Dress codes passé?

August 7, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From managing editor Elizabeth Brockett:

The topic of dress codes recently came up in our office again because of a notice we received about a conference to assist in creating and enforcing a dress code. One section touted “Solutions to your toughest appearance policy challenges” with questions such as: Must you allow men to have long hair if women can? Can the employer dictate styles of dress, hair, jewelry? Can you force a woman to wear a skirt or dress to work?

I used to think if people just used their common sense they’d be fine regardless of the situation. I’ve since learned that some people don’t have any common sense. I admit I’m a little old school … not because I believe there should be strict dress codes, which I do not, but because of my upbringing and my age. My grandmother used to talk about the formal dinners she’d attend with my grandfather, who was a U.S. Navy commander: Women wore beautiful dresses or gowns and gloves and the men in full uniform. But even when they’d entertain at home, the women wore dresses … even during cookouts! And my mom was in the Navy back when they taught them to be ladies first and foremost.

When I was in first and second grades, girls were not allowed to wear pants to our public school. I have never, ever understood the reasoning behind that; even as a child I thought the person who made that rule should try standing on the playground during winter in Northern Indiana in a dress or skirt with only knee socks or tights on your legs. It was literally painful.

Require women to wear dresses or skirts … and always with hosiery (another debate)? Only if men always keep their top button buttoned, their tie tight, and never remove their suit jacket, and they must wear sock garters so there are no slouchy socks. Then we’ll talk.

Lawyers usually do wear suits when meeting clients or appearing in court. Has that changed much, and should it? A partner at a large national firm was quoted earlier this year as saying high-powered lawyers always wear suits because people want their attorneys to look like high-powered lawyers. Really? I doubt the person at legal aid cares, although the multi-million-dollar corporation might. So, should the situation dictate the dress? Perhaps it does because I've read that lawyers -- employed or otherwise -- are dressing up more in recent months, wanting to look good for the boss or potential boss.

The only trend I’ve seen that bothers me is seeing women wearing suits with flip-flops. It’s one thing if you’re walking to your car or running an errand, but to look nice and polished … and then wear the plastic/rubber flip-flop sandals. It’s just a bad look. I’m not bothered by women not wearing hosiery (guys, try on a pair of hose and wear them when it’s 85 degrees), but flip-flops?

Dress codes can help guide people because different firms and corporations have different cultures. Dress for work also depends on the profession and even the region of the country or world, but I believe most people need to take their cues from their workplace superiors.

So, what is the state of law firm dress and how has it changed for the better or worse?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I believe flip-flops should be totally forbidden in the workplace. They have NO place outside of the beach or slouching at home. I do believe that common sense has totally gone out the window, too. Very well written opinion and I wholeheartedly agree with you!

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT