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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT