No socks, big problem for 1 attorney

September 4, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Let’s talk about the lawyer who doesn’t like to wear socks.

The order from Blackford Circuit Judge Dean Young has made headlines this week, requesting that Marion attorney Todd A. Glickfield put on some socks before heading to court.

Glickfield “hates socks,” according to the order, and he plans on continuing “his habit of appearing sockless in court” unless the judge could show him orders or legal authority that says otherwise.

I would like to point out that the attorney has been practicing in Indiana since 1993, so is this sockless habit new or as he been getting away with no socks for years now in court? Young, who was admitted in 1981, has been on the bench since 2007.

Young must not have appreciated Glickfield’s response to the court’s private conversation with him that he is not dressed appropriately for court in the judge’s eyes. As such, Young proceeded to write a three-page order explaining why Glickfield’s sockless feet should never set foot in his courtroom again.

The judge explained that the local rules require male attorneys to wear socks in the courtroom, and if Glickfield shows up without socks again, he’ll be sanctioned.

Glickfield also has come to court without wearing a tie, something that Young pointed out in the order is not appropriate business attire.

This incident made the news because, frankly, it’s hilarious and a bit absurd. When I picture a male dressed in a suit with no socks, I immediately imagine Don Johnson’s Sonny Crockett from “Miami Vice.”  (Tubbs wore socks, and sometimes a tie, so I bet he’d be welcomed in Young’s courtroom, unless the judge has a problem with double-breasted suits and colored shirts.)

That the judge decided to take time out of his day to write this order calling out Glickfield could mean several things, including Young is tired of Glickfield not presenting himself the way Young believes male attorneys should while in court; or Young really hates seeing other people’s ankles.

The judge makes the point in his order that socks constitute “appropriate business attire” for male members of the bar while in court. Does that mean female attorneys who practice before him should be wearing hosiery or socks with their suits, or is it just men that should have to have their feet and ankles covered?

The order brings up the age-old question: What is appropriate for an attorney to wear in court? Must he only wear dark-colored suits, with a white shirt, muted tie and dark colored socks? Would a seersucker suit or colored patterned suit ever be appropriate, as long as it’s worn with a tie and socks? And would the judge have a problem if Glickfield came to court sporting neon-colored socks, or socks sporting images of eggs and bacon, or footballs?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • profession
    The Order is a wake-up for the profession as a whole. In civil litigation, an attorney not wearing a tie to a deposition is noticeable but excusable. However, now I am seeing attorneys show up to depositions in golf shirts!
  • It's the slippery slope meme
    Casual business attire for the office is de rigeur in New York City. That attire seems to be subject to interpretation. The definition seems to lie in the eye of the beholder. Interpretation ranges from golf shirts worn outside for men to a tea shirt worn over leggings for women. The outcome of the well-intended business casual is a sloppy appearance by lawyers. I believe the judge is trying to maintain a modicum of civility, and his policy is intended to prevent the same slippery slope that has occurred in the office from occurring in his courtroom, as is his right.
  • Not sock-less by personal choice.
    There is a compromise to wearing socks that may cause discomfort to the foot, and it is from XOSOX. They are currently running a Kickstarter campaign and, typing "xosox" and "kickstarter" into your search engine will get you there. You can also find their Facebook page.
  • Really?
    I particularly could care-less if my attorney is wearing socks or not. I am more concerned about the his/her capability to make eloquent arguments in my defense. My lawyer is not there to play dress up and the Judge's priorities should not lie on other's attire. Law is not and should not be consider a business! It is social work and if this people are not doing their jobs appropriately. It is our society which ends up losing in the end.
    • ???
      I'll bite. How much less could you care? You obviously care says simple sentence structuring.

    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. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

    2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

    3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

    4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

    5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

    ADVERTISEMENT