Women attorneys may face double standard when it comes to courtroom attire
Is there is a double standard when it comes to what women attorneys are expected to wear in the courtroom as opposed to men? Male attorneys are advised to look professional, but the clothing choices of female attorneys are getting a lot of scrutiny.
March 25, 2014 at 05:13 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Is there is a double standard when it comes to what women attorneys are expected to wear in the courtroom as opposed to their male counterparts?
It appears to be the case. Male attorneys are advised to look professional, but the clothing choices of female attorneys are getting a lot of scrutiny. One recent article in Slate, for instance, reported concerns about women attorneys looking too “sexy” – when it comes to their wardrobe selection.
The choice of clothes may get even more confusing for attorneys working as an in-house counsel for businesses and other organizations. If an outfit is professional enough for the workplace – why is not proper attire for a courthouse?
A few years ago, Corporette.com, a fashion advice website for women, gave some recommendations for female attorneys heading into court for a month. Here are some of their suggestions:
- “Make sure your undergarments are not distracting.”
- “We recommend wearing a skirt the first few days, if only until you get a feel for the judge and the lay of the land. After that, go with your gut.”
- “Also avoid noticeable accessories such as red-soled shoes.”
No word if men were advised to wear a certain color of shoes or undergarments, or to wait a few days to see if the judge has any preference for certain types of clothes.
And in 2009, Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois complained that female lawyers dressing too sexily are “a huge problem,” and scolded “you don't dress in court as if it's Saturday night and you're going out to a party.”
Meanwhile, Slate says now women are fine wearing pantsuits when representing clients in a courtroom. One example is when Elena Kagan was U.S. Solicitor General, she wore a pantsuit to the Supreme Court. Now, she sits on the high court. In 2010, Ann Farmer said in an article in the American Bar Association's Perspectives magazine that before pantsuits, many female attorneys wore skirt suits that covered the kneecaps and floppy versions of bowties.
It is also a concern that some of the fashion advice out there seems rather precise. Last year, a judge in Tennessee judge wrote, “I have advised some women attorneys that a jacket with sleeves below the elbow is appropriate or a professional dress equivalent.”
On the other hand, for current law school students, perhaps some well-meaning guidance can be in order when it comes to choosing what to wear during internships. Loyola Law School's director of externships recently suggested in a memo to female students. “I really don't need to mention that cleavage and stiletto heels are not appropriate office wear (outside of ridiculous lawyer TV shows), do I? Yet I'm getting complaints from supervisors.”
Maybe part of the reason for the confusion is that the law was so dominated by men for so long. As Slate points out – men who work at law firms can watch what male partners wear to court – and choose likewise. But because many law firms have a limited number of female partners – there are not always fashion mentors for female associates.
In addition, fashion advice may be more acceptable if it applies to both women and men appearing before a judge. For instance, it was suggested by Farmer that if an attorney is heading to some kind of appellate or top-ranking court, opt for more formal clothes. “The higher the court, the more formal the dress,” Farmer said.
And getting a jury on your side is something that every lawyer wants to do. Wearing something that makes you look professional could not hurt to win that jury over.
Otherwise, perhaps the focus should move away from the color of shoes to wearing something that makes you feel good about yourself and gives you confidence to do a great job in representing your client. That, after all, is the job of a lawyer.
This issue also brings to mind the many overall challenges faced by women attorneys. They need to be able to advance their own careers – despite some lingering social norms, such as about their image. As Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg said, “Females are raised from birth to have different expectations. There's an ambition gap, and it's wreaking havoc on women's ability to advance.”
Related articles:
Is there is a double standard when it comes to what women attorneys are expected to wear in the courtroom as opposed to their male counterparts?
It appears to be the case. Male attorneys are advised to look professional, but the clothing choices of female attorneys are getting a lot of scrutiny. One recent article in Slate, for instance, reported concerns about women attorneys looking too “sexy” – when it comes to their wardrobe selection.
The choice of clothes may get even more confusing for attorneys working as an in-house counsel for businesses and other organizations. If an outfit is professional enough for the workplace – why is not proper attire for a courthouse?
A few years ago, Corporette.com, a fashion advice website for women, gave some recommendations for female attorneys heading into court for a month. Here are some of their suggestions:
- “Make sure your undergarments are not distracting.”
- “We recommend wearing a skirt the first few days, if only until you get a feel for the judge and the lay of the land. After that, go with your gut.”
- “Also avoid noticeable accessories such as red-soled shoes.”
No word if men were advised to wear a certain color of shoes or undergarments, or to wait a few days to see if the judge has any preference for certain types of clothes.
And in 2009, Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois complained that female lawyers dressing too sexily are “a huge problem,” and scolded “you don't dress in court as if it's Saturday night and you're going out to a party.”
Meanwhile, Slate says now women are fine wearing pantsuits when representing clients in a courtroom. One example is when
It is also a concern that some of the fashion advice out there seems rather precise. Last year, a judge in Tennessee judge wrote, “I have advised some women attorneys that a jacket with sleeves below the elbow is appropriate or a professional dress equivalent.”
On the other hand, for current law school students, perhaps some well-meaning guidance can be in order when it comes to choosing what to wear during internships. Loyola Law School's director of externships recently suggested in a memo to female students. “I really don't need to mention that cleavage and stiletto heels are not appropriate office wear (outside of ridiculous lawyer TV shows), do I? Yet I'm getting complaints from supervisors.”
Maybe part of the reason for the confusion is that the law was so dominated by men for so long. As Slate points out – men who work at law firms can watch what male partners wear to court – and choose likewise. But because many law firms have a limited number of female partners – there are not always fashion mentors for female associates.
In addition, fashion advice may be more acceptable if it applies to both women and men appearing before a judge. For instance, it was suggested by Farmer that if an attorney is heading to some kind of appellate or top-ranking court, opt for more formal clothes. “The higher the court, the more formal the dress,” Farmer said.
And getting a jury on your side is something that every lawyer wants to do. Wearing something that makes you look professional could not hurt to win that jury over.
Otherwise, perhaps the focus should move away from the color of shoes to wearing something that makes you feel good about yourself and gives you confidence to do a great job in representing your client. That, after all, is the job of a lawyer.
This issue also brings to mind the many overall challenges faced by women attorneys. They need to be able to advance their own careers – despite some lingering social norms, such as about their image. As Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg said, “Females are raised from birth to have different expectations. There's an ambition gap, and it's wreaking havoc on women's ability to advance.”
Related articles:
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 AllThe Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
'The Unheard of Superpower': How Women's Soft Skills Can Drive Success in Negotiations
Want to Get Ahead in Your Career? Find a Truth Teller
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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