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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT