Worried You Look Awful on Zoom?
In this age of remote work and Zoom calls, can lawyers finally rid themselves of the tyranny of appearance?
April 20, 2020 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Be honest now, how many of you have hit the "hide myself" button during a Zoom conference call because of the state of your hair?
Oh, I know this is an awfully trivial topic. But isn't that exactly what we need at the moment?
Here's what I'm hearing from the front lines: Lawyers are increasingly opting out of being seen. "It used to be maybe two or three lawyers out of 10 or 12 don't show their faces," says an Am Law 200 partner about some Zoom meetings. "Now, it's more like seven."
Some are being totally honest and admit that they're too vain to be seen in their natural disheveled state. Others, however, are claiming that there's a technological glitch with their computer—an explanation no one buys.
Hey, let's not shame each other. It's okay if you're not ready for Prime Time. I did it the other day. I refused to be seen during the first 10 minutes of an office Zoom call because I was in the bathroom, desperately trying to fluff up my yucky, matted hair.
And while we're being honest, let's ask another pesky question: Are women more apt to dodge the screen? And what does this say about the different expectations we have of women and men in the workforce, even in the face of a pandemic?
"Yes it is true," says a female lawyer who works in government about feeling self-conscious about her looks on Zoom calls. "I myself prefer to opt-out of being seen, but I've been called out for not being sufficiently visible and told to move to an area that allows more light to hit my face. Ugh!"
More often than not, hair is the issue. "Hair matters because it is a major physical trait for both sexes, but it matters more for women because men judge women based on their looks more; they just do," says an Am Law 100 partner. She adds, "I still recall a senior female partner who was seriously marginalized behind her back because of how long she let her gray roots grow."
Those standards might have been true in normal times, but is that still the case now?
Well, yes and no. Some women say they make a point of "looking professional" during calls—meaning they put on makeup and a nice top (though who knows how many are wearing pajama bottoms)—undoubtedly spending more time on grooming than male colleagues. "If I'm talking to a client or a judge, I put on lipstick, mascara and wear a suit," says one female litigator. "With internal firm meetings, not so much."
Others, however, are taking a hiatus from the usual rituals of female grooming. "I've temporarily liberated myself from the tyranny of appearance, which is currently easy to do, given how few non-family members I see, and given how much of my face is obscured by a mask when I am out in public," says the government lawyer.
A few say they're becoming radical: going gray: "If Keanu Reeves' girlfriend is completely gray, why shouldn't I be too?" says a female partner. "It's as good a time as any to go natural." Another one says, "Frances McDormand is my new role model."
What's also making women more relaxed (or is it lax?) about their appearance is that their male colleagues aren't looking so hot either. Several noted that a lot of men are growing beards—with mixed results.
"It's not a good look," says one senior in-house lawyer. "Cavemen were never attractive." Moreover, she adds, now that her male colleagues can't take male clients to all those professional sports events, they're really letting themselves go. "They don't look so great unshaven in their baseball caps and sweatshirts."
Put another way: There's no one to impress these days.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute read‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250