Judge Tells Women to Dress Appropriately in Courtroom

[Azathoth]

I have found that intellectuality is directly proportional to shabbiness of dress. The truly brilliant don't give a fuck.

[Tyrannical]

This is a fairly common office problem, that one woman that doesn't know how to dress office appropriately and confuses work with the club. Easily solved by putting another woman in charge of this corrective action.

[Coito ergo sum]

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 .

Dress codes are generally set by a combination of the administrative rules of the particular court in question and the State rules governing the judiciary and attorneys. There isn't really a "law" in the sense of a statute passed by a legislature. At least in the US, that is. The Chief Judge makes/approves these kinds of rules.

Frankly, I'd never recommend going to court underdressed. The key for a lawyer is to look like a lawyer. The key for a client is to look like you are taking the proceedings seriously.

[Coito ergo sum]

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 not be permitted in any court I'm familiar with. It's o.k. to have slacks and a non-matching jacket (sport coat and slacks), but you need to have a tie on, if you're a guy. i think I heard about Key West being tie-optional. That's an entirely different animal down there, and I have no real confirmation of that. Someone just told me once that they thought lawyers in Key West could go to court in like linen pants a loose collared shirt and no tie - that kind of "beach chic" look. Probably BS. I bet they wear ties.

[Coito ergo sum]

Little by little, I hope the need for formal business attire (as defined by suits and ties for men) will die away, as many other out-dated customs have...

Having said that, I am not saying that a complete free-for-all in attire should occur in situations such as courtrooms, but simply that we don't have to be rigid...

I like the formal attire.

I own a tuxedo, and I wear it every chance I get. I went to a "white" New Years Eve party (where everyone was supposed to wear white) and I opted for the off-white dinner jacket and black tuxedo pants. It was killer.

[Coito ergo sum]

Little by little, I hope the need for formal business attire (as defined by suits and ties for men) will die away, as many other out-dated customs have...

Having said that, I am not saying that a complete free-for-all in attire should occur in situations such as courtrooms, but simply that we don't have to be rigid...

What should we wear instead?

Actually, for formal situations, I'm only suggesting a minor relaxation, such as slacks, shirts without ties and sports jackets. Neat casual, perhaps would be the word. Not jeans and t-shirts...

That does happen. When companies allow casual Fridays, they often have to create lengthy policies on what constitutes proper casual attire.

[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 .

Dress codes are generally set by a combination of the administrative rules of the particular court in question and the State rules governing the judiciary and attorneys. There isn't really a "law" in the sense of a statute passed by a legislature. At least in the US, that is. The Chief Judge makes/approves these kinds of rules.

Frankly, I'd never recommend going to court underdressed. The key for a lawyer is to look like a lawyer. The key for a client is to look like you are taking the proceedings seriously.

And the judge can fine people for not obeying rules that he himself has set up, according to his own whims, I new your judicial system was fucked up but

---

In many settings you can always spot the insecure newcomer from his impeccable dress. The oldies, with already set positions dress much more casually.

[MiM]

Little by little, I hope the need for formal business attire (as defined by suits and ties for men) will die away, as many other out-dated customs have...

Having said that, I am not saying that a complete free-for-all in attire should occur in situations such as courtrooms, but simply that we don't have to be rigid...

What should we wear instead?

Actually, for formal situations, I'm only suggesting a minor relaxation, such as slacks, shirts without ties and sports jackets. Neat casual, perhaps would be the word. Not jeans and t-shirts...

That does happen. When companies allow casual Fridays, they often have to create lengthy policies on what constitutes proper casual attire.

Yeah, you know. Those women who have much more leeway in their clothing are always horrible to look at. Horrible, I say .

[Coito ergo sum]

And once men are allowed to dress more lightly according to weather, you 'mericans could finally stop chilling down your public buildings so close to absolute zero. That would save both energy and dripping noses.

Showers and air conditioning are to a European what a crucifix and garlic are to a vampire.

[MiM]

And once men are allowed to dress more lightly according to weather, you 'mericans could finally stop chilling down your public buildings so close to absolute zero. That would save both energy and dripping noses.

Showers and air conditioning are to a European what a crucifix and garlic are to a vampire.

More like alcohol. Very nice, when used with moderation.

[Coito ergo sum]

That does happen. When companies allow casual Fridays, they often have to create lengthy policies on what constitutes proper casual attire.

Yeah, you know. Those women who have much more leeway in their clothing are always horrible to look at. Horrible, I say .

Women do have much more leeway than men when it comes to what to wear in the legal field, for sure. That's not even arguable. Women can wear a tie, or not. They can wear pants or a skirt. They can wear their shirts buttoned up, or open a button or two. They can wear non-button-down shirts and blouses. Ruffles. Often no jacket is permitted (as was the case in this courtroom referred to in the OP because the Chief Judge had to specify that it was not permitted).

How many women in professional situations do you see wearing short sleeve shirts and even sleeveless shirts and spaghetti straps? How many men in tank-top shirts or sleeveless shirts? How many men expose their calves and thighs? How many men wear their shirts unbuttoned?

It's not anything negative about women here - it's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn. And, it isn't that women look horrible with these other options. They often look very, very nice indeed. It just is what it is.


The overly casual casual day is not a function of women. Guys do it too.

[Coito ergo sum]

And once men are allowed to dress more lightly according to weather, you 'mericans could finally stop chilling down your public buildings so close to absolute zero. That would save both energy and dripping noses.

Showers and air conditioning are to a European what a crucifix and garlic are to a vampire.

More like alcohol. Very nice, when used with moderation.

Yes, too much clean can be a bit off-putting, and having overly comfortable temperatures can be irritating .

[MiM]

It's not anything negative about women here - it's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn. And, it isn't that women look horrible with these other options. They often look very, very nice indeed. It just is what it is.

Ever heard about Humes Guillotine? "There is no ought from is"

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not anything negative about women here - it's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn. And, it isn't that women look horrible with these other options. They often look very, very nice indeed. It just is what it is.

Ever heard about Humes Guillotine? "There is no ought from is"

Sure, but I did not suggest that there was an ought from an is.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have found that intellectuality is directly proportional to shabbiness of dress. The truly brilliant don't give a fuck.

The lawyer you want is not the most "brilliant." The lawyer you want is the one that wins.