Style in the Practice of Law

[rodes]

I was amazed that Cheney Mason, defense counsel in the Casey Anthony Trial, showed up for the final day of closing arguments in a sports jacket. Perhaps I am wrong but wouldn't a suit be more appropriate for such a serious and high profile occasion. Perhaps some of our London Lounge Lawyers could weigh in with their comments?

[Martin]

For me, it makes no difference if the events in court are "serious" or "high profile," a lawyer wears a suit in court. Early in my career, my mentor (a prominent lawyer and a true gentleman) and I attended argument in our State's highest court. One of the lawyers argued with his coat unbuttoned and his shirttail slightly untucked. Afterward, my mentor told me if I ever appeared in any court looking like that, or less than my best, it would be my last day at the firm. For him, looking your best is a sign of respect for the judge, jury, your client, opposing counsel, yourself, and anyone who will see you as an officer of the court.

[Cufflink79]

I'm not an attorney but I agree with Martin, a suit is the way to go.

Attorneys should present themselves as professionals, as Judge Haller states in the movie "My Cousin Vinny".

Judge Chamberlain Haller: What are you wearing?
Vinny Gambini: Huh?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: What are you wearing?
Vinny Gambini: [wearing a black leather jacket] Um... I'm wearing clothes.
[the Judge angrily stares ominously at Vinny]
Vinny Gambini: I... I don't get the question.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: When you come into my court looking like you do, you not only insult me, but you insult the integrity of this court.
Vinny Gambini: I apologise, sir, but, uh... this is how I dress.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Fine. I'll let you slide this one time. The next time you appear in my court, you will look lawyerly. And I mean you comb your hair, and wear a suit and tie. And that suit had better be made out of some sort of... cloth. You understand me?

Especially if cameras are involved not matter what the situation. I have a degree in journalism and when I went on camera I never went on without a suit or blazer.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[Costi]

I'm with Vinny on this one!

[Melcombe]

At law school I was advised to dress as if I were attending my headmaster's funeral. Has been a sound maxim for many years and I don't see it changing.

Courts in England are rarely well heated. I've not yet appeared in an overcoat, but I do have a heavy charcoal herringbone tweed that helps.

[tteplitzmd]

Perhaps you might consider this, from a window display in Perugia's centro storico, a maker of bespoke court dress:



There was a bolt of funereal Zegna grey wool in the same window. Pricing was consistent with a bespoke suit.

[rodes]

Today, I was astounded ounce again to see the attorney defending Dr. Conrad Murray,the physician accused in the death of Michael Jackson, present his closing statement in an odd jacket. Perhaps some of our LL lawyers, more familiar than I in the protocol of the American justice system, could advise. Is such an ensemble ever warranted? Could it be in this circumstance?

[tteplitzmd]

Hey, that trial is in L.A. The guy may not even own a suit.

[NJS]

Hey, that trial is in L.A. The guy may not even own a suit.

The same could probably be said for his last 'doctor'.

[tteplitzmd]

Actually, the doctor has only been seen in conservatively cut gray suits.

[uppercase]

Actually, the doctor has only been seen in conservatively cut gray suits.

Then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the doctor is obviously 'not guilty'. I rest my case.

[hopkins-luder]

For various cultural and historical reasons, we lawyers in America do not have the formality or uniformity of court attire of the British and Europeans. I suspect that it has to do with the informal legal training and the rough frontier settings as we settled the Eastern wilds and moved way out to the western frontiers of Indiana, Ohio, etc.
In answer to a Rodes' question: No, an odd jacket is never proper in front of any jury during any trial. I don't even wear slacks and sport coat on Fridays if I have a scheduled court appearance, though many in this building do so every day. I will also don my coat whenever I enter public areas, even if I'm only going to the snack shop.
I would also posit that, notwithstanding incendiary political assertions to the contrary, there is not a rigid class or caste system in America. Anyone who can get through law school and pass the bar exam may become a practicing lawyer as lineage, talent, skill, and ability to actually practice are not required to be a lawyer. That does not suggest, however, that we dress like the damnable defendants and their slovenly family and friends. There are no dress codes or standards for members of the public entering a courtroom as there once was. I can remember signs posted on the outside of courtroom doors that forbade the entry of anyone wearing shorts or tank tops.
Parenthetically, discipline and decorum among courtroom spectators has been destroyed by years of so-called 'reality shows'. People in the gallery frequently act as if they're at a Chautauqua meeting, making their excited feelings of indignation known to all if they don't like the Court's ruling on some issue.
If I had a dollar for every sloppy lawyer I've encountered in 23 years as an L. A. County D.D.A., I could have retired years ago. Every day I see lawyers in the Criminal Courts Building wearing scuffed shoes (square toes, dog-dung brown), trousers with full-top pockets, torn hems, a half-yard of break, shirts untucked at the back hanging below Salvation Army coats of indeterminate origin and age, and coat sleeves hanging to the knuckles.
One need not have their shirts and suits made to dress appropriately. Even with only a small budget and limited imagination it's easy to stick to the simple and appropriate: dark suits (Not black! For God's sake! Every man and woman under 45 and every fat person wears it), white shirts, and shined black shoes. No cartoon or 'seasonal' ties, please.
It's seems to be a requirement for the Public Defenders to have piercings, shaggy hair, scruffy beards (and you should see how the male PDs look), and dress like the 'great unwashed'. This tactic actually makes sense, and I don't fault them, but let's expect something better from the prosecutors and the private attorneys (I do admit knowing a few D.A.s and private attorneys who are exceptions to this).
There is an upside to some of the informality, however, that allows friendships to form that would seem to me to be impossible in England. I still have lunch with a judge in whose court I was privileged to be assigned years ago. These semi-regular outings continue to include the court's clerk, reporter, and the defense attorneys with whom I worked.

[hectorm]

It's seems to be a requirement for the Public Defenders to have piercings, shaggy hair, scruffy beards (and you should see how the male PDs look), and dress like the 'great unwashed'. This tactic actually makes sense, and I don't fault them.

Whatever this tactic may be, its rational eludes me. Would you please elaborate a little more?

[hopkins-luder]

I make this observation from things that I've heard and by drawing conclusions from what I've observed over the years.
A family friend, a lawyer in private practice, had two wardrobes. His was a civil practice that included state and federal courts. His choice of properly dressed or dumbed-down (for lack of a better description) was dictated by: state or federal; plaintiff or defendant; the type of action; and the jury pool.
Public Defenders only defend criminals, and only those below a certain income level.
One will find all types of people in the jury pools, Westside do-gooders cheek by jowl with mechanics from Compton. In some areas of the county, it's all NASCAR and tractor pull aficionados who live one trailer over from a neighbor who's cooking meth in the kitchen.
Disclaimer: Parts, or all, of the following may be disputed by any number of attorneys. I am characterizing only a set (Venn diagram) of public defenders.
Public Defenders ought not appear too properous. Only the Kennedys were permitted to be so wealthy and well-groomed and claim an affinity with the poor and downtrodden. PDs must appear to the juries and defendants as if they themselves came up the hard way and know what's what. It's a sartorial manifestation of "Aw, shucks. I'm just a simple country lawyer trying to make sure my client gets a fair shake."
Having been a tv and movie extra many times, including the third season of Deadwood (yes, it is Los Angeles, after all, but I'm not flogging any story ideas or scripts), I'll analogize and say that the way PDs dress is a matter of casting, hair, and wardrobe for playing the part.
I have found that most PDs are not true believers in their "client's" innocence, but rather are true believers in the Constitution, which requires that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and does so by the rules of law and ethics. I have no argument with that.
Besides, if they dressed as well as I, I'd have to rely on something more substantial than my good looks.
Cheers.

[hectorm]

Besides, if they dressed as well as I, I'd have to rely on something more substantial than my good looks.

Well, I guess that you could rely on your good sense of humor.
Thank you Hopkins-Luder for your detailed explanation. A very interesting point of view. I´m passing this to my wife who is a litigation lawyer and insists in always wearing the same boring pant suits to court.