briefcase and a leather card case completed the ensemble. Any deviation from that dress code was considered unprofessional and that we couldn’t be taken seriously, either by our male clients, opposing counsel, or the court, if we didn’t dress the part. As a friend of mine said at the luncheon, we looked like male clones, and so we did.

Fast forward to 2015 or 2016 if you don’t get around to reading this until the New Year. Times have certainly changed in terms of dress. My recruiter friend listed just a couple of qualities that she has found in today’s candidates and she isn’t very happy about them. Most of them apply equally to both male and female candidates; I think you’re smart enough to suss out the ones that don’t:

  • Spaghetti straps
  • Crazy jewelry
  • Visible tattoos
  • Visible piercings
  • Hair colors not found in nature
  • Toe cleavage, e.g. open-toed shoes
  • Other kinds of cleavage (I don’t think I need to draw a picture here or do I?)

The recruiter said that at some places, cleavage is the new power tie. Really?

Granted times have changed and in many ways, good ways. Perhaps, if you’re interviewing at an internet company, a dot com company, a start-up, or any place where casual dress takes on a different meaning than at other places, then all or any one of these items may be okay. However, for traditional law firms or corporate law departments, dress for success still does not equate with undress for success.

Sponsored

I can remember in the 1990s (yes, my long-term memory is fine, as is my short-term, thank you) when my corporate client decided that staff could dress in “business casual,” but only on Fridays. That was a really big deal. Men ditched their ties, so on Fridays; it was blazers, shirts (no tees), slacks, and no ties for the men; sweaters or blouses and pants for the women. Eventually, business casual Fridays morphed into business casual every day in many places.

The issue then becomes one of how to be taken seriously, and that’s an issue not just for women but men as well. How does the client perceive the dress? If the client is dressed in jeans and a hoodie, then it may be wise to dress similarly. The wrong attire can send the wrong message, especially when it’s a prospective or new client.

One of the biggest changes over the years has been the ability of women to wear pants suits to court. For many years, there was an unwritten (although definitely spoken) rule that women should wear suits (e.g. jackets and skirts) to court. Another one of my lunch colleagues recalled a male judge many years ago chastising a woman lawyer who had the apparent audacity to appear in front of him in a pants suit. After her case had been heard, the judge advised her not to appear in his court again wearing pants. So, should men have worn skirts? I think not.

Way back in 1994, then California Governor Pete Wilson signed into law a bill that prohibited employers from preventing women from wearing pants to work. Women were legislatively given permission to swap skirts for pants. Imagine that. However, old traditions die hard and some old lady lawyers still wear skirts to court. Others have ventured into the brave new world and wear pants suits to court. Men still dress in the obligatory suits and ties.

What do the changes in dress codes have to say about our ability to be good lawyers? IMHO, nada, zip, zilch. I think you can be just as good a lawyer in jeans as you can be in a thousand dollar suit. Granted that the judicial system requires some measure of dignity and appropriate dress is one way to accord that dignity, but outside the courtroom, as long as your client is okay with it, then what should it matter? If you’re interviewing for a gig, consider the points my legal recruiter friend made. Others would say that dressing to impress is also an important part of the lawyer mystique, so to speak. It all depends on whom you’re trying to impress and why and your individual comfort level.

Sponsored

In certain industries, non-standard lawyer dress may be seen as individual, totemic, and/or entrepreneurial. What makes a lawyer is the ability to listen to the client’s needs, give thoughtful, responsive advice, and represent that client as best as possible. Do clothes make the man or woman lawyer? I don’t think so.


Jill Switzer is closing in on 40 (not a typo) years as a active member of the State Bar of California. Yes, folks, California, that state west of the Sierra Nevada, which everyone likes to diss. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see old lawyers, young lawyers, and those in-between interact — it’s not always pretty. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.