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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT