It's a courthouse, not a nightclub

May 24, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Grant County courts would like you to put on real pants and shoes before you come to court. And make sure those real pants are pulled up high enough to not show your underwear.

An order issued May 22 applies to anyone appearing in the five county courts, but based on the clothing banned, it’s obvious the order is aimed at the general public. Most likely, it is aimed at people who are coming to watch trials or are appearing in court unrepresented. I can’t imagine an attorney would allow his or her client to wear pajamas, see-through clothing, or slippers to court.

(In fact, attorneys often want to check out what their clients are wearing before heading to court, and some defense attorneys keep a stock pile of acceptable clothing  on hand for just this very thing, as Jenny Montgomery writes about in the latest issue of IL.)

People will no longer be able to enter court wearing: short-shorts, micro-mini skirts, (but mini skirts are OK?), tank tops, muscle shirts, tube tops, hats or head coverings – unless for religious purposes – slippers or pajamas. Clothing that shows illegal activity, sex acts, violence or profanity, or clothing that shows your midriff or underwear is also prohibited.

Have you ever been in court and seen someone wearing something on this banned list? Are there other courts around the state with a similar explicit dress code?

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • And Worse
    I've been practicing law since 1976 and am contantly amazed at the dress, or lack thereof, in the courts. One of my earliest cases involved a buxom Mrs. who wore a tank top to her final hearing in a divorce. Everytime she bent over, which was often, the court would suddenly go silent, awe struck as it were. The Judge leaned over so much that I thought he would fall off the bench. My opposing counsel would start to stutter. My favorite story though involved a former colleague, John "Kit" Carson. Kit told his client to dress nicely for his criminal trial. His client showed up in a rented dayglow tuxedo from the disco era. I agree with the dress code and suggest one more addition. I think attorneys should be required to show up in robes, just like in England. Just think, one black former choir robe with a fee pocket added on the back and you would be ready to go. No more expensive suits!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT