Judge Tells Women to Dress Appropriately in Courtroom

[Coito ergo sum]

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/06/1 ... courtroom/

I think the judge is correct, although he should have phrased it differently. While the dress code violators in this case apparently were women, he should have said that any lawyer appearing in his court must wear a jacket with sleeves of the appropriate length.

Men can't come into court with sleeveless shirts either, or with short pants, or kilts or anything of the kind. Men have to wear business attire. I think it's fine for courts to set dress code rules that treat the sexes equivalently.

Maybe we should just go Brit-style and have everyone show up with courtroom robes.

[MiM]

There's been a couple of loosely related cases in Sweden lately, where guys have worn skirts or dresses to work, when denied wearing shorts on hot days. (Bus drívers, and a nurse, if I remember correctly). I prefer the dress code moving in that direction, actually. Why do we need to tell people what they can or cannot wear (beyond basic decency)?

[Coito ergo sum]

There's been a couple of loosely related cases in Sweden lately, where guys have worn skirts or dresses to work, when denied wearing shorts on hot days. (Bus drívers, and a nurse, if I remember correctly). I prefer the dress code moving in that direction, actually. Why do we need to tell people what they can or cannot wear (beyond basic decency)?

Well, arguably, a place like a courtroom is a place that they seek a heightened level of decorum. The clothes make the man, as they saying goes. Dress also can dictate the attitudes of people in groups. A group of people in flip flops, bathing suits and sleeveless t-shirts will generally have a different collective attitude than a group wearing suits.

To me, women already get more variety in their dress in the legal field than men. For the most part, men wear suits. Period. You can have a red tie, a blue tie, or some other color tie, and you can change up the color of the material in the suit and shirt, but it's pretty much a suit no matter what. Women can lose the tie, or wear a tie -- they can have their top button(s) on their shirts open, collars outside their jackets - and often they can get away without a business suit combo -- they can wear pants/skirt and a shirt without a jacket. Seems to me that the whole "lawyers in sun dresses and sleeveless shirts" is patently obvious as sort of a no-no.

Although, I do like me a pretty girl in a sun dress.... oh, yeah...

Chantilly lace and a pretty face
And a pony-tail, hanging down
That wigglin' walk and a gigglin' talk
Makes the world go round round round

Ain't nuthin' in the world like a big eyed girl
To make me act real funny
Make me spend my money....

.....Ooooh baby that's what I like!

(Big Bopper)

But, I doubt that kind of reaction is what female lawyers are goin' for most of the time...lol

[Bella Fortuna]

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clip ... ale-lawyer

[Coito ergo sum]

[Azathoth]

Taylor has previously fined male lawyers for not wearing a suit jacket inside his courtroom.

Seems pretty even handed to me. I'm sure the aspelusters would disagree though.

[Jason]

Maybe we should just go Brit-style and have everyone show up with courtroom robes.

Provided they are loaned to everyone before they enter the court room. It would be discriminating against the poor who could not afford the proper attire in which they are to be tried.

[Audley Strange]

There's been a couple of loosely related cases in Sweden lately, where guys have worn skirts or dresses to work, when denied wearing shorts on hot days. (Bus drívers, and a nurse, if I remember correctly). I prefer the dress code moving in that direction, actually. Why do we need to tell people what they can or cannot wear (beyond basic decency)?

I'm not sure I'd be happy with our police dressed in comedy chicken outfits nor a bank clerk wearing a mexican hat and a pink swimsuit nor a surgeon with tennis shorts and a boob tube, nor front line infantry with day glo stretchpants and a lurid lime t-bag vest. Some jobs have a theatrical aspect which is necessary for those employed within them to be taken seriously.

[MiM]

No, I wouldn't be comfortable with those either, and I believe such persons would make very unwise career judgements, at the least. But if Coito is right, and lawyers is fined for not wearing a jacket, that means that somewhere it is inscribed in the law what they can wear (in court). And that law seems to be very tightly defined. Somehow the word Burkha comes to mind .

[laklak]

I think all participants and spectators should be nude except for a large, red rubber nose. The judge can wear Mickey Mouse ears. All jury seats will be equipped with a whoopee cushion and bailiffs will be armed with a can of Silly String.

[Audley Strange]

No, I wouldn't be comfortable with those either, and I believe such persons would make very unwise career judgements, at the least. But if Coito is right, and lawyers is fined for not wearing a jacket, that means that somewhere it is inscribed in the law what they can wear (in court). And that law seems to be very tightly defined. Somehow the word Burkha comes to mind .

Well more likely its regarded as something like contempt of court or a lawyer in court must maintain a professional standard as expected by the judge and more likely said judge is just cantankerous about his court. However if you were in the dock and your Lawyer was dressed in a pair of combat shorts and a slayer t-shirt, would you not think they were just being a bit unprofessional. The suit is still as much a costume as a football strip or nurses uniform it is the signifier of taking the role seriously, committing to it.

[JimC]

No, I wouldn't be comfortable with those either, and I believe such persons would make very unwise career judgements, at the least. But if Coito is right, and lawyers is fined for not wearing a jacket, that means that somewhere it is inscribed in the law what they can wear (in court). And that law seems to be very tightly defined. Somehow the word Burkha comes to mind .

Well more likely its regarded as something like contempt of court or a lawyer in court must maintain a professional standard as expected by the judge and more likely said judge is just cantankerous about his court. However if you were in the dock and your Lawyer was dressed in a pair of combat shorts and a slayer t-shirt, would you not think they were just being a bit unprofessional. The suit is still as much a costume as a football strip or nurses uniform it is the signifier of taking the role seriously, committing to it.

How about slacks, a shirt without a tie, and a sports jacket, all in fairly neutral colours? Not garish or silly, but not a suit either...

[MrFungus420]

No, I wouldn't be comfortable with those either, and I believe such persons would make very unwise career judgements, at the least. But if Coito is right, and lawyers is fined for not wearing a jacket, that means that somewhere it is inscribed in the law what they can wear (in court). And that law seems to be very tightly defined. Somehow the word Burkha comes to mind .

No, the standard is professional attire (usually suit and tie). Most jobs have some sort of a dress code. Some even have a required uniform (do you think all of those employees at your local fast-food joint wear the same thing because they want to?).

And, in some situations, what you can wear in a court is, in a way, inscribed in law. Try wearing a hat in a courtroom. You will be asked to remove it or leave. If you don't, you can be found in contempt of court.

[JimC]

I have to wear a tie at school. Many male teachers, particularly the young, ambitious ones, also wear a suit.

I accompany my tie with a battered old cardigan or sweater. No one objects, since I am a living legend, having been there longer than most of them have been alive...

[MrFungus420]

No, I wouldn't be comfortable with those either, and I believe such persons would make very unwise career judgements, at the least. But if Coito is right, and lawyers is fined for not wearing a jacket, that means that somewhere it is inscribed in the law what they can wear (in court). And that law seems to be very tightly defined. Somehow the word Burkha comes to mind .

Well more likely its regarded as something like contempt of court or a lawyer in court must maintain a professional standard as expected by the judge and more likely said judge is just cantankerous about his court. However if you were in the dock and your Lawyer was dressed in a pair of combat shorts and a slayer t-shirt, would you not think they were just being a bit unprofessional. The suit is still as much a costume as a football strip or nurses uniform it is the signifier of taking the role seriously, committing to it.

How about slacks, a shirt without a tie, and a sports jacket, all in fairly neutral colours? Not garish or silly, but not a suit either...

That would be casual business attire, a different standard than professional attire.