Courts

Lawyer: Requiring Me To Wear A Tie Is Egregious! Judge: Sir, You're Wearing Pajamas.

Well, that took a turn.

By  
on

Historically, when lawyers would have hissy fits over attire it was some older attorney bemoaning the rise of business casual and lionizing the antiquated attorney dress code because playing dress-up fills a void where their confidence should be. But pandemic Zoom has changed the whole dress code complaint ball game.

We’ve had a state court issue guidance scolding lawyers from showing up poolside and a guy show up to a criminal hearing… naked? Maybe? So this latest scuffle fits right in.

Delaware Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III issued an unusual order a couple weeks ago. Counsel had written ex parte to complain “that [the court] would not consider an application from him because he “was not wearing a tie.” The Vice Chancellor conceded, “That is true, as the record reflects.” Now we utter the immortal words, “wait for it…”

What the record also reflects is that Mr. Weisbrot appeared in court for trial (via Zoom) on Tuesday in either a printed tee-shirt or pajamas (it was difficult to discern).

Oh, you’re one to talk! You’re up on the bench wearing a black Mumu!

Seriously though, there’s a good deal of daylight between “not wearing a tie” and “wearing pajamas.”

In the attorney’s defense though, the complaint actually arose from a second interaction. After being scolded about Pajamagate, his next appearance made an effort to cure his past transgression. Unfortunately, he fell a bit short:

Sponsored

Mr. Weisbrot ignored that direction; he appeared in a sport coat and open-collared shirt; I refused to hear his “application” and then directed that he go off camera. He then refused the Court’s direction.

I’d compare this to the red suit from My Cousin Vinny, except Vinny was trying to comply in good faith. After being told, “hey, dress up for court,” showing up without a tie feels like a deliberate attempt to mock the court. And that’s certainly how this court took it.

For his part, the lawyer said that a “medical condition” prevents him from wearing a tie. No doubt the same medical condition that keeps people from wearing masks. In any event, the Vice Chancellor is a bit incredulous, responding with the legalese version of “things that could have been brought to my attention YESTERDAY.”

Finally, Mr. Weisbrot reports for the first time in his ex parte email that a medical condition prevents him from wearing a tie. He states that “he had hoped to explain this but was not given a chance.” That is inaccurate. If the condition existed as of the pretrial conference (held a week before trial), Mr. Weisbrot could have raised it then. He did not. If it existed at the start of trial, he could have raised it then, particularly when the Court inquired of counsel whether there were any “housekeeping matters” to address. He did not. Most importantly, he could have raised his medical condition at the start of yesterday’s trial session in response to the Court’s admonition to counsel the night before to be properly attired for Court. Or he could have raised it in response to the numerous instances during the course of yesterday’s trial session where the Court inquired of counsel whether there were “housekeeping matters” to address. Again, silence. Instead, as noted, Mr. Weisbrot chose to activate his camera (and thereby appear in the trial) at the end of the trial day, interrupting a witness’ examination so he could make “an application.” He was dressed in a sport coat and open collared shirt. I reminded him of my admonition and advised him he could not participate in the trial. I then directed that he go off camera. He refused. All the while he said nothing of a medical condition.

In the end, the lawyer received a medical exemption from the court’s rules pending the submission under seal of proof of his condition.

Sponsored

While we wait to see if there’s any further action, perhaps we could interest this guy in some seersucker? It’s basically a pair of pajamas that courts have decided to accept for some mind-boggling reason.

(Full order on the next page.)

Earlier: Miami Judge Reminds Attorneys To Wear Pants For Zoom Hearings
Is This Attorney Naked During A Criminal Hearing?

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

1 2Next »

Topics

, ,