Clothing

Last week, we asked readers to submit possible captions for this picture:

On Friday, you voted on the finalists, and now it’s time to announce the winner of our contest…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Caption Contest Winner: Seriously, What The Hell Are These Lawyers Wearing?!”

Earlier this week, we asked readers to submit possible captions for this picture (click to enlarge):

Let’s have a look at what our readers came up with, and vote on the finalists…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Caption Contest Finalists: Seriously, What The Hell Are These Lawyers Wearing?!”

This would have been more appropriate.

We’ve been focusing on what women wear for legal appearances for quite some time, but now we’re going to give the men a chance. Previously, we’d said that men were “basically given a free pass, so long as they don’t show up … looking like they just rolled out of a dumpster.”

Today, we’re going to slightly modify that statement. We’ll now note that men are given a free pass, so long as they don’t show up looking like they’ve just strolled out of a 1940s gangster flick wearing pork pie hats and blue velvet suits.

Coming to you straight from the multimillion dollar lawsuit over strippers gyrating for confused old people comes a legal team with some flair.

Go ahead and file this one under: What Not To Wear…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Caption Contest: Seriously, What The Hell Are These Lawyers Wearing?!”


* The Supreme Court might have dismissed the Oklahoma abortion case as improvidently granted, but not to worry, because the high court may yet get the chance to abort a woman’s right to choose in this new case from Texas. [New York Times]

* Wherein Justice Scalia seems highly concerned about toupees: yesterday, Supreme Court justices put their fashion sense to the test when trying to determine what ought to count as clothing under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [WSJ Law Blog (sub. req.)]

* The Senate is forging ahead with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but the bill will likely fail in the House because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still cool with John Boehner. [CBS News]

* Wherefore art thou, ladness? According to the latest PricewaterhouseCoopers survey, profits per partner at top firms in the U.K. are behind profits per partner in the U.S. America, f**k yeah! [Businessweek]

* Bill de Blasio, the Democratic candidate in the NYC mayoral race, apparently has “deep ties” to Gibson Dunn, the firm behind Citizens United. Gather round, conspiracy theorists. [International Business Times]

* An InfiLaw school is changing its name to Arizona Summit Law. How kind to tip law students off to the fact that even if they climb all the way to the top, there’s nowhere to go but down. [National Law Journal]

Do not wear this to court.

When temperatures soar, so do women’s hemlines. When cold fronts drop, women’s necklines do too. This is standard when it comes to the general populace, but we’ve come to expect more from professional women — especially from attorneys. Law is a very conservative field, and if you show too much skin, you may be looked down upon. And if we have to use the term “may,” you know that people will be talking about you behind your back if your clothes are too racy.

Yes, it’s hot out, and that’s too bad. Ditch the sleeveless dresses, throw out your above-the-knee skirts, and don’t you even dare to wear a pair of peep-toes. Sorry, ladies, but you still have to dress like pilgrims, especially if you’re in the South.

If you’re lucky enough to be an attorney with breasts in a southern state, even showing an elbow will earn you a reprimand from this judge…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Ladies, Just Because It’s Summertime Doesn’t Mean You Can Show Skin in Court”

* “Yes, it is true.” Justice Scalia admitted in a speech this week that he was guided to the right by his colleague, Justice Thomas, who’s apparently “a very stubborn man.” [Wall Street Journal (sub. req.)]

* It’s about time to say so long to your ticking tax time bomb: in President Obama’s proposed budget for 2014, he eliminates taxes on forgiven loan debt under all IBR plans. [Bucks / New York Times]

* “I am the luckiest man in the world.” Larry Macon, an Akin Gump partner from Texas, had nearly finished the Boston Marathon when the bombs exploded, but lived to tell his tale. [Am Law Daily]

* Because sometimes you need to steal $374K worth of copy toner. This ex-Fried Frank staffer pleaded guilty to grand larceny, and is looking at up to 15 years in jail. [Thomson Reuters News & Insight]

* Judge Victor Marrero isn’t a fan of SEC policy, but when it comes to this civil insider trading case, SAC Capital may get to walk away without admitting or denying anything. [DealBook / New York Times]

* This Yale Law graduate is suing Brooks Brothers over a three-button suit, and wants $2K for the 90 minutes he spent arguing over it in the store. Who is the $1333/hour man? [New York Daily News]

How festive!

* You can kiss your dreams of seeing Prop 8 being taken up by the Supreme Court goodbye if the justices decide to proceed with “more cautious DOMA challenges.” [Slate]

* Well, at least one person is getting annoyed by the endless back and forth between Posner and Scalia. But that’s just one person. We’ll continue to beat that horse until it’s extra dead. [Althouse]

* Is this like the new WebMD, but for law? With prompts like, “Can that crazy neighbor buy a gun?,” it looks like a suitable place for legal hypochondriacs to call home. [myRight]

* Oh yay, I don’t like to get into election law and politics, so it’s a good thing that The Simpsons did all my work for me on this one: “Stopping all Americans from voting is for the protection of all Americans.” [PrawfsBlawg]

* Kat over at Corporette wants to know what your top five tailoring alterations are — because after all, it’s pretty hard to dress for success in Biglaw if your pants are dragging on the floor. [Corporette]

* You’d have to be super-dee-duper high to think that disguising your pot plants as Christmas trees in the middle of the desert to throw the police off your tracks would actually work. [Legally Weird / FindLaw]

When it comes to employment-related lawsuits, we’ve seen some pretty wild allegations. In the past several years, a handful of women have alleged that they were terminated because they were simply “too hot.” While Debrahlee Lorenzana was told allegedly that she had to stop wearing sexy clothing because it distracted her coworkers, Lauren Odes was allegedly told that her breasts were “too large,” and that she needed to put on more clothing to cover them.

Being told to change your style of dress or put on more clothing to keep your job is one thing, but what about stripping out of your clothing just to get hired? That would be normal for a strip club, but unfortunately, the plaintiff in this case wasn’t trying to bump and grind on a greased-up pole….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Want to Get Hired? Just Take Off Your Shirt!”

Not frilly and girly enough!

It’s not often that one associates high fashion with female lawyers. And if such an association is to be made, it usually comes in the form of an Elle Woods / Legally Blonde joke. Instead, one is quick to conjure visions of boxy ’80s power suits with shoulder pads thick enough to warrant a cringe.

You’d think that with the sheer number of fashion sense for the workplace seminars, women would have stopped making the faux pas of dressing like they were anywhere but at a David E. Kelley-created law firm — but apparently, you’d be wrong.

So let us spell it out for all of our lovely lady lawyers, as the Wall Street Journal so eloquently did last night: “The power suit is over.” These days, power looks for women contain frills, ruffles, and even hints of (gasp!) pink.

While the power suit may be a fashion no-no, is it acceptable to wear these emerging trends to work?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Attention Fashionistas: The Power Suit Is So Last Season”

There once was a time when sharing clothes was only appropriate for siblings and poor people. But then hipsters found Goodwill stores, and wearing somebody else’s discarded threads became socially acceptable. No wonder the U.S. textile industry collapsed.

In any event, two lawyers are trying to bring the concept of shared clothing to upper middle class men. I think women already have places where they can “rent” accessories, but now men have a website that allows them to rent ties. Well, not directly “rent,” that probably sounds too low class, like you could also put the tie on layaway.

Instead, you buy a subscription, and they send you ties. It’s like Netflix! Only, don’t get coffee or anything on your loaned Fendi.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Sharing Ties: It’s Not Just For Homeless People Anymore”

Page 1 of 212